Quantum Entanglement
in [Physics]
|
Prev: The Recognition of Insanity in the Public Sphere (was Re: The detectionof motion by weight)
Next: The Recognition of Insanity in the Public Sphere (was Re: Thedetection of motion by weight)
From: mpc755 on 13 May 2010 16:19 On May 13, 4:09 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > mpc755 wrote: > > > On May 13, 12:38 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > > > Laurent wrote: > > > > As we already know, matter and space are one and the same thing > > > Matter and aether are one and the same material. > > I have named this material mæther. > > idiot > -- > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm Aether and matter are different states of the same material. I have named this material mæther. Aether is displaced by matter. Displacement creates pressure. Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. Gravitational force is the pressure exerted by the aether towards the matter.
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 14 May 2010 11:42 Laurent wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 04:33:46 -0700: > John S. Bell was right. As already confirmed by Quantum Mechanics, the > Universe violates locality at the quantum level. Local realism applies > only at the classical level. Local classical theory are also approximations. > The collapse of the wave packet on the EPR and Aspect experiments > doesn't just come from human knowledge acquired during the measuring > process but from a holistic awareness property intrinsic to all matter. > And, as Eugene V. Stefanovich contends: interactions, not forces, are > instantaneously registered throughout space. He is right regarding the 'speed' of interactions. His theory, however, is completely inconsistent. Rest of your message contains mistakes also. I snip all that. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: Huang on 15 May 2010 08:29 > > So, there are many roads to the correct solution, and those roads may > > be very different from each other, but they produce identical results > > and are therefore equivalent. > > > So, QM may be regarded as being complete, or not, and we can never > > know if it is or not. And this is because there are many different > > ways to model it, and we have no way to say if a particuler approach > > should be retained or discarded. We cannot know if QM is complete or > > not, but at the same time it may be safely regarded as being complete, > > or not. "It is a paradox, or perhaps it isnt", and that is the most > > technically precise way for me to explain the way I view QM. > > QM can not be complete because it is of a statistical nature. > > Physics is of a physical nature. Wherever you see a random variable in QM, you should (theoretically) be able to remove that random variable and replace it with "sensitive dependence on initiaial conditions". You should be able to eliminate all of the ransom variables that way, and QM wouldnot longer be stochastic - or "random". Alternatively, whereever you see a term in QM which is _not_ a random variable, it should be replaceable with a random variable even if only trivially i.e. random variables with zero variance. You could do that with the rest of physics as well and argue that the whole universe is fundamentally stochastic. So - you could argue either way - random or nonrandom. It MUST be a superposition of these because there is no way to really choose one over the other.
From: mpc755 on 15 May 2010 09:06 On May 15, 8:29 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > So, there are many roads to the correct solution, and those roads may > > > be very different from each other, but they produce identical results > > > and are therefore equivalent. > > > > So, QM may be regarded as being complete, or not, and we can never > > > know if it is or not. And this is because there are many different > > > ways to model it, and we have no way to say if a particuler approach > > > should be retained or discarded. We cannot know if QM is complete or > > > not, but at the same time it may be safely regarded as being complete, > > > or not. "It is a paradox, or perhaps it isnt", and that is the most > > > technically precise way for me to explain the way I view QM. > > > QM can not be complete because it is of a statistical nature. > > > Physics is of a physical nature. > > Wherever you see a random variable in QM, you should (theoretically) > be able to remove that random variable and replace it with "sensitive > dependence on initiaial conditions". You should be able to eliminate > all of the ransom variables that way, and QM wouldnot longer be > stochastic - or "random". > > Alternatively, whereever you see a term in QM which is _not_ a random > variable, it should be replaceable with a random variable even if only > trivially i.e. random variables with zero variance. You could do that > with the rest of physics as well and argue that the whole universe is > fundamentally stochastic. > > So - you could argue either way - random or nonrandom. It MUST be a > superposition of these because there is no way to really choose one > over the other. 'Probabilistic', 'probability', and 'function' are mathematical constructs. If the terms exist in the theory then the theory can not be complete because the terms are of a statistical nature. It may be the best that can be concluded at any point in time if the underlying physical processes are unknown. That does not make it complete. Physics is of a physical nature. In order to have a complete theory it must be of a physical nature. Aether Displacement is of a physical nature. Aether and matter are different states of the same material. Aether is physically displaced by matter. Displacement creates pressure. Gravity is the physical pressure exerted by the aether towards the matter. A moving particle physically displaces the aether. A moving particle has an associated aether wave. The particle is ALWAYS detected entering and exiting a single slit because the particle ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. EINSTEIN' http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy. In Aether Displacement, mass is conserved. If physics was able to understand the difference between a theory being of a statistical nature and a theory being of a physical nature then physics would have a much better understanding of the physics of nature. Physics will not truly advance until understanding any theory of a statistical nature is incomplete.
From: Huang on 15 May 2010 13:51
On May 15, 8:06 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 15, 8:29 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > So, there are many roads to the correct solution, and those roads may > > > > be very different from each other, but they produce identical results > > > > and are therefore equivalent. > > > > > So, QM may be regarded as being complete, or not, and we can never > > > > know if it is or not. And this is because there are many different > > > > ways to model it, and we have no way to say if a particuler approach > > > > should be retained or discarded. We cannot know if QM is complete or > > > > not, but at the same time it may be safely regarded as being complete, > > > > or not. "It is a paradox, or perhaps it isnt", and that is the most > > > > technically precise way for me to explain the way I view QM. > > > > QM can not be complete because it is of a statistical nature. > > > > Physics is of a physical nature. > > > Wherever you see a random variable in QM, you should (theoretically) > > be able to remove that random variable and replace it with "sensitive > > dependence on initiaial conditions". You should be able to eliminate > > all of the ransom variables that way, and QM wouldnot longer be > > stochastic - or "random". > > > Alternatively, whereever you see a term in QM which is _not_ a random > > variable, it should be replaceable with a random variable even if only > > trivially i.e. random variables with zero variance. You could do that > > with the rest of physics as well and argue that the whole universe is > > fundamentally stochastic. > > > So - you could argue either way - random or nonrandom. It MUST be a > > superposition of these because there is no way to really choose one > > over the other. > > 'Probabilistic', 'probability', and 'function' are mathematical > constructs. If the terms exist in the theory then the theory can not > be complete because the terms are of a statistical nature. > > It may be the best that can be concluded at any point in time if the > underlying physical processes are unknown. That does not make it > complete. > > Physics is of a physical nature. In order to have a complete theory it > must be of a physical nature. > > Aether Displacement is of a physical nature. > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > Aether is physically displaced by matter. > Displacement creates pressure. > Gravity is the physical pressure exerted by the aether towards the > matter. > > A moving particle physically displaces the aether. > A moving particle has an associated aether wave. > The particle is ALWAYS detected entering and exiting a single slit > because the particle ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > diminishes by L/c2." > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > and matter is energy. > > In Aether Displacement, mass is conserved. > > If physics was able to understand the difference between a theory > being of a statistical nature and a theory being of a physical nature > then physics would have a much better understanding of the physics of > nature. > > Physics will not truly advance until understanding any theory of a > statistical nature is incomplete.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Regardless of what tools you use to make models you will always have to confront the issue of paradox. I really dont have any problem whatsoever with the idea that aether is displaced much like a fluid. I really dont have a problem with that at all. But here's the question - you must be able to say that the universe can be modelled with such displacements, and also without such displacements. I feel that both are neccesary for _your_ model to be complete, just look at GR. Spece can be viewed as being bent, or not. They are equivalent, because a gravity field is equivalent to accelerating in a rocket. So is space bent by gravity ? The correct answer is that it is and also is not because these things are equivalent. Somehow - your displacements must do the same thing. That's my view on it anyway. |