Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: Esa Riihonen on 14 Apr 2010 17:46 mpc755 kirjoitti: > 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. Empty rhetorics - but nevertheless responded in a sister thread. >> 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. Actually we are speaking if spin here - a different concept - but never mind. >> 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. How so? No need to answer, you don't know what you are talking about. As I said Bell's inequality has experimentally verified consequences. So if it would somehow be in conflict with the conservation of momentum - it would be the conservation law that would be in trouble. But luckily it is not the case and we can have both - thank you very much.. >> 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. Physical - in a sense yes, but _no_ _aether_. > 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. I gave references to some standard explanations - you don't like them, but they are everything I can do. > 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. You perhaps don't like the answer (which you apparently don't even understand) but it is an answer (or interpretation) nevertheless. > 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. AD what AD? >> 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. > The actual properties of your aether are still quite vague at the moment. In order to clarify the matter I have asked you to explain one QM experiment by your aether model (in a sister thread). Perhaps we can proceed here once the issue is solved there and I understand your model better. > 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. How does the detecting do this? >> >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. >> >> [snip - loads of old stuff] >> >> >> 1) Why does your aether displacement wave obey >> >> >> Schrödinger-equation (or in case relativistic cases the >> >> >> Klein-Gordon equation)? >> >> >> No answer? >> >> Crickets chirping ... >> chirp chirp ... >> >> >> 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! >> chirp chirp ... >> >> >> 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? >> chirp chirp ... >> >> >> 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. Surprise - an answer! .... or maybe not :( >> > 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. >> chirp chirp ... >> >> >> 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. chirp chirp ... Soothing ... Esa(R) eth5b -- There is always an easy solution to every human problem — neat, plausible and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken
From: mpc755 on 14 Apr 2010 19:59 On Apr 14, 5:45 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > >> 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. > Double-slit interference The aether wave associated with photon s exits both slits and creates interference which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels and an interference pattern will be detected at Ds. Which-Way Marker Both left and right circularly polarized beams are being detected at Ds and as such there is no interference pattern. Quantum Erasure "A polarizer is placed in the p beam, oriented so that it will pass light that is a combination of x and y." The polarizer allows for a combination of x and y light waves to pass through but the polarizer is only allowing either the left or right circularly polarized beam to pass through allowing for an interference pattern to be detected at Ds. Delayed Erasure Nothing is erased. Nothing is delayed.
From: mpc755 on 15 Apr 2010 08:26 On Apr 14, 5:45 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > 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. > Double-slit interference The aether wave associated with photon s exits both slits and creates interference which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels and an interference pattern will be detected at Ds. Which-Way Marker Both left and right circularly polarized photons are being detected at Ds and as such there is no interference pattern. There are two interference patterns being created at Ds. One associated with the left circular polarized photons and one associated with the right circular polarized photons. What the coincidence counts tally image shows in the 'Which-Way Marker' section is the cumulative result. Quantum Erasure "A polarizer is placed in the p beam, oriented so that it will pass light that is a combination of x and y." The polarizer allows for a combination of x and y light waves to pass through but the polarizer is only allowing either the left or right circularly polarized photons to pass through allowing for an interference pattern to be detected at Ds. Delayed Erasure Nothing is erased. Nothing is delayed.
From: mpc755 on 15 Apr 2010 08:42 On Apr 14, 5:45 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > 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. > Double-slit interference The aether wave associated with photon s exits both slits and creates interference which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels and an interference pattern will be detected at Ds. Which-Way Marker Both left and right circularly polarized photons are being detected at Ds and as such there is no interference pattern. There are two interference patterns being created at Ds. One associated with the left circular polarized photons and one associated with the right circular polarized photons. What the coincidence counts tally image shows in the 'Which-Way Marker' section is the cumulative result. Quantum Erasure "A polarizer is placed in the p beam, oriented so that it will pass light that is a combination of x and y." The polarizer allows for a combination of x and y light waves to pass through but the polarizer is only allowing certain photons to pass through. The photons which pass through the polarizer will have the same circular polarization upon exiting the quarter wave plate. Photons which will have either left or right circularly polarization, but not both, upon exiting the quarter wave plate will pass through the polarizer. Since only one set of circular polarized photons are being tallied, an interference pattern is detected at Ds. Delayed Erasure It doesn't matter if the photon interacts with the polarizer before or after its pair interacts with the quarter wave plate. Only certain photons pass through the polarizer and this correlates to either the left or right circular polarized photons which exit the quarter wave plate. Nothing is erased. Nothing is delayed.
From: mpc755 on 15 Apr 2010 08:58
On Apr 14, 5:45 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > 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. > Double-slit interference The aether wave associated with photon s exits both slits and creates interference which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels and an interference pattern will be detected at Ds. Which-Way Marker Both left and right circularly polarized photons are being detected at Ds and as such there is no interference pattern. There are two interference patterns being created at Ds. One associated with the left circular polarized photons and one associated with the right circular polarized photons. What the coincidence counts tally image shows in the 'Which-Way Marker' section is the cumulative result. Quantum Erasure "A polarizer is placed in the p beam, oriented so that it will pass light that is a combination of x and y." The polarizer allows for a combination of x and y light waves to pass through but the polarizer is only allowing certain photons to pass through. The pair of the photons which pass through the polarizer will have the same circular polarization upon exiting the quarter wave plate. The pair of the photons which will have either left or right circularly polarization, but not both, upon exiting the quarter wave plate will pass through the polarizer. Since only one set of circular polarized photons are being tallied, an interference pattern is detected at Ds. Delayed Erasure It doesn't matter if the photon interacts with the polarizer before or after its pair interacts with the quarter wave plate. Only certain photons pass through the polarizer and this correlates to either the left or right circular polarized photons which exit the quarter wave plate. Nothing is erased. Nothing is delayed. |