Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: BURT on 21 Mar 2010 22:56 On Mar 21, 7:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The aether wave is most important for it orders the energy point vibration. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 21 Mar 2010 23:07 On Mar 21, 10:56 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 21, 7:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > The aether wave is most important for it orders the energy point > vibration. > > Mitch Raemsch Without a moving particle there is no aether wave. Gravity waves are aether waves. This thread is titled 'Question about gravity' so to get back to the main point. Just like a moving particle has an associated aether wave and a moving particle of matter has an associated aether displacement wave what is most important is the aether is displaced by the matter. What is most important is the pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object is gravity.
From: BURT on 21 Mar 2010 23:51 On Mar 21, 8:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 21, 10:56 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 21, 7:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > The aether wave is most important for it orders the energy point > > vibration. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > Without a moving particle there is no aether wave. > > Gravity waves are aether waves. > Gravity waves are not absorbed. They are destined to forever roam the universe. I do not believe in these gravity waves. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 22 Mar 2010 00:22 On Mar 21, 11:51 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 21, 8:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 21, 10:56 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 21, 7:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > The aether wave is most important for it orders the energy point > > > vibration. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > Without a moving particle there is no aether wave. > > > Gravity waves are aether waves. > > Gravity waves are not absorbed. They are destined to forever roam the > universe. > I do not believe in these gravity waves. > > Mitch Raemsch What is most important is the pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object is gravity.
From: kenseto on 22 Mar 2010 10:19
On Mar 21, 7:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:f7893079-d000-4681-9884-bfac1acf5942(a)d37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > > On Mar 20, 8:48 am, "Peter Webb" > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > >>> > No, I did not say that. I said empty space has properties, even where > >> >> it has no matter in it, which is the meaning of "empty space". > > >>> So empty space is just a different nmae for the aether....Right? > > >> ______________________________________________ > >> Well, you can define the word "aether" however you like. > > >> But in normal parlance, no, they are definitely not the same thing. > > > What is the difference? Both empty space and the aether has > > curvature, permittivity and permeability. > > So you think aether is not an actual substance, and just another name for > empty space? Then you agree with Einstein. No idiot...the aether is a substance and thus it has properties. When you say that empty space has properties then empty space is a substance. If empty space is a void then it cannot have property. > Ken Seto > > > >> The aether was originally something that somehow "waved" to produce the > >> wave > >> like properties of light. In SR, that is not true of "empty space". > > > So what is light in SR? > > It is light > > > How does light travel in empty space? > > However it travels. SR is not a theory about how light propagates. SR > doesn't care if light is particles, or waves, or something else > > >> The aether post-Maxwell but prior to Einstein had an additional property, > >> in > >> that it had a rest frame. Empty space has no rest frame. > > > The aether has rest frame > > In theories like LET, yes. There is no aether in SR. It says nothing about > aether. If you are using 'aether' as a synonym for empty space, then there > is no rest frame for it, because it has no motion. It is empty. > > > but no observer is at rest in the aether. > > Of course they can be, if there is such a thing as an aether. If you are > using 'aether' as a synonym for empty space, then talking about motion, or > rest, wrt it is nonsense. > > > Empty space also has rest frame > > No .. it doesn't have motion so has no rest frame. It makes no sense to > talk about whether empty space is in motion or not. > > > but no observer is at rest in empty > > space. > > If you are using 'aether' as a synonym for empty space, then talking about > motion, or rest, wrt it is nonsense. > > > BTW SR's inertial frame is the rest frame of empty space. > > SR does not have a single 'inertial frame'. > > >> Post SR the ether has disappeared from mainstream physics, except as a > >> vestigial and poetic term. > > > No the ether remains in SR.... > > Nope. No aether in SR.. unless you are using the name 'aether' for 'empty > space'. In which case it isn't anything .. it is empty space. > > > an SR observer claims all the unique > > properties of the empty space (the aether). > > Empty space has the properties of empty space. That tautology says nothing > useful. > > >> So if by "aether" you mean any of the meanings historically associated > >> with > >> it, the answer is "no", it is not the same as empty space. > > > Yes it is....empty space is just a different name for the aether. > > 'aether' is just another name for empty space. It is not longer an entity.. > it is a LACK of an entity |