Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 7 Apr 2010 22:10 On Apr 7, 5:40 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > 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. > Yes, there is pressure. 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. > 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). > Yes, there is conservation of momentum. Conservation of momentum requires there to be opposite angular momentums of the associated downgraded pair. Meaning, the downgraded photon pairs will always be detected with opposite spins. > 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_. > Bell's inequality invalided by conservation of momentum. > 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. > Yes, de Broglie answers the question because there is a physical particle and a physical wave. 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. No reason to continue until you can answer the above. No one has answered the above question, unless you accept the absurd nonsense the future determines the past and the C-60 molecule will enter one slit or the available slits depending upon detectors being there when the C-60 molecule gets there in the future. The above is not answered by the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. Yes, it is answered by de Broglie. In de Broglie wave mechanics there is a physical particle and a physical wave. In AD, the physical wave is an aether wave. > Physics by statements - again: > Physics by de Broglie Wave Mechanics where the physical wave is an aether wave. Whenever you want to explain how the question can be answered without a physical wave propagating through the available slits, go ahead an post it. Until then, the physical wave is an aether wave. 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. > >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. > The hydrostatic pressure is also caused by the aether pressure. The aether pressure is caused by the aether being displaced by matter. > > 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: mpc755 on 7 Apr 2010 22:33 On Apr 7, 5:40 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > 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. > Yes, but there is pressure. > 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. > The greater the hydrostatic pressure the slower the displacement of the frictionless superfluid by the paddle. > >> > 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)? > 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. > >> > '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. > Yes, the space-time field is described mathematically in GR. The space- time field is not defined physically in nature in GR. In nature, the physical state of the aether as determined by its physical connections with the matter is the aether's physical state of displacement. > > 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. > You perhaps don't understand - but stating, "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", is not a physical description of nature. It might have some mathematical 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. > The following is an explanation of what occurs in nature in a 'delayed choice quantum eraser' experiment. Following the explanation are two experiments which will provide evidence of Aether Displacement. In the image on the right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment When the downgraded photon pair are created, in order for there to be conservation of momentum, the original photons momentum is maintained. This means the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. We will describe one of the photons as being the 'up' photon and the other photon as being the 'down' photon. One of the downgraded photons travels either the red or blue path towards D0 and the other photon travels either the red or blue path towards the prism. There are physical waves in the aether propagating both the red and blue paths. The aether waves propagating towards D0 interact with the lens and create interference prior to reaching D0. The aether waves create interference which alters the direction the photon travels prior to reaching D0. There are actually two interference patterns being created at D0. One associated with the 'up' photons when they arrive at D0 and the other interference pattern associated with the 'down' photons when they arrive at D0. Both 'up' and 'down' photons are reflected by BSa and arrive at D3. Since there is a single path towards D3 there is nothing for the wave in the aether to interfere with and there is no interference pattern and since it is not determined if it is an 'up' or 'down' photon being detected at D3 there is no way to distinguish between the photons arriving at D0 which interference pattern each photon belongs to. The same for photons reflected by BSb and arrive at D4. Photons which pass through BSa and are reflected by BSc and arrive at D1 are either 'up' or 'down' photons but not both. If 'up' photons arrive at D1 then 'down' photons arrive at D2. The opposite occurs for photons which pass through BSb. Photons which pass through BSa and pass through BSb and arrive at D1 are all either 'up' or 'down' photons. If all 'up' photons arrive at D1 then all 'down' photons arrive at D2. Since the physical waves in the aether traveling both the red and blue paths are combined prior to D1 and D2 the aether waves create interference which alters the direction the photon travels. Since all 'up' photons arrive at one of the detectors and all 'down' photons arrive at the other an interference pattern is created which reflects back to the interference both sets of photons are creating at D0. Figures 3 and 4 here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9903/9903047v1.pdf Show the interference pattern of the 'up' and 'down' photons. If you were to combine the two images and add the peaks together and add the valleys together you would have the interference pattern of the original photon. This is evidence the downgraded photon pair maintain the original photons momentum and have opposite angular momentums. Nothing is erased. There is no delayed choice. Physical waves in the aether are traveling both the red and blue paths and when the paths are combined the waves create interference which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels. Experiments which will provide evidence of Aether Displacement: Experiment #1: Instead of having a single beam splitter BSc have two beam splitters BSca and BScb. Have the photons reflected by mirror Ma interact with BSca and have the photons reflected by mirror Mb interact with BScb. Do not combine the red and blue paths. Have additional detectors D1a, D2a, D1b, and D2b. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BSca be detected at D1a and D2a. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BScb be detected at D1b and D2b. If you compare the photons detected at D1a and D1b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. If you compare the photons detected at D2a and D2b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. What is occurring is all 'up' photons are being detected at one pair of detectors, for example D1a and D1b, and all 'down' photons are being detected at the other pair of detectors, for example D2a and D2b. Interference patterns do not even need to be created in order to 'go back' and determine the interference patterns created at D0. Experiment #2: Alter the experiment. When the downgraded photon pair are created, have each photon interact with its own double slit apparatus. Have detectors at one of the exits for each double slit apparatus. When a photon is detected at one of the exits, in AD, the photon's aether wave still exists and is propagating along the path exiting the other slit. When a photon is not detected at one of the exits, the photon 'particle' along with its associated aether wave exits the other slit. Combine the path the aether wave the detected photon is propagating along with the path of the other photon and its associated aether wave. An interference pattern will still be created. This shows the aether wave of a detected photon still exists and is able to create interference with the aether wave of another photon, altering the direction the photon 'particle' travels.
From: BURT on 7 Apr 2010 22:48 On Apr 7, 6:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. A Fluid is discontinuous and made of larger particle forms we call atoms. The fluid is a collection of atoms not a continuous substance. Mitch Raemsch > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Esa Riihonen on 14 Apr 2010 17:45 mpc755 kirjoitti: > On Apr 7, 5:40 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: >> 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. >> >> > Yes, but there is pressure. Let's assume so. >> 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. >> >> > The greater the hydrostatic pressure the slower the displacement of the > frictionless superfluid by the paddle. How so? This would not be obvious when considering e.g., water as a representative model for the situation. How is this different to water? >> >> > 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)? >> >> > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. Aether is > displaced by matter. What material? Different states? What makes them different - how does one define the different states of 'the material'? > Displacement creates pressure. How? If you displace water in a closed container (hard) the pressure will increase but it will be the same (increased) value through the whole volume. But you have indicated instead that in your model the pressure will increase the closer we are to the object, how can that be? > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. Repeating this mantra doesn't negate the fact that the force from your pressure gradient would 'lift' other objects away from the first object, instead of pressing them 'down' to it. >> >> > '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. >> >> > Yes, the space-time field is described mathematically in GR. The space- > time field is not defined physically in nature in GR. The space-time is the physical reality we live in and GR describes mathematically it's 4D geometry. This geometry is 'real' as it has real physical effects. Effects that can be calculated and compared with measurements. > In nature, the physical state of the aether as determined by its > physical connections with the matter is the aether's physical state of > displacement. Determined - how? No need to answer - I now you don't know and it really doesn't help for you to recycle your empty rhetorics once again. >> > 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. >> >> > You perhaps don't understand - but stating, "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", is not a physical > description of nature. It might have some mathematical 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. >> I'm desperate ;) >> >> >> > 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. >> >> > The following is an explanation of what occurs in nature in a 'delayed > choice quantum eraser' experiment. Following the explanation are two > experiments which will provide evidence of Aether Displacement. > > In the image on the right here: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment I asked you to describe a _different_ more recent experiment presented here: http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/ I specifically selected that experimental setup because it more clearly than the wikipedia experiment brings out the salient features of the issue. Rest ignored as irrelevant to the question. > When the downgraded photon pair are created, in order for there to be > conservation of momentum, the original photons momentum is maintained. > This means the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. > We will describe one of the photons as being the 'up' photon and the > other photon as being the 'down' photon. One of the downgraded photons > travels either the red or blue path towards D0 and the other photon > travels either the red or blue path towards the prism. > > There are physical waves in the aether propagating both the red and blue > paths. The aether waves propagating towards D0 interact with the lens > and create interference prior to reaching D0. The aether waves create > interference which alters the direction the photon travels prior to > reaching D0. There are actually two interference patterns being created > at D0. One associated with the 'up' photons when they arrive at D0 and > the other interference pattern associated with the 'down' photons when > they arrive at D0. > > Both 'up' and 'down' photons are reflected by BSa and arrive at D3. > Since there is a single path towards D3 there is nothing for the wave in > the aether to interfere with and there is no interference pattern and > since it is not determined if it is an 'up' or 'down' photon being > detected at D3 there is no way to distinguish between the photons > arriving at D0 which interference pattern each photon belongs to. The > same for photons reflected by BSb and arrive at D4. > > Photons which pass through BSa and are reflected by BSc and arrive at D1 > are either 'up' or 'down' photons but not both. If 'up' photons arrive > at D1 then 'down' photons arrive at D2. The opposite occurs for photons > which pass through BSb. Photons which pass through BSa and pass through > BSb and arrive at D1 are all either 'up' or 'down' photons. If all 'up' > photons arrive at D1 then all 'down' photons arrive at D2. Since the > physical waves in the aether traveling both the red and blue paths are > combined prior to D1 and D2 the aether waves create interference which > alters the direction the photon travels. Since all 'up' photons arrive > at one of the detectors and all 'down' photons arrive at the other an > interference pattern is created which reflects back to the interference > both sets of photons are creating at D0. > > Figures 3 and 4 here: > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9903/9903047v1.pdf Show the > interference pattern of the 'up' and 'down' photons. If you were to > combine the two images and add the peaks together and add the valleys > together you would have the interference pattern of the original photon. > This is evidence the downgraded photon pair maintain the original > photons momentum and have opposite angular momentums. > > Nothing is erased. There is no delayed choice. Physical waves in the > aether are traveling both the red and blue paths and when the paths are > combined the waves create interference which alters the direction the > photon 'particle' travels. > > Experiments which will provide evidence of Aether Displacement: > > Experiment #1: > > Instead of having a single beam splitter BSc have two beam splitters > BSca and BScb. Have the photons reflected by mirror Ma interact with > BSca and have the photons reflected by mirror Mb interact with BScb. Do > not combine the red and blue paths. Have additional detectors D1a, D2a, > D1b, and D2b. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BSca > be detected at D1a and D2a. Have the photons reflected by and propagate > through BScb be detected at D1b and D2b. If you compare the photons > detected at D1a and D1b with the photons detected at D0, the > corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. > If you compare the photons detected at D2a and D2b with the photons > detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an > interference pattern. What is occurring is all 'up' photons are being > detected at one pair of detectors, for example D1a and D1b, and all > 'down' photons are being detected at the other pair of detectors, for > example D2a and D2b. Interference patterns do not even need to be > created in order to 'go back' and determine the interference patterns > created at D0. > > Experiment #2: > > Alter the experiment. When the downgraded photon pair are created, have > each photon interact with its own double slit apparatus. Have detectors > at one of the exits for each double slit apparatus. When a photon is > detected at one of the exits, in AD, the photon's aether wave still > exists and is propagating along the path exiting the other slit. When a > photon is not detected at one of the exits, the photon 'particle' along > with its associated aether wave exits the other slit. Combine the path > the aether wave the detected photon is propagating along with the path > of the other photon and its associated aether wave. An interference > pattern will still be created. This shows the aether wave of a detected > photon still exists and is able to create interference with the aether > wave of another photon, altering the direction the photon 'particle' > travels. Cheers, Esa(R) -- His paper has a beginning, a muddle, and an end. -- anon
From: Esa Riihonen on 14 Apr 2010 17:45
mpc755 kirjoitti: > 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. But how does he do it without applying pressure to the water? >> > 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. But how does the particle displace the frictionless superfluid without appying pressure to the frictionless superfluid? >> > 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. But this is surely contradiction. First you ask how to do something without applying pressure and then you explain it by using pressure. >> 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. Add there - 'moving' particle. > There is non zero pressure associated with matter displacing the aether. Could be - then what? > 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. Oh this. If you would be so kind and repeat it perhaps a couple of times more - then maybe I could understand - or maybe not. I actually responded to this mantra in a sister thread. Cheers, Esa(R) -- He is a quantum philosopher. I can't understand him and his position at the same time. -- S. Morganbesser |