Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: Esa Riihonen on 7 Apr 2010 17:40 You have made these same points in more or less same form in the other threads on subject - why proliferate the threads? mpc755 kirjoitti: > On Mar 31, 9:45 am, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: >> Sorry to be so slow responding. I have work and even other hobbies to >> blame, but to be honest I also start to get frustrated and dizzy as I >> feel as if I'm trying to nail jello in a 'merry go round'. >> >> > Before we continue, let's see if there is any reason to. > > 'Frictionless supersolid a step closer' > http://www.physorg.com/news185201084.html > > "Superfluidity and superconductivity cause particles to move without > friction. Koos Gubbels investigated under what conditions such particles > keep moving endlessly without losing energy, like a swimmer who takes > one mighty stroke and then keeps gliding forever along the swimming > pool." > > I take it you understand the moving swimmer displaces the water, > correct? Certainly. > How does the swimmer displace the water without applying pressure to the > water? I don't know - why should he? > I take it you understand the water fills-in where the moving swimmer > was, correct? Seems reasonable. > How does the water fill-in where the swimmer was without applying > pressure towards the swimmer? Probably does. > I take it you understand a moving particle displaces a frictionless > superfluid, correct? Certainly. > How does the particle displace the frictionless superfluid without > appying pressure to the frictionless superfluid? I don't know - why should it? > I take it you understand the frictionless superfluid fills-in where the > moving particle was, correct? I'm not expert on frictionless superfluids so I'm definitely not sure - but it seems resonable - at least under gravitation > How does the frictionless superfluid fill-in where the moving particle > was without apply pressure towards the particle? I don't know - should I know? You presented the same questions in a somewhat different form in some of the other threads. Read my answer(s) there. In short you seem to be totally unaware that it is not the pressure but the net force that is the issue. You can quite well have non zero pressure but still zero net force. And the net force must be zero in the situation described - otherwise the swimmer would not continue forever with the same speed. The rest responded to in the other thread(s): > A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). While the C-60 molecule is in the > slit(s) detectors are placed at the exits to the slits. When there are > detectors at the exits to the slits the C-60 molecule is always detected > exiting a single slit. If the detectors are placed and removed from the > exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) the C-60 > molecule creates an interference pattern. > > Explain how this is possible without aether. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie > > "This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that any > moving particle or object had an associated wave." > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > by the double solution theory > Louis de BROGLIE' > http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > "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." > > "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." > > de Broglie's definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave > and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of > the wave. > > In AD, the external field is the aether. In a double slit experiment the > particle occupies a very small region of the wave and enters and exits a > single slit. The wave enters and exits the available slits. > > In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The > C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the associated > aether displacement wave enters and exits the available slits. The > displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which > alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 > molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether displacement wave > (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no interference. Cheers, Esa(R) -- Philosophers must ultimately find their true perfection in knowing all the follies of mankind - by introspection. - Piet Hein
From: Esa Riihonen on 7 Apr 2010 17:40 mpc755 kirjoitti: > On Mar 31, 10:30 am, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: >> Sorry to be so slow responding. I have work and even other hobbies to >> blame, but to be honest I also start to get frustrated and dizzy as I >> feel as if I'm trying to nail jello in a 'merry go round'. >> >> mpc755 kirjoitti: >> >> > On Mar 24, 7:59 am, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> >> > wrote: >> >> mpc755 kirjoitti: >> >> >> > On Mar 21, 7:33 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> mpc755 kirjoitti: >> >> >> >> > On Mar 20, 10:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mar 20, 9:58 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > On Mar 20, 9:16 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > > On Mar 20, 12:17 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > > > On Mar 19, 8:14 pm, Esa Riihonen >> >> >> >> > > > <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > > > > mpc755 kirjoitti: >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> If you choose not understand what causes your >> >> >> >> > > > > >> battery operated clock to tick slower then has time >> >> >> >> > > > > >> change? >> >> >> >> >> > > > > Nope. And I can even measure that this is not a case. >> >> >> >> > > > > I could for example compare how often I have to shave >> >> >> >> > > > > my beard and myriad other things to the clock >> >> >> >> > > > > progression. >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> > > > Instead of shaving your beard you are in a space ship >> >> >> >> > > > and you measure where you are relative to the distant >> >> >> >> > > > stars. >> >> >> >> >> > > > You are in a space ship orbiting the Earth. The >> >> >> >> > > > associated aether pressure on the atomic clock in the >> >> >> >> > > > space ship is less than a comparable clock on the Earth >> >> >> >> > > > and the atomic clock in the space ship ticks faster than >> >> >> >> > > > the comparable clock on the Earth. >> >> >> >> >> > > > Your space ship is in a geo-synchronous orbit and orbits >> >> >> >> > > > at the same rate at which the Earth spins. >> >> >> >> >> > > > You stay in the space ship for one complete orbit around >> >> >> >> > > > the Sun. You are in as close to the exact same position >> >> >> >> > > > with respect to the distant stars as you were when the >> >> >> >> > > > experiment began. >> >> >> >> >> > > > From your view of the surrounding distant stars, the >> >> >> >> > > > Earth and the Sun you determine 365 and 1/4 days have >> >> >> >> > > > passed. This is in exact agreement with the atomic clock >> >> >> >> > > > on the Earth. >> >> >> >> >> > > > You started the experiment on January 1st 2009. >> >> >> >> >> > > > You have two atomic clocks on the space ship. One was >> >> >> >> > > > altered to remain in sync with the atomic clock on the >> >> >> >> > > > Earth. The other atomic clock was not altered. The >> >> >> >> > > > altered atomic clock says 365 and 1/4 days have passed >> >> >> >> > > > since the beginning of the experiment. The unaltered >> >> >> >> > > > atomic clock on the space ship says 370 days have passed >> >> >> >> > > > since the beginning of the experiment. >> >> >> >> >> > > > What day is it and how much time has passed since the >> >> >> >> > > > beginning of the experiment? >> >> >> >> >> > > > It is January 1st 2010 and one year has passed since the >> >> >> >> > > > beginning of the experiment. The unaltered atomic clock >> >> >> >> > > > was not modified to tick according to the aether >> >> >> >> > > > pressure it exists in. >> >> >> >> >> > > > Do you insist it is January 6th 2010 because that is >> >> >> >> > > > what the unaltered atomic clock states the time to be? >> >> >> >> > > > If so, how do you account for the fact that you have not >> >> >> >> > > > yet passed the point in orbit around the Sun where you >> >> >> >> > > > were on January 1st 2009 and in fact you are as close to >> >> >> >> > > > the exact same point in orbit relative to the Sun based >> >> >> >> > > > on your measurements against the distant stars as you >> >> >> >> > > > were on January 1st 2009 as you are going to be? How is >> >> >> >> > > > it not January 1st 2010? >> >> >> >> >> > > One complete orbit of the Sun by the Earth is one year, >> >> >> >> > > regardless of the rate at which an atomic clock ticks. >> >> >> >> >> > Why is the rate at which an atomic clock ticks more accurate >> >> >> >> > at determining how much time has passed than the Earth's >> >> >> >> > orbit around the Sun? It isn't. >> >> >> >> >> > If there is a second astronaut on the space ship who does >> >> >> >> > not have access to any of the atomic clocks on the space >> >> >> >> > ship and that astronaut determines one year has passed >> >> >> >> > because of measurements based upon the stars then that >> >> >> >> > astronaut is correct. >> >> >> >> >> You have a clock with a paddle for the second hand. You drop >> >> >> >> the clock off the side of a boat. The further and further the >> >> >> >> clock drops into the ocean the slower it 'ticks', as >> >> >> >> determined by a clock on the boat. The clock 'ticks' slower >> >> >> >> because of the increase in the hydrostatic pressure on the >> >> >> >> paddle. >> >> >> >> >> If you refuse to believe in the existence of water then does >> >> >> >> time change? >> >> >> >> >> You have an atomic clock on the space station. You 'drop' the >> >> >> >> clock off the 'side' of the space station. The further and >> >> >> >> further the clock 'drops' towards the Earth the slower it >> >> >> >> 'ticks', as determined by a clock on the space station. The >> >> >> >> clock 'ticks' slower because of the increase in the aether >> >> >> >> pressure on the clock. >> >> >> >> >> If you refuse to believe in the existence of aether then does >> >> >> >> time change? >> >> >> >> > That same increase in aether pressure which is causing the rate >> >> >> > at which the atomic clock ticks to slow, is also gravity. >> >> >> >> Cheesh - are you done yet? ... ok - here we go: >> >> >> >> According to my (GR) view (the time difference of 6 days is of >> >> >> course too big for one year on GeoStat, but never mind) the >> >> >> situation is actually very simple. If I decide to use the clocks >> >> >> on Earth (or the altered atomic clock on board) my shag will be >> >> >> too long every time I shave >> >> >> > You do not know this. There is no evidence of it. The rate at >> >> > which your beard grows at zero Gs is probably not tied to the rate >> >> > at which an atomic clock ticks. >> >> >> You are right - I don't _know_ that, we have not yet been able to >> >> compare beard growth rates at different depths in gravity wells with >> >> enough accuracy. But as I said this is the result predicted by GR. >> >> >> I asked you before - how do you know it _probably_ not tied to it? >> >> How does your aether pressure model allow you to make that >> >> conclusion? >> >> > Because time is a concept. The most accurate clock for the astronaut >> > on the space ship is the Earth's orbit of the Sun, not the rate at >> > which an atomic clock ticks. >> >> Seems that you don't know what time is - 'time is a concept' is an >> empty statement. It doesn't matter much though, as no one else 'knows' >> either. But in order to give some credibility to a single statement >> about the reality like 'the rate of beard growth is not tied to the >> rate of atomic clock', you should have something more than just a >> jumbled set of statements which amount at most to 'it is so because it >> is so'. >> >> > Just the opposite is required. There are two twins. One on a space ship > and one on the Earth. They both eat a sandwich. Explain how the process > the sandwich goes through while in each twins body is determined by the > rate at which the associated atomic clock ticks. The speed of (bio)chemical processes are not _determined_ by any separate clocks! A simplified 'explanation' might go something like: according to GR the time flows at different speeds at different depths in a gravity well (I'm not too happy with the wording - but perhaps it will do for now). And thus all the physical processes will follow suite, where they atomic clocks, LP players, chemical processes, etc. If boiling an egg will take N ticks of a local clock here, it will take N ticks of another local clock there. Same with the sandwich digestion. There just is nothing more to explain - this just is how GR models the reality. Whether the model is accurate and to what degree, can be decided by comparing the GR predictions to the observable (measurable) facts only. Specifically it can not be shown wrong via any 'philosophical' discussion. You of course have every right to not be satisfied with the GR model and present your own. But as I have said already in numerous occasions, no one else will take you seriously before you can then present an associated logical (mathematical) machinery that will enable anyone using your model to get quantified results in order to compare them with the observations. >> GR on the other hand is a full blown (mathematical) theory that tells >> us that the astronaut should use the on-board clocks to time any >> (local) events on-orbit. For atomic clocks (and many other phenomena) >> it's predictions have been fulfilled and there is no reason to think >> that this is just a coincidence. Thus I'm very confident that it's >> predictions for other relativistic effects will be confirmed if and >> when the amount of the predicted effect will exceed the accuracy of the >> measurement. >> >> So for all practical purposes the definition 'time is what a good >> (local) clock shows' is the only usable one. That is because it defines >> usable numerical values that we can use with our equations - and get >> consistent results from the mathematical operations. >> >> >> > You fail to understand the rate at which an atomic clock ticks has >> >> > nothing to do with time. >> >> >> Totally agree - I certainly fail at it. I assumed we have dropped >> >> this esoteric time concept that has nothing to do with clocks >> >> already - why bring this _useless_ concept back here? When >> >> discussing physics we should keep using 'time' as a concept that can >> >> be measured (by clocks). I questioned you below (you didn't answer >> >> of course) what is this symbol 't' appearing in all these physical >> >> equations standing for? It must be measurable somehow (this is >> >> physics after all) - how to measure it? >> >> > 't' represents the rate at which an atomic clock ticks. Not time. 't' >> > represents the rate at which an atomic clock 'ticks' based upon the >> > aether pressure in which the clock exists. >> >> Now there is lots of physics involving 't' (time) usually expressed >> using equations. GR tells us that (if expressed in covariant form) >> these same equations should work (locally) no matter where we are in >> the universe or how fast we are moving relative to e.g., Earth. One >> consequence of this is that if we decide to use the t-values from the >> earth-clock (instead of from the local on-board clock) the equations >> won't match the reality around us anymore - and so this brakes GR. >> This is in principle OK - GR might not describe the reality, but you >> have yourself stated that your model doesn't break GR predictions. GR >> predicts the observed behavior of the atomic clocks on orbit - you say >> it is only due to 'aether pressure', GR predicts that egg boiling and >> growing of beard will behave similarly - you say they won't. Both of >> these statements go against GR - your 'model' most definitely breaks >> GR, no matter what you say. >> >> > Here is the best article I have found which show's Einstein to be > incorrect in terms of the twin's paradox: > > 'On Einstein's resolution of the twin clock paradox' > http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf We are discussing GR here. The Twin Paradox discussed in the paper is the standard SR situation as presented by Einstein himself in some obscure paper sometime between SR and GR. Allegedly Einstein used there some reference to gravitation when discussing the _obvious_ symmetry break between the twins - obvious as one of them must switch frames and the other not. I'm not too interested in looking whether there were some confusion by E regarding the handling the concepts of gravitation and acceleration in time he had not yet fully figured out GR. Or maybe he just wanted to look at the deceleration/acceleration of the SR case from a different view - I really don't know nor care at this point. The Twin Paradox is SR stuff and should be handled in a flat space-time, that means: _no gravitation_. And, as I already said, contrary to what the author tried to indicate, there is a clear symmetry break between the twins. The last couple of pages of the paper are just pathetic - he comes to the right conclusion that the acceleration per se is not necessary for the explanation. We only need three inertial systems and the switch of the 'traveling clock' from 'outbound' to 'inbound' system can be made instantaneous. But as his further 'analysis' is based on solely 'philosophical' verbal musings he swerves straight out of the road. He should have used the hard logic of SR - it's mathematical machinery for guidance. But I'm not interested in discussing the SR or GR actually - I'm trying to get some grip on your aether assumption. If you want to understand SR and the unparadoxical status of the 'Twin Paradox' specifically you should some modern (course) book. I would recommend 'Taylor and Wheeler: Spacetime Physics' - there are others. > Einstein was correct when he stated: > > "Space and time are not conditions in which we live; they are simply > modes in which we think." > http://lazyway.blogs.com/lazy_way/2005/09/einstein_quote_.html This is not a reference, just a plain out of context quote (with no real reference to be found there either). I remember reading this quote earlier somewhere, but in context - and it didn't imply at all what you try to make it imply. >> And please describe how an atomic clock works and how does the aether >> pressure affect the readings. I think this is an essential question - but you just continue to avoid answering it. >> >> >> and my >> >> >> boiled eggs are hard but have turned greenish - plus if I synch >> >> >> my LP- player rotation (33 rpm) with an Earth clock the pitch is >> >> >> too low. >> >> >> > You do not know this. >> >> >> You are right - no accurate measurements yet to be sure, but the >> >> point was that this is nevertheless the result that GR tells us. >> >> >> >> Same >> >> >> with every _local_ phenomena involving time. >> >> >> >> If and when the 'year' is defined as one Earth revolution around >> >> >> the Sun, then of course it is just that - time of one revolution. >> >> >> However, how many seconds it will take is a different matter. Let >> >> >> me explain, we usually speak of time in calendar/clock terms: >> >> >> years, months, days, hours, minutes, seconds and parts of >> >> >> seconds. That is a natural way when living on a surface of a >> >> >> revolving and turning planet. >> >> >> >> In physics it is better to just think of seconds (with decimal >> >> >> parts) and consider the calendar/clock times just labels for any >> >> >> instance (measured in seconds). The labels conveniently tell >> >> >> whether it is day or night, should I consider digging seeds in >> >> >> ground or harvesting the crops and thus they should be kept in >> >> >> synch with the physical world, so we use leap days to keep dates >> >> >> drifting in relation to the Earths actual position and leap >> >> >> seconds to keep noon close to the actual time Sun is above. Note >> >> >> that no days are actually added nor seconds added (or removed) we >> >> >> just shift our labeling system a bit by adding special labels (or >> >> >> not using one) every now and then. >> >> >> >> The year (once around the Sun) as observed from orbit just takes >> >> >> these 6*24*60*60 seconds longer - no problem. And I will continue >> >> >> to use my unaltered atomic clock, thank you. The earth clock is >> >> >> of no use for me because I don't want to relearn that boiling a >> >> >> hard egg takes 9 minutes instead of 10 and proper LP revolution >> >> >> speed is 37 rpm instead of 33. I will probably even keep labeling >> >> >> my (proper) time events using the classical formula, because I'm >> >> >> used to 24 hour days etc, and in that sense I will start new >> >> >> 'year' about 6 days earlier than you will do on ground, but I >> >> >> will understand that my labeling doesn't synch with the earth >> >> >> rotation anymore - so I will not get confused. >> >> >> > You may not get confused, but you will be incorrect. What is >> >> > considered a second should be modified as follows: >> >> >> >http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-1/second.html >> >> >> > At its 1997 meeting the CIPM affirmed that: >> >> >> > This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a >> >> > temperature of 0 K at sea level. >> >> >> This is the current definition of the second. Clocks should be >> >> calibrated against this definition - so what? >> >> > That is not the current definition of a second. Yes, clocks should be >> > calibrated against the definition which includes 'at sea level'. >> >> 'That is not the current definition of a second' - what is it then? >> >> > This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a >> > temperature of 0 K [AT SEA LEVEL]. >> >> I know where this leads: on-orbit the astronaut should use the >> on-ground (sea level) clock :) However this is not the meaning of the >> standard - I can assure you that the people behind the definition are >> too smart for that, they have heard about GR. But I can see why you are >> confused: if it is allowed for the second to be 'different length' at >> different gravitational potentials why then mention the sea level at >> all? I'm not actually sure and don't bother to find out. But what is >> certain is that the definition of second does not overthrow GR, and >> there is no indication that e.g., astronauts on orbit should use an >> earth clock for timing their procedures and experiments. >> >> > I added 'at sea level'. The astronauts need to reset their atomic clock > if they want it to 'tick' at the correct rate for a second. I appreciate you pointing your addendum out - thanks. So now I just don't understand why bring out the standard definition of the second in the first place - how does this strengthen your case at all? We already knew that you wanted the 'earth clock' to stand as some ultimate reference. Adding this 'at sea level' by your own to the regular time standard doesn't make your stance any more justified. >> >> >> Your clock with the paddle-hand. How does the increase of >> >> >> hydrostatic pressure slow down the hand rotation? And in any case >> >> >> what has this rotating handle to do with the operation of an >> >> >> atomic clock? Does the atomic clock have some rotating paddle >> >> >> that interacts with aether - if so where? I already asked you >> >> >> before to clarify how does the aether pressure on the nucleus >> >> >> affect the reading of an atomic clock - this can be considered as >> >> >> the same question - please answer. >> >> >> > This is the definition of a second: >> >> >> >http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-1/second.html >> >> >> > "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the >> >> > radiation corresponding to the transition between the two >> >> > hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom." >> >> >> > The rate at which the caesium 133 atom transitions between the two >> >> > hyperfine levels is dependent upon the aether pressure in which it >> >> > exists. The greater the pressure associated with the aether, the >> >> > longer it takes for the caesium atom to transition between the two >> >> > hyperfine levels. >> >> >> This doesn't make much sense. You quite clearly don't know how an >> >> atomic clock works. Otherwise you wouldn't have written 'the longer >> >> it takes for the caesium atom to transition between the two >> >> hyperfine levels' - this is just pathetic. >> >> >> General vague statements 'aether pressure affects the atomic clock >> >> somehow' are just not enough - no matter how many time you repeat >> >> them. Please explain your model, by which mechanism the aether >> >> pressure does affect the operation of atomic clocks - and with such >> >> detail that we can actually calculate the quantitative results. >> >> Otherwise your 'theory' is useless. >> >> > When the astronaut on the space ship calculates how much time is >> > passes by using the distant stars and the Earth's orbit of the Sun >> > the astronaut concludes one year has passed. The atomic clock states >> > 360 days have passed. The atomic clock is incorrect. >> >> You have made also this statement already thank you, it's truth value >> doesn't change no matter how often you repeat it. I asked what is the >> mechanism and a way to get quantitative (that is numerical in this >> case) predictions. >> >> And please describe how an atomic clock works and how does the aether >> pressure affect the readings. Well? >> >> And I'm still waiting you to explain how increasing hydrostatic >> >> pressure would slow down the movement of the 'paddle hand' in water? >> >> >> >> And as an extra gift, I copy here my major question (with >> >> >> corollary) from the previous message that you forgot to answer. I >> >> >> will add to the question to make it a bit more concrete. >> >> >> >> Now that I have answered all your questions (once again) I assume >> >> >> you will return the courtesy before we will proceed further. >> >> >> >> Here is my main question: >> >> >> a) You have said that the GPS atomic clock time follow the GR >> >> >> equations (somehow because of the aether pressure on nuclei) b) >> >> >> You have said that biological/chemical processes (aging) won't >> >> >> follow the GR equations (but they can't be used as a clock >> >> >> either, something to do with the 'time being a concept' or >> >> >> something) >> >> >> >> Question: how did you come up with the insight expressed in >> >> >> statement b? Addition: how do you know that this aether pressure >> >> >> that affects atomic clock operations doesn't affect the chemical >> >> >> reactions (aging, boiling of eggs) similarly? >> >> >> >> This of course breaks down GR theory >> >> >> > It does not break down GR theory. It is simply pointing out that >> >> > the rate at which an atomic clock ticks is based upon the aether >> >> > pressure in which it exists. >> >> >> This must be your most stupid statement thus far (quite an >> >> achievement actually). Earlier you stated that e.g., record player >> >> (a device combining electromagnetic and mechanical aspects of the >> >> universe) rotation speed would not follow GR prediction, and now you >> >> say that this doesn't break GR - too stupid to be even hilarious. >> >> No comment here? >> >> > It does not break GR as a mathematical theory. Aether Displacement > breaks relativity. Everything is with respect to the aether. Whooopi doo - it does not break GR as a mathematical theory! There was never any way 'Aether Displacement' could break GR in mathematical or any other way. The only way to break GR is to show that it's predictions don't match the empirical measurements. Even then 'Aether Displacement' can not be declared the winner _unless_ your theory will provide the correct predictions for the measurements. And that would necessarily require some equations. You have earlier indicated that we can use the GR to calculate the aether effects. Is it really so hard to understand that in order to do so, you can't make clocks, chemistry or any other physical process behave differently in relation to each other at different g-field localities. There just is no machinery in GR to separate handling of these processes differently - there is just one 't' shared by all processes in a locality. >> >> > The aether pressure on and through the human body will also affect >> >> > the human body but to think everything associated with the human >> >> > body will simply slow down, for example the digestion of food, at >> >> > a rate associated with the rate at which an atomic clock ticks is >> >> > unfounded. >> >> >> It is founded on the what GR predicts. GR is the other most >> >> successful theory in physics thus far. Please note that among other >> >> facts to support the theory we have flown several types of atomic >> >> clocks on orbits (different orbits, different nuclei, different >> >> energy transitions) and all have behaved according to the GR >> >> prediction. What you are saying is that this is just a _coincidence_ >> >> and an effect due to an _undefined_ interaction with aether >> >> pressure. >> >> > The clocks are traveling with respect to the aether. >> >> > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections >> > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" >> >> > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the >> > matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the >> > aether's state of displacement. >> >> You just wanted to write something/anything? Be my guest, but this >> doesn't address the issue at hand here (I'm beginning to get accustomed >> to this - actually I'm beginning to get fed up with this). Perhaps it >> escaped you, but you didn't define the interaction. Your new buzzword >> seems to be the 'state of the aether' (perhaps you are beginning >> subconsciously to be aware about the problems pertaining to the earlier >> love affair with the 'aether pressure'). In physics if you have 'state >> of the aether' one would assume that you also have the equations >> describing this state, so we could actually know what the heck you are >> talking about and start checking whether this system is logically >> consistent at first place and if it has anything to do with the >> measurable empirical reality in the second. >> >> > Why don't you figure out how a particle moves through a frictionless > superfluid by displacing the frictionless superfluid without applying > pressure to the frictionless superfluid before you start to discuss > 'aether pressure'. Why should I figure out that? Because for all I know there could be an associated pressure. You on the other hand seem to be totally unaware of the distinction of and relationships between the basic physical concepts like: 'pressure' '(net)force', friction', etc. And besides I think it is you who started to discuss 'aether pressure' in the first place - it is your concept. You wanting to explain the workings of your 'model' is of course up to you - but if you are not willing to do so, it is really hard to understand why are you making your statements here in the first place. >> >> I don't believe in that kind of >> >> coincidences before you give me a very good reason to do so. No one >> >> will take you seriously before you can show how to model your aether >> >> and how to actually calculate the associated pressure effects. >> >> The above statement still holds. The above statement still holds. Cheers, Esa(R) -- Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey: #30: If you go parachuting, and your parachute doesn't open, and your friends are all watching you fall, I think a funny gag would be to pretend you were swimming.
From: Esa Riihonen on 7 Apr 2010 17:40 mpc755 kirjoitti: > On Mar 31, 9:59 am, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: >> Sorry to be so slow responding. I have work and even other hobbies to >> blame, but to be honest I also start to get frustrated and dizzy as I >> feel as if I'm trying to nail jello in a 'merry go round'. >> >> > You are getting dizzy because you do not understand nature. You > understand a particle can move through a frictionless superfluid and > fill-in where the particle was but you insist there is no pressure > involved in how this is done. To you, it's magic. You understand the > moving particle displaces the frictionless superfluid, but somehow to > you, it does this without applying pressure to the superfluid. To you, > it's magic. You do not understand why conservation of momentum does not > apply to a downgraded photon pair at the same time insisting it is > because of 'Bell's inequality'. You are trying to use an 'inequality' to > describe a physical behavior. For some unexplainable reason you insist > conservation of momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair. To > you, it's magic (or 'Bell's inequality' obfuscation since Bell's > inequality is not a physical explanation as to why conservation of > momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair). Well actually I am not insisting: 1) there is no pressure involved for particle moving in superfluid For all I know there must be an associated pressure. You on the other hand seem to be totally unaware of the distinction of and relationships between the basic physical concepts like: 'pressure' '(net)force', friction', etc. In the situation described in your reference a particle would proceed with the same speed forever - that would mean that there is no friction in the first place but also that all the pressure effects ('from all sides') will result in a zero net force. 2) conservation of momentum won't apply to downgraded (coupled) photon pair Of course conservation of momentum will apply and what is more important so will also the conservation of spin (helicity). 3) Bell's inequality somehow breaks conservation of momentum for the photon pair You didn't look at the Bell's inequality did you? It says nothing about breaking of any conservation laws. If you had looked at it and understood the concept you would not think anymore that the issue is conservation of (angular) momentum. The point is to show the relationships between measurements of the spins (of the entangled particles) along different relative orientations. The predictions of QM differ from the classical ones (also ones with the local 'hidden variables') - and the measurements agree with QM. But as the deeper handling of the issue involves _equations_ I'm ready to drop the subject here because I think I came up with a better experiment to test your aether model against - one that can be explained without _equations_. I will bring that other model up in the sister thread were you also brought this up. > Here is a thought experiment you should answer before we continue. It > will allow me to understand if there is any hope of your ability to not > be dizzy: No need for concern about my dizziness any more - turned out I got a 'stomach flu' (norovirus) - nasty stuff, but seems to be past now. You of course have every right in the world to stop responding at any time. It is your own (aether) model on table - if you don't want to answer question about it - fine. But then I really don't understand what are you doing here in the first place. > A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). While the C-60 molecule is in the > slit(s) detectors are placed at the exits to the slits. When there are > detectors at the exits to the slits the C-60 molecule is always detected > exiting a single slit. If the detectors are placed and removed from the > exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) the C-60 > molecule creates an interference pattern. > > Explain how this is possible without aether. Well - there are several 'explanations' or interpretations available. I guess you have heard about Copenhagen Interpretation. Also DeBroglie, Bohm, Bell, etc. have presented their views on the subject. Any will do - no aether. I see no reason to try to copy any of the explanations here - go look from some book. Physics by statements - again: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie > > "This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that any > moving particle or object had an associated wave." > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > by the double solution theory > Louis de BROGLIE' > http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > "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." > > "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." > > de Broglie's definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave > and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of > the wave. > > In AD, the external field is the aether. In a double slit experiment the > particle occupies a very small region of the wave and enters and exits a > single slit. The wave enters and exits the available slits. > > In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The > C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the associated > aether displacement wave enters and exits the available slits. The > displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which > alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 > molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether displacement wave > (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no interference. Do you think that repetition of this tirade will somehow answer the questions. Do you think that repetition of this tirade will somehow make it more clear. Do you think that repetition of this tirade will somehow make it more true. If you think any of that, I can tell it is not working. Perhaps you should try to CAPITALIZE the text next time. >> mpc755 kirjoitti: >> >> > On Mar 24, 8:42 am, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> >> > wrote: >> >> mpc755 kirjoitti: >> >> >> > 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." >> >> >> This from page 15. It would be nice if you could indicate at least >> >> the page number when quoting. >> >> >> > 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'. >> >> >> The 'real physical wave' is a single entity. It's amplitude is low >> >> except in a very small region of high amplitude - that can be seen >> >> for practical purposes to represent the associated particle. The >> >> 'real wave' is constructed mathematically from two parts the low >> >> amplitude 'v-wave' (a solution for the Schrödinger or Klein-Gordon >> >> -equation) and an almost point-like singular solution, the 'high >> >> amplitude wave'. These combined give the 'real wave', itself also a >> >> solution to the same Schrödinger. >> >> >> As is usual when discussing QM, it seems that we have reached the >> >> point where are more or less discussing semantics and >> >> interpretations. However, I must concede that you have a point (PI) >> >> here. You may identify the v- wave as a separate entity to the high >> >> amplitude wave 'the particle'. My view is that the 'real thing' is >> >> the 'real wave' and introducing the 'high amplitude part' and adding >> >> a small multiplication factor to the standard solution to get the >> >> low-amplitude v-wave are just mathematical tricks introduced in >> >> order to be able to keep the particle properties (e.g. charge) from >> >> spreading all around along the stadard Schrödingen wave. >> >> >> But I have to concede that you have every right for a different >> >> interpretation and to considering the low- and high-amplitude parts >> >> separately when developing your interpretation. >> >> >> Unfortunately I can not see how your aether 'displacement wave' >> >> would correspond the v-wave which is a solution to the Schrödinger? >> >> Other point is that when using this model the v-wave and the >> >> particle will be necessarily made out of the same 'stuff' as the >> >> aether, this seems also a problem. >> >> > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics >> > by the double solution theory >> > Louis de BROGLIE' >> >http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf >> >> > "These are essentially based on the way in which quantities >> > respectively characterizing the regular v wave and the internal u0 >> > wave of the particle connect with the neighbourhood of the singular >> > region. u0 would have to increase very sharply as one penetrates the >> > singular region." >> >> > This seems to be very similar to Einstein's concept of: >> >> > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity >> > by >> > Albert Einstein' >> >http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html >> >> > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections >> > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places". >> >> > There is a connectedness between the particle and the neighborhood. >> > There is a connectedness between the matter and the aether. >> >> > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the >> > matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the >> > aether's state of displacement. >> >> And what does this babble have anything to do with either of the >> issues/ question above? >> >> The absurdity of the your 'similarity' has been handled in the sister >> thread. >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> Actually I think this was the exact interpretation de Broglie aimed >> >> at. >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> Perhaps we just have to agree to disagree here. What he means here >> >> is obviously also that the particle is 'not pushed around like a >> >> cork in water'. Note that the 'real wave' is a solution to the >> >> Schrödinger and thus corresponds to the probability of finding the >> >> particle in a certain volume of space at certain time, and it fills >> >> the whole domain under consideration. The interpretation is not very >> >> straightforward. >> >> > In de Broglie wave mechanics the C-60 molecule enters and exits a >> > single slit in a double slit experiment. >> >> In a manner of speaking - yes. >> >> >> >> 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 !" >> >> >> Yes in a way he did, but it seems that you don't quite understand >> >> what is the context, what is the 'Copenhagen interpretation' and >> >> what are de Broglie's 'real waves'. >> >> >> According to my understanding de Broglie tried here to develop a >> >> theory that would allow an alternate more 'concrete' interpretation >> >> of the QM phenomena. And he apparently succeeded at least to some >> >> degree - it works for certain set of phenomena. The theory was then >> >> carried further by at least Bohm. I'm actually quite sympathetic to >> >> their effort (so far that I can follow the process) but I'm nobody >> >> and AFAICT it has not been adapted for most of the physicists that >> >> are actually working on that field. >> >> >> But there is a major point regarding your 'model' - nowhere do >> >> either de Broglie or Bohm refer to the naive aether concept, and >> >> here is the reason - no one has been able to make it work. >> >> > Because no one figure out Aether Displacement. >> >> It seems that no one has 'figured it out' even now. Making bold >> statements don't count as 'figuring out' something - sorry. You must >> make the system work and that would require construction of a >> mathematical model. But of course, you seem totally incapable of doing >> so. >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> What an earth has an out of context Einstein quote doing in a middle >> >> of the discussion about a paper by de Broglie? Perhaps if you would >> >> be so kind and provide a proper citation indicating from where you >> >> have picked that cherry, we could also discuss it's relevance, but >> >> not before. >> >> > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics >> > by the double solution theory >> > Louis de BROGLIE' >> >http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf >> >> > "These are essentially based on the way in which quantities >> > respectively characterizing the regular v wave and the internal u0 >> > wave of the particle connect with the neighbourhood of the singular >> > region. u0 would have to increase very sharply as one penetrates the >> > singular region." >> >> > This is very similar to Einstein's concept of: >> >> > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity >> > by >> > Albert Einstein' >> >http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html >> >> > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections >> > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places". >> >> > There is a connectedness between the particle and the neighborhood. >> > There is a connectedness between the matter and the aether. >> >> > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the >> > matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the >> > aether's state of displacement. >> >> This is a third incarnation of these statements so far (in this thread >> and its sibling). I have dealt with the absurdity of the 'similarity' >> in the 'sister thread'. Thanks for providing the reference though. >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> The rejection of aether has very strong basis - it just doesn't >> >> work. Many respectable physicists have studied the concept, but have >> >> been forced to concede before the undisputable experimental facts. >> >> >> We have delved deep in to the interpretation of QM, and I must admit >> >> I just barely can hold my head on surface anymore (if event that). >> >> But actually we were discussing your aether model so let me make >> >> some question regarding it. >> >> >> 1) Why does your aether displacement wave obey Schrödinger-equation >> >> (or in case relativistic cases the Klein-Gordon equation)? >> >> No answer? >> Crickets chirping ... >> >> 2) How do you quantify the aethers 'state of displacement'? >> >> > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the >> > matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the >> > aether's state of displacement. >> >> I did ask: how do you 'quantify' it?. What are the mathematical >> relations describing the 'state of displacement', the equations, what >> numbers should be put and where so we can start crunching? >> OMG - NO ANSWER! >> >> 3) How (explain the mechanism) does the 'state of displacement' >> >> effect the movement of the particle that caused it in the first >> >> place? >> >> No answer? >> Hello? >> >> 4) If we have a gas in a closed container and add a ball there, the >> >> pressure will be the same throughout, including at the surface of >> >> the ball. >> >> According to your model the aether pressure around an object has a >> >> gradient (greater pressure at the surface decreasing outwards) - >> >> please explain. >> >> > See hydrostatic pressure. >> >> Hydrostatics pressure is the pressure in the body of fluid due to >> _gravity_. It seems peculiar that this 'aether pressure' that is >> supposed to be the cause of gravity is at the same time caused by it. >> Kind of circular 'reasoning' here. >> >> > Displacement creates pressure. Could be - could be not, depends on the situation. But it certainly don't create 'hydrostatic pressure' as defined above. Please clarify. >> >> 5) The pressure gradient in (4) would normally produce a net force >> >> on an object that is pointing _outwards_. Gravity quite apparently >> >> pushes to the reverse direction - please clarify? >> >> > See hydrostatic pressure. >> >> Yes - in hydrostatics this net force I talked above is called >> 'buoyancy' and as I told you - it is directed to opposite direction >> than gravity. >> >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_statics#Hydrostatic_pressure > > "Since pressure is defined as the force exerted on a test area (p = F/ > A, with p: pressure, F: force normal to area A, A: area), and the only > force acting on any such small cube of fluid is the weight of the fluid > column above it" Certainly. Note that here we are speaking about an (infinitesimal) 'small cube of fluid' used as an auxiliary concept when deriving/explaining the concept (hydrostatic pressure). I hope you don't have any mistaken notion that the fluid column weight somehow presses an immersed object downwards. In the referred page just scroll down somewhat and you see a short discussion about buoyancy to clarify the matter. It is still an indisputable fact that if your pressure gradient is inwards the associated (pressure) force on an immersed object will be outwards. > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by the matter is the > pressure associated with the aether above the object. If you say so - but look at the integral equation just below the text you referred there. What do the rho and g stand for in your model? Especially here g is the acceleration of gravity - but as you want to get the gravitational force from the pressure, I assume it must be something else. Probably you must provide some different equation altogether. Cheers, Esa(R) -- A circle is a round straight line with a hole in the middle.
From: Esa Riihonen on 7 Apr 2010 17:40 mpc755 kirjoitti: > On Mar 31, 9:45 am, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: >> Sorry to be so slow responding. I have work and even other hobbies to >> blame, but to be honest I also start to get frustrated and dizzy as I >> feel as if I'm trying to nail jello in a 'merry go round'. >> >> mpc755 kirjoitti: >> >> > On Mar 24, 8:20 am, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> >> > wrote: >> >> mpc755 kirjoitti: >> >> >> > On Mar 21, 7:33 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.' >> >> >> >> > are you not able to understand? >> >> >> >> Replied in an other message. >> >> >> > You did not answer the above in the other message. What part of >> >> > 'external field' do you not understand? >> >> >> Certainly did - check yourself: >> >> >> === CUT AND PASTE STARTS == >> >> >> > 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) >> >> >> === CUT AND PASTE ENDS === >> >> >> Perhaps you should have refrained from splitting this discussion in >> >> to too many subthreads - it apparently can get confusing. >> >> >> >> > Here is another one: >> >> >> >> > "If a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its >> >> >> > nature would seem desirable. It certainly is of quite complex >> >> >> > character. It could not serve as a universal reference medium, >> >> >> > as this would be contrary to relativity theory." >> >> >> >> > There is a sub-quantum medium, the aether. >> >> >> >> Notice the 'If' (it is there at the very beginning of the first >> >> >> sentence), there are also several 'coulds' and 'woulds' inserted >> >> >> in the text (find them yourself). They are there not without >> >> >> purpose - de Broglie is hypotizing about the further developments >> >> >> - which however have not realized. You could look for example on >> >> >> 'hidden variable theories'. >> >> >> > de Broglie is discussing the aether. Maybe de Broglie had the same >> >> > misconceptions of the aether as did Newton. Maybe they both did >> >> > not understand the existence of frictionless superfluids or >> >> > frictionless supersolids. >> >> >> I think it is obvious that de Broglie was quite aware of all the >> >> aether models ever developed at the time of writing the paper under >> >> discussion. But this is interesting, is your aether perhaps >> >> 'frictionless superfluid' and are the particles 'frictionless >> >> supersolids'? >> >> > 'Frictionless supersolid a step closer' >> >http://www.physorg.com/news185201084.html >> >> > "Superfluidity and superconductivity cause particles to move without >> > friction. Koos Gubbels investigated under what conditions such >> > particles keep moving endlessly without losing energy, like a swimmer >> > who takes one mighty stroke and then keeps gliding forever along the >> > swimming pool." >> >> > In the analogy the swimmer is any body and the water is the aether. >> > Just as the swimmer displaces the water, whether the swimmer is at >> > rest with respect to the water, or not, a body displaces the aether, >> > whether the body is at rest with respect to the aether, or not. >> >> > 'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum >> > medium and the inertial motion of particles' >> >http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0701/0701155.pdf >> >> > "Abstract: The similarity between the energy spectra of relativistic >> > particles and that of quasi-particles in super-conductivity BCS >> > theory makes us conjecture that the relativistic physical vacuum >> > medium as the ground state of the background field is a super fluid >> > medium, and the rest mass of a relativistic particle is like the >> > energy gap of a quasi-particle. This conjecture is strongly supported >> > by the results of our following investigation: a particle moving >> > through the vacuum medium at a speed less than the speed of light in >> > vacuum, though interacting with the vacuum medium, never feels >> > friction force and thus undergoes a frictionless and inertial >> > motion." >> >> > A particle in the super fluid medium displaces the super fluid >> > medium, whether the particle is at rest with respect to the super >> > fluid medium, or not. >> >> > A particle in the aether displaces the aether, whether the particle >> > is at rest with respect to the aether, or not. The particle could be >> > an individual nucleus. >> >> Interesting. Earlier you have explained the time dilatation effect of >> an atomic clock by comparing it to a analog clock with a 'paddle hand' >> in water - somehow increasing hydrostatic pressure would mean slower >> hand rotation. I did ask about that (no answer), but assumed you >> actually meant (that instead of pressure) the water friction >> (viscosity) would be the reason. But now you inform that the aether is >> actually a superfluid and thus frictionless - so I was apparently >> totally wrong with that assumption. Perhaps you could clarify how the >> pressure of a _frictionless_ fluid affects the motion of immersed >> objects (particles)? >> >> > For the first analogy of the "swimmer who takes one mighty stroke and > then keeps gliding forever along the swimming pool", does the water > fill-in where the swimmer was or is there a void left in the 'water'? > How does the water fill-in where the swimmer was unless the water > applies pressure towards the swimmer? The mightier the swimmers stroke > the faster the swimmer glides forever along the swimming pool. The > faster the swimmer glides along the swimming pool the more water the > swimmer displaces. How does the amount of water displaced by the swimmer > change depending upon how fast the swimmer moves through the water if > there is no pressure being applied by the swimmer against the water? This is QM area - thus weird. But for all I know there could quite well be a pressure involved. However, if you knew some physics at all, you would know that it is not the pressure that affects the movement of an object - but the (net) force. Thus 'once set in motion the object will proceed forever with the same speed' means that the net force due to the pressure must be zero. It also means that the object/fluid interface must be totally smooth and there can be no traveling waves generated in to the medium. Waves need energy and there is no source. So please tell how the increasing hydrostatic pressure will slow down the 'paddle hand' in the immersed clock. Here is my problem with it: the hydrostatic pressure will have zero net force on the hand (same pressure on the back side as on the front side of the paddle). And if the fluid is frictionless to boot - then there seems to be no external force on the hand no matter what the ambient pressure is. >> > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. >> >> I think I have had this deja vu already earlier. >> >> > Aether is displaced by an individual nucleus. When discussing gravity >> > as the pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive >> > object, what is being discussed is the aether being displaced by each >> > and every nucleus which is the matter which is the object. >> >> > A C-60 molecule displaces the aether. >> >> > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. >> > The C-60 molecule itself occupies a very small region of the wave. >> > The C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit in a double slit >> > experiment. The associated aether displacement wave enters and exits >> > the available slits. When the aether displacement wave exits the >> > slits it creates interference which alters the direction the C-60 >> > molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of >> > the associated aether displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and >> > there is no interference. >> >> And again ... >> >> > The Casimir Effect is caused by gravity. >> >> And now the Casimir effect - who would have known. >> >> > I know. > >> > Each and every nucleus which is the matter which is the plate >> > displaces the aether. >> >> > The aether displaced by one plate extends past the other plate. >> >> > The pressure exerted by the aether displaced by the plates forces the >> > plates together. >> >> One question at this point (you have seen it before): is there an >> aether density gradient quantifying this displacement - perhaps you >> could answer this time? Answering this question at this time would help >> understanding the mechanism by which this attractive force will rise. >> >> > It's not an attractive force. It is a force associated with > displacement. Ok - how does this 'force associated with displacement' arise? Is there an aether density gradient and if so what is it's form (a crude description would do at this stage)? >> > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics >> > by the double solution theory >> > Louis de BROGLIE' >> >http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf >> >> > "These are essentially based on the way in which quantities >> > respectively characterizing the regular v wave and the internal u0 >> > wave of the particle connect with the neighbourhood of the singular >> > region. u0 would have to increase very sharply as one penetrates the >> > singular region." >> >> > This seems to be very similar to Einstein's concept of: >> >> > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity >> > by >> > Albert Einstein' >> >http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html >> >> > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections >> > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places". >> >> > There is a connectedness between the particle and the neighborhood. >> > There is a connectedness between the matter and the aether. >> >> > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the >> > matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the >> > aether's state of displacement. >> You wrote: 'similar to Einstein's concept of [aether]' Well perhaps >> with >> >> some extragalactic (perhaps 'extracosmic' would suit better) meaning of >> the word 'similar'. You should study some physics (including all this >> mathematics and stuff - you know) before reading these papers - you >> would be much better able to understand the meaning of some of the >> terms used, and whats more, perhaps even identify the parts that you >> don't understand. >> >> I help you here a little to interpret the Einstein paper you referred. >> From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories), read >> section 'Aether and general relativity'. The 'aether' E is talking >> about is the spacetime-field of the GR - with _NO_ mechanical >> properties, that is: bye bye aether pressure. What is more, this >> Einstein 'aether' consists (if one can use the word) of the geometric >> properties of the spacetime (the essence of GR) one effect of which is >> the 'different running speed of time' at different depths of gravity >> wells. >> >> > Einstein discusses the state of the aether as, "the state of the [ether] > is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the > state of the ether in neighbouring places". Yes, as I said this ether of his is the space-time field. And the state of the space-time field (including these connections) is very thoroughly described in the mathematical formulas of GR. Thus these words are not just loose verbal waffle, they have a deep and concrete substance expressed very clearly by the associated mathematics. > The state of the aether in Aether Displacement is the aether's state of > displacement. You perhaps don't understand - but as such this really is an empty statement. It has no meaning associated with it. It might have some poetical value though. >> This 'aether's state of displacement' (this really sounds so sciency), >> please give the associated equations defining the state (equations of >> state so to speak). This is still desperately needed. >> >> > Doesn't matter, the sub-quantum medium de Broglie is referring to, >> >> > is the aether. >> >> >> Physics by statements - why not try mathematics for a change. And >> >> please look at the 'hidden variables' and 'non locality' regarding >> >> this sub- quantum medium, and come back only when your aether model >> >> can cope with these issues. >> >> > 'Instantaneous action at a distance' is nothing more than >> > conservation of momentum. When a downgraded photon pair are created, >> > in order for the original photons momentum to be conserved, the >> > downgraded photon pair must have opposite angular momentums. >> >> > Why don't you revisit conservation of momentum and figure out why it >> > doesn't apply to downgraded photon pairs in order for there to be >> > instantaneous action at a distance. >> >> I'm afraid that this is much more subtle thing than just conservation >> of (classical) angular momentum. Here are some nice discussions >> explaining Bell's inequality (watch for >> wrap):http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/BellsTheorem/ BellsTheorem... >> But you should perhaps start from >> here:http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/BellsTheorem/ Analogy.html >> >> But beware, this is genuinely 'weird stuff' - even weirder than the >> conglomerate of your declarations - but with the distinction that this >> has both mathematical and experimental backing. >> >> > It isn't more subtle than conservation of angular momentum. It is made > weird because you do not understand it is conservation of momentum. > > Why don't you read this: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation_of_linear_momentum > And reply only when you have figured out how conservation of momentum > does not apply to a downgraded photon pair. I am not referring to > 'Bell's inequality'. I am asking you to state why conservation of > momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair. Now, I know you > will respond because of 'Bell's inequality', which means you can not > answer why conservation of momentum does not physically apply to a > downgraded photon pair. Huh? Why do you think I think that conservation of momentum would not apply? Au contraire, of course it does - as does the spin etc. You didn't look at the Bell's inequality did you? It says nothing about breaking of any conservation laws. If you had looked at it and understood the concept you would not think anymore that the issue is conservation of (angular) momentum. The point is to show the relationships between measurements of the spins (of the entangled particles) along different relative orientations. The predictions of QM differ from the classical ones (also ones with the local 'hidden variables') - and the measurements agree with QM. But as the deeper handling of the issue involves _equations_ I'm ready to drop the subject here because I think I came up with a better experiment to test your aether model against - one that can be explained without _equations_. Because you brought up downgraded photon pairs I think we could use the experiment of quantum eraser to get some sense of your aether model: http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/ Note that this is a description of a real experiment. I think that explaining what happens here using your aether model, would help tremendously in understanding it. [snip old stuff] Cheers, Esa(R) -- "The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist." W. Churchill, Nov 21, 1943
From: mpc755 on 7 Apr 2010 21:46
On Apr 7, 5:40 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > You have made these same points in more or less same form in the other > threads on subject - why proliferate the threads? > > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > > > On Mar 31, 9:45 am, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > >> Sorry to be so slow responding. I have work and even other hobbies to > >> blame, but to be honest I also start to get frustrated and dizzy as I > >> feel as if I'm trying to nail jello in a 'merry go round'. > > > Before we continue, let's see if there is any reason to. > > > 'Frictionless supersolid a step closer' > >http://www.physorg.com/news185201084.html > > > "Superfluidity and superconductivity cause particles to move without > > friction. Koos Gubbels investigated under what conditions such particles > > keep moving endlessly without losing energy, like a swimmer who takes > > one mighty stroke and then keeps gliding forever along the swimming > > pool." > > > I take it you understand the moving swimmer displaces the water, > > correct? > > Certainly. > > > How does the swimmer displace the water without applying pressure to the > > water? > > I don't know - why should he? > Because the water no longer exists where the swimmer is. > > I take it you understand the water fills-in where the moving swimmer > > was, correct? > > Seems reasonable. > > > How does the water fill-in where the swimmer was without applying > > pressure towards the swimmer? > > Probably does. > > > I take it you understand a moving particle displaces a frictionless > > superfluid, correct? > > Certainly. > > > How does the particle displace the frictionless superfluid without > > appying pressure to the frictionless superfluid? > > I don't know - why should it? > Because the superfluid no longer exists where the particle is. > > I take it you understand the frictionless superfluid fills-in where the > > moving particle was, correct? > > I'm not expert on frictionless superfluids so I'm definitely not sure - > but it seems resonable - at least under gravitation > > > How does the frictionless superfluid fill-in where the moving particle > > was without apply pressure towards the particle? > > I don't know - should I know? > Yes, the particle applies pressure towards the superfluid, displacing the superfluid. The superfluid applies pressure towards the particle, filling in where the particle was. > You presented the same questions in a somewhat different form in some of > the other threads. Read my answer(s) there. In short you seem to be > totally unaware that it is not the pressure but the net force that is the > issue. You can quite well have non zero pressure but still zero net > force. And the net force must be zero in the situation described - > otherwise the swimmer would not continue forever with the same speed. > Exactly. There is non zero pressure associated with a particle displacing a frictionless superfluid. There is non zero pressure associated with matter displacing the aether. Aether and matter are different states of the same material. Aether is displaced by matter. Displacement creates pressure. Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. |