Question about gravity
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 21 Mar 2010 21:31 On Mar 21, 7:38 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > > > On Mar 19, 8:14 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > >> mpc755 kirjoitti: > > >> > On Mar 18, 6:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On Mar 18, 4:33 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> > >> >> wrote: > > >> >> > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > >> >> > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > >> >> > > by the double solution theory > >> >> > > Louis de BROGLIE' > >> >> > >http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > >> >> > No mention of aether (nor ether) there. So it really doesn't help > >> >> > to see how the equations should be interpreted using the aether > >> >> > concept. > >> >> > > 'I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion > >> >> > > in the wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be > >> >> > > generalized to the case of an external field acting on the > >> >> > > particle.' In Aether Displacement the external field acting on > >> >> > > the particle is the aether. > >> >> > Saying that some substance like aether is the field, makes no > >> >> > immediate sense to me > > >> >> Then that is your issue. Things can tend to get slightly more > >> >> complicated when you actually figure out what is occurring > >> >> physically in nature and can't just use a label like 'field' and > >> >> actually have to understand aether is a material and a moving C-60 > >> >> molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > > >> Let me try to clarify my issue. You have compared aether with water > >> (bowling ball in water) - now it doesn't mean anything to me if someone > >> says 'water is a field'. A volume of water has properties like density, > >> that have some value at each point - and we can speak about density > >> field. What is the property of an aether field - 'aetherness'? And how > >> we can measure it or otherwise associate some value for each point? > > >> >> "Editors Note: But Louis de Broglie, as he explains in the first > >> >> lines of his article, was a realist, and he could not believe > >> >> observable physical phenomena to only follow from abstract > >> >> mathematical wave- functions. Somehow, these latter had to be > >> >> connected to real waves, at variance with the prevailing Copenhagen > >> >> interpretation, and with his keen sense for physics, Louis de > >> >> Broglie did find a way out of the maze !" > > >> >> The real waves described by de Broglie are aether waves. > > >> I don't think you quite understand what de Broglie's 'material waves' > >> are. They more or less 'just are' the particles themselves - there is > >> no independent background such as aether in that model. > > NOTE: > You have apparently choosed to split this discussion in to separate > threads. There might be a good reason for it, but I have two comments: 1) > When splitting the answer in to separate threads it is a bit puzzling that > you have apparently totally ignored the clearly indicated main question > stated in my previous message - actually you have not answered any of my > questions, why is that? > 2) You have made several follow-ups to your own messages - this is a bit > confusing - at what point should I start replying. Would it be too much > for you to give yourself a bit more time, so that you could put everything > in just one message. > > > What part of: > > > 'I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the > > wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case > > of an external field acting on the particle.' > > http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > page 4, paragraph after eq-4 > > > are you not able to understand? > > As you should well know (or actually not), it's sometimes very hard to > know when and what one is not able to understand. But I try to clarify my > (lack of) understanding below - perhaps you could be better able to > educate me based on that. > > > Or are you saying the EXTERNAL FIELD acting on the particle is the > > particle itself? > > Nope, the _EXTERNAL_ FIELD is not the particle itself. If you actually > read the paper you would (perhaps) understand at least two things: > > 1) This _external_ field he is speaking about is for example an _external_ > electric field acting on an electron - discussed in section III. He first > develops his 'physical wave' theory without _external_ fields and then > _generalizes_ the resulting 'guidance model' to include also _external_ > fields. This _external_ field is quite distinct concept to the de > Broglie's physical/material waves. > > 2) Starting from bottom of the page 9, you could have read: "This result > may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle > is defined as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very > large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion rythm > of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at the point > where the particle is located." > > NOTE: "particle is defined as a ... region of the wave ...", just as I > already told you earlier. > NOTE: "the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave" Yes, the particle is defined as A VERY SMALL region of the wave. The particle is not the wave but consists of a very small region of the wave. This means most of the wave does not consist of the particle. So, now you have misinterpreted 'external field' to be the particle itself and have cut-out the fact that the particle occupies a very small region of the wave in order to misinterpret a second quote. "Thusfar, the insertion of the particle in its wave was restrictively defined by stating that the real physical wave must include a small region of very high amplitude, which is the particle. Apart from this singular region, the physical wave is the v wave, of very limited amplitude, and satisfying the usual linear equation. As previously stated, it seems premature to try and describe the internal structure of this singular region, i.e. the particle. This description will probably involve complicated non-linear equations." So, above we have the 'particle in its wave'. We have, 'the real physical wave must include a small region of very high amplitude, which is the particle'. We have 'the internal structure of this singular region, i.e. the particle'. In a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule the very small region of the wave which is the particle is the C-60 molecule. This very small region of the wave enters and exits a single slit. The internal structure of this singular region, i.e. the particle, is the C-60 molecule. > You could also read the other paper you referenced (beware of the wrap: > > http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates//1929/broglie- > lecture.pdf > > If you still entertain the idea that de Broglie's views somehow correspond > to your aether waves pushing particles around: > > Page 252: > "Is it even still possible to assume that at each moment the corpuscle > occupies a well-defined position in the wave and that the wave in its > propagation carries the corpuscle along in the same way as a wave would > carry along a cork? These are difficult questions and to discuss them > would take us too far and even to the confines of philosophy. All that I > shall say about them here is that nowadays the tendency in general is to > assume that it is not constantly possible to assign to the corpuscle a > well-defined position in the wave." > > That view was then 'not constantly possible', nor it is nowadays either. > "it is not constantly possible to assign to the corpuscle a well- defined position in the wave." Yes, it is not possible to assign a well-defined position to the corpuscle in the wave. But, the corpuscle still exists within a very small region within the wave. It is just a matter of not being able to specify exactly where the very small region is at any particular time. > Page 256 (last paragraph of the paper): "Thus to describe the properties > of matter as well as those of light, waves and corpuscles have to be > referred to at one and the same time. The electron can no longer be > conceived as a single, small granule of electricity; it must be associated > with a wave and this wave is no myth; its wavelength can be measured and > its interferences predicted. It has thus been possible to predict a whole > group of phenomena without their actually having been discovered. And it > is on this concept of the duality of waves and corpuscles in Nature, > expressed in a more or less abstract form, that the whole recent > development of theoretical physics has been founded and that all future > development of this science will apparently have to be founded." > > He is of course speaking of the 'wave-particle duality', a standard > concept in QM. > "EDITOR'S NOTE. ... But Louis de Broglie, as he explains in the first lines of his article, was a realist, and he could not believe observable physical phenomena to only follow from abstract mathematical wave-functions. Somehow, these latter had to be connected to real waves, at variance with the prevailing Copenhagen interpretation, and with his keen sense for physics, Louis de Broglie did find a way out of the maze !" > You see there is a reason 'aether' or 'ether' is not mentioned in these > texts (except as a rejected historical concept). > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" - Albert Einstein The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter is the aether's state of displacement. A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule occupies a very small region of the wave. The 'rejection' of aether is the reason something as simple as gravity is not understood by 'mainstream' physics. The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object is gravity.
From: BURT on 21 Mar 2010 21:33 I challenge anyone to prove that time does not slow down. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 21 Mar 2010 21:44 On Mar 21, 7:38 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > NOTE: > You have apparently choosed to split this discussion in to separate > threads. There might be a good reason for it, but I have two comments: 1) > When splitting the answer in to separate threads it is a bit puzzling that > you have apparently totally ignored the clearly indicated main question > stated in my previous message - actually you have not answered any of my > questions, why is that? > 2) You have made several follow-ups to your own messages - this is a bit > confusing - at what point should I start replying. Would it be too much > for you to give yourself a bit more time, so that you could put everything > in just one message. > > > What part of: > > > 'I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the > > wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case > > of an external field acting on the particle.' > > http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > page 4, paragraph after eq-4 > > > are you not able to understand? > > As you should well know (or actually not), it's sometimes very hard to > know when and what one is not able to understand. But I try to clarify my > (lack of) understanding below - perhaps you could be better able to > educate me based on that. > > > Or are you saying the EXTERNAL FIELD acting on the particle is the > > particle itself? > > Nope, the _EXTERNAL_ FIELD is not the particle itself. If you actually > read the paper you would (perhaps) understand at least two things: > > 1) This _external_ field he is speaking about is for example an _external_ > electric field acting on an electron - discussed in section III. He first > develops his 'physical wave' theory without _external_ fields and then > _generalizes_ the resulting 'guidance model' to include also _external_ > fields. This _external_ field is quite distinct concept to the de > Broglie's physical/material waves. > > 2) Starting from bottom of the page 9, you could have read: "This result > may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle > is defined as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very > large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion rythm > of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at the point > where the particle is located." > > NOTE: "particle is defined as a ... region of the wave ...", just as I > already told you earlier. > Yes, the particle is defined as A VERY SMALL region of the wave. The particle is not the wave but consists of a very small region of the wave. This means most of the wave does not consist of the particle. "Thusfar, the insertion of the particle in its wave was restrictively defined by stating that the real physical wave must include a small region of very high amplitude, which is the particle. Apart from this singular region, the physical wave is the v wave, of very limited amplitude, and satisfying the usual linear equation. As previously stated, it seems premature to try and describe the internal structure of this singular region, i.e. the particle. This description will probably involve complicated non-linear equations." So, above we have the 'particle in its wave'. We have, 'the real physical wave must include a small region of very high amplitude, which is the particle'. We have 'the internal structure of this singular region, i.e. the particle'. In a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule the very small region of the wave which is the particle is the C-60 molecule. This very small region of the wave enters and exits a single slit. The internal structure of this singular region, i.e. the particle, is the C-60 molecule. > You could also read the other paper you referenced (beware of the wrap: > http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates//1929/broglie- > lecture.pdf > If you still entertain the idea that de Broglie's views somehow correspond > to your aether waves pushing particles around: > Page 252: > "Is it even still possible to assume that at each moment the corpuscle > occupies a well-defined position in the wave and that the wave in its > propagation carries the corpuscle along in the same way as a wave would > carry along a cork? These are difficult questions and to discuss them > would take us too far and even to the confines of philosophy. All that I > shall say about them here is that nowadays the tendency in general is to > assume that it is not constantly possible to assign to the corpuscle a > well-defined position in the wave." > That view was then 'not constantly possible', nor it is nowadays either. "it is not constantly possible to assign to the corpuscle a well- defined position in the wave." Yes, it is not possible to assign a well-defined position to the corpuscle in the wave. But, the corpuscle still exists within a very small region within the wave. It is just a matter of not being able to specify exactly where the very small region is at any particular time. > Page 256 (last paragraph of the paper): "Thus to describe the properties > of matter as well as those of light, waves and corpuscles have to be > referred to at one and the same time. The electron can no longer be > conceived as a single, small granule of electricity; it must be associated > with a wave and this wave is no myth; its wavelength can be measured and > its interferences predicted. It has thus been possible to predict a whole > group of phenomena without their actually having been discovered. And it > is on this concept of the duality of waves and corpuscles in Nature, > expressed in a more or less abstract form, that the whole recent > development of theoretical physics has been founded and that all future > development of this science will apparently have to be founded." > He is of course speaking of the 'wave-particle duality', a standard > concept in QM. "EDITOR'S NOTE. ... But Louis de Broglie, as he explains in the first lines of his article, was a realist, and he could not believe observable physical phenomena to only follow from abstract mathematical wave-functions. Somehow, these latter had to be connected to real waves, at variance with the prevailing Copenhagen interpretation, and with his keen sense for physics, Louis de Broglie did find a way out of the maze !" > You see there is a reason 'aether' or 'ether' is not mentioned in these > texts (except as a rejected historical concept). "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" - Albert Einstein The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter is the aether's state of displacement. A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule occupies a very small region of the wave. The 'rejection' of aether is the reason something as simple as gravity is not understood by 'mainstream' physics. The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object is gravity.
From: BURT on 21 Mar 2010 22:18 On Mar 21, 6:44 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 21, 7:38 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> > wrote: > > > > > > > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > NOTE: > > You have apparently choosed to split this discussion in to separate > > threads. There might be a good reason for it, but I have two comments: 1) > > When splitting the answer in to separate threads it is a bit puzzling that > > you have apparently totally ignored the clearly indicated main question > > stated in my previous message - actually you have not answered any of my > > questions, why is that? > > 2) You have made several follow-ups to your own messages - this is a bit > > confusing - at what point should I start replying. Would it be too much > > for you to give yourself a bit more time, so that you could put everything > > in just one message. > > > > What part of: > > > > 'I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the > > > wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case > > > of an external field acting on the particle.' > > >http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > > page 4, paragraph after eq-4 > > > > are you not able to understand? > > > As you should well know (or actually not), it's sometimes very hard to > > know when and what one is not able to understand. But I try to clarify my > > (lack of) understanding below - perhaps you could be better able to > > educate me based on that. > > > > Or are you saying the EXTERNAL FIELD acting on the particle is the > > > particle itself? > > > Nope, the _EXTERNAL_ FIELD is not the particle itself. If you actually > > read the paper you would (perhaps) understand at least two things: > > > 1) This _external_ field he is speaking about is for example an _external_ > > electric field acting on an electron - discussed in section III. He first > > develops his 'physical wave' theory without _external_ fields and then > > _generalizes_ the resulting 'guidance model' to include also _external_ > > fields. This _external_ field is quite distinct concept to the de > > Broglie's physical/material waves. > > > 2) Starting from bottom of the page 9, you could have read: "This result > > may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle > > is defined as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very > > large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion rythm > > of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at the point > > where the particle is located." > > > NOTE: "particle is defined as a ... region of the wave ...", just as I > > already told you earlier. > > Yes, the particle is defined as A VERY SMALL region of the wave. The > particle is not the wave but consists of a very small region of the > wave. > > This means most of the wave does not consist of the particle. > > "Thusfar, the insertion of the particle in its wave was restrictively > defined by stating that the real physical wave must include a small > region of very high amplitude, which is the particle. Apart from this > singular region, the physical wave is the v wave, of very limited > amplitude, and satisfying the usual linear equation. As previously > stated, it seems premature to try and describe the internal structure > of this singular region, i.e. the particle. This description will > probably involve complicated non-linear equations." > > So, above we have the 'particle in its wave'. We have, 'the real > physical wave must include a small region of very high amplitude, > which is the particle'. We have 'the internal structure of this > singular region, i.e. the particle'. > > In a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule the very small region > of the wave which is the particle is the C-60 molecule. This very > small region of the wave enters and exits a single slit. > > The internal structure of this singular region, i.e. the particle, is > the C-60 molecule. > > > You could also read the other paper you referenced (beware of the wrap: > >http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates//1929/broglie- > > lecture.pdf > > If you still entertain the idea that de Broglie's views somehow correspond > > to your aether waves pushing particles around: > > Page 252: > > "Is it even still possible to assume that at each moment the corpuscle > > occupies a well-defined position in the wave and that the wave in its > > propagation carries the corpuscle along in the same way as a wave would > > carry along a cork? These are difficult questions and to discuss them > > would take us too far and even to the confines of philosophy. All that I > > shall say about them here is that nowadays the tendency in general is to > > assume that it is not constantly possible to assign to the corpuscle a > > well-defined position in the wave." > > That view was then 'not constantly possible', nor it is nowadays either.. > > "it is not constantly possible to assign to the corpuscle a well- > defined position in the wave." > > Yes, it is not possible to assign a well-defined position to the > corpuscle in the wave. But, the corpuscle still exists within a very > small region within the wave. It is just a matter of not being able to > specify exactly where the very small region is at any particular time. > > > Page 256 (last paragraph of the paper): "Thus to describe the properties > > of matter as well as those of light, waves and corpuscles have to be > > referred to at one and the same time. The electron can no longer be > > conceived as a single, small granule of electricity; it must be associated > > with a wave and this wave is no myth; its wavelength can be measured and > > its interferences predicted. It has thus been possible to predict a whole > > group of phenomena without their actually having been discovered. And it > > is on this concept of the duality of waves and corpuscles in Nature, > > expressed in a more or less abstract form, that the whole recent > > development of theoretical physics has been founded and that all future > > development of this science will apparently have to be founded." > > He is of course speaking of the 'wave-particle duality', a standard > > concept in QM. > > "EDITOR'S NOTE. ... But Louis de Broglie, as he explains in the first > lines of his article, was a realist, and he could not believe > observable physical phenomena to only follow from abstract > mathematical wave-functions. Somehow, these latter had to be connected > to real waves, at variance with the prevailing Copenhagen > interpretation, and with his keen sense for physics, Louis de Broglie > did find a way out of the maze !" > > > You see there is a reason 'aether' or 'ether' is not mentioned in these > > texts (except as a rejected historical concept). > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" - > Albert Einstein > > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the > matter is the aether's state of displacement. > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The > C-60 molecule occupies a very small region of the wave. > > The 'rejection' of aether is the reason something as simple as gravity > is not understood by 'mainstream' physics. > > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object > is gravity.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Debroglie waves are aether waves surrounding an energy particle that pushes the energy to vibrate. The wave is more important than the energy point matterial because it is a flow pushing Aether. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 21 Mar 2010 22:32
On Mar 21, 10:18 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 21, 6:44 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 21, 7:38 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> > > wrote: > > > > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > > NOTE: > > > You have apparently choosed to split this discussion in to separate > > > threads. There might be a good reason for it, but I have two comments: 1) > > > When splitting the answer in to separate threads it is a bit puzzling that > > > you have apparently totally ignored the clearly indicated main question > > > stated in my previous message - actually you have not answered any of my > > > questions, why is that? > > > 2) You have made several follow-ups to your own messages - this is a bit > > > confusing - at what point should I start replying. Would it be too much > > > for you to give yourself a bit more time, so that you could put everything > > > in just one message. > > > > > What part of: > > > > > 'I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the > > > > wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case > > > > of an external field acting on the particle.' > > > >http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > > > page 4, paragraph after eq-4 > > > > > are you not able to understand? > > > > As you should well know (or actually not), it's sometimes very hard to > > > know when and what one is not able to understand. But I try to clarify my > > > (lack of) understanding below - perhaps you could be better able to > > > educate me based on that. > > > > > Or are you saying the EXTERNAL FIELD acting on the particle is the > > > > particle itself? > > > > Nope, the _EXTERNAL_ FIELD is not the particle itself. If you actually > > > read the paper you would (perhaps) understand at least two things: > > > > 1) This _external_ field he is speaking about is for example an _external_ > > > electric field acting on an electron - discussed in section III. He first > > > develops his 'physical wave' theory without _external_ fields and then > > > _generalizes_ the resulting 'guidance model' to include also _external_ > > > fields. This _external_ field is quite distinct concept to the de > > > Broglie's physical/material waves. > > > > 2) Starting from bottom of the page 9, you could have read: "This result > > > may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle > > > is defined as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very > > > large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion rythm > > > of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at the point > > > where the particle is located." > > > > NOTE: "particle is defined as a ... region of the wave ...", just as I > > > already told you earlier. > > > Yes, the particle is defined as A VERY SMALL region of the wave. The > > particle is not the wave but consists of a very small region of the > > wave. > > > This means most of the wave does not consist of the particle. > > > "Thusfar, the insertion of the particle in its wave was restrictively > > defined by stating that the real physical wave must include a small > > region of very high amplitude, which is the particle. Apart from this > > singular region, the physical wave is the v wave, of very limited > > amplitude, and satisfying the usual linear equation. As previously > > stated, it seems premature to try and describe the internal structure > > of this singular region, i.e. the particle. This description will > > probably involve complicated non-linear equations." > > > So, above we have the 'particle in its wave'. We have, 'the real > > physical wave must include a small region of very high amplitude, > > which is the particle'. We have 'the internal structure of this > > singular region, i.e. the particle'. > > > In a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule the very small region > > of the wave which is the particle is the C-60 molecule. This very > > small region of the wave enters and exits a single slit. > > > The internal structure of this singular region, i.e. the particle, is > > the C-60 molecule. > > > > You could also read the other paper you referenced (beware of the wrap: > > >http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates//1929/broglie- > > > lecture.pdf > > > If you still entertain the idea that de Broglie's views somehow correspond > > > to your aether waves pushing particles around: > > > Page 252: > > > "Is it even still possible to assume that at each moment the corpuscle > > > occupies a well-defined position in the wave and that the wave in its > > > propagation carries the corpuscle along in the same way as a wave would > > > carry along a cork? These are difficult questions and to discuss them > > > would take us too far and even to the confines of philosophy. All that I > > > shall say about them here is that nowadays the tendency in general is to > > > assume that it is not constantly possible to assign to the corpuscle a > > > well-defined position in the wave." > > > That view was then 'not constantly possible', nor it is nowadays either. > > > "it is not constantly possible to assign to the corpuscle a well- > > defined position in the wave." > > > Yes, it is not possible to assign a well-defined position to the > > corpuscle in the wave. But, the corpuscle still exists within a very > > small region within the wave. It is just a matter of not being able to > > specify exactly where the very small region is at any particular time. > > > > Page 256 (last paragraph of the paper): "Thus to describe the properties > > > of matter as well as those of light, waves and corpuscles have to be > > > referred to at one and the same time. The electron can no longer be > > > conceived as a single, small granule of electricity; it must be associated > > > with a wave and this wave is no myth; its wavelength can be measured and > > > its interferences predicted. It has thus been possible to predict a whole > > > group of phenomena without their actually having been discovered. And it > > > is on this concept of the duality of waves and corpuscles in Nature, > > > expressed in a more or less abstract form, that the whole recent > > > development of theoretical physics has been founded and that all future > > > development of this science will apparently have to be founded." > > > He is of course speaking of the 'wave-particle duality', a standard > > > concept in QM. > > > "EDITOR'S NOTE. ... But Louis de Broglie, as he explains in the first > > lines of his article, was a realist, and he could not believe > > observable physical phenomena to only follow from abstract > > mathematical wave-functions. Somehow, these latter had to be connected > > to real waves, at variance with the prevailing Copenhagen > > interpretation, and with his keen sense for physics, Louis de Broglie > > did find a way out of the maze !" > > > > You see there is a reason 'aether' or 'ether' is not mentioned in these > > > texts (except as a rejected historical concept). > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" - > > Albert Einstein > > > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the > > matter is the aether's state of displacement. > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The > > C-60 molecule occupies a very small region of the wave. > > > The 'rejection' of aether is the reason something as simple as gravity > > is not understood by 'mainstream' physics. > > > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object > > is gravity.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > [A] de Broglie wave [is an] aether wave surrounding a ... [moving] particle Correct. |