There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
Next: Question about energy eigenvalues of a Hamiltonian, in general
From: mpc755 on 30 Mar 2010 01:34 On Mar 29, 11:46 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Paul Stowe wrote: > > On Mar 28, 6:40 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, PaulStowewrote: > > > > On Mar 25, 4:39 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > I think the key term here is the word experimental. In that context > > > > I agree, data is data and should not be laden with speculations. Thus > > > > my fundamental disagreement with Tom Robert's claim that one cannot, > > > > possibly, do an experiment without first having a theory in which to > > > > frame it. Faraday's experiments are a great example of this. But, > > > > that is not what I'm talking about here. > [cut] > > > > The modern usage of "experiment", in a strict and restricted philosophical > > > sense, is not the same as it was for Newton, or in his time, when, more or > > > less, we had "experiment" = "experience", including pure observation, > > > modern experiment in the strict sense, and lots of stuff in-between. In > > > the strict modern usage, Tom Roberts is entirely correct, since an > > > experiment is performed to reject one of two theories. "Experiment" is > > > used in a much broader sense, even today, and such loose usage is closer > > > to that of Newton's time. > > > Many true 'discoveries' involved observations or elements of > > experiments that were NOT intended to be part of the original. And, > > more importantly, NOT! theoried before it was done. This, in and of > > itself invalidates Robert's stance. > > No. First, such observation is not "experiment", in the strict sense. That > useful discoveries can be made without experiment doesn't invalidate > anything that's been said here about experiments. > > Second, such observation remains strongly informed by theory. How else do > you know what observations are surprising, interesting, worth further > investigation? You might never have observed a dog with 212,304 hairs > before, and the number of hairs on a dog is something you could measure. > How do you know it isn't worthwhile? Answer: theory. > > An observation that isn't known theoretically beforehand can be very > interesting. It can tell you something that the theory can predict that > has escaped notice, or, even better, it can tell you that the theory is > wrong or incomplete. In the absence of theory, what does an observation > tell you? > > > > > > > > So, Newton says that the mathematical model is enough, and Newton says > > > > > that Cartesian-style "explanations" of causes are not physics. Was Newton > > > > > stupid? He clearly thought otherwise. > > > > > Correlations are useful, fruitful and point to understanding. But, if > > > > he or you believe(d) that correlations are enough then then you think > > > > reversed 'engineering' not fundamental understanding is sufficient. > > > > And I, and I think other find such philosophy a poor excuse for > > > > science. > > > > "Enough" for further progress to be made. > > > Indeed! > > > > If it's the best that can be done (at least for the visible future), > > > I think that very mentality is selling both oneself and humanity short > > if one actually believes it. > > > > does one proceed in the Newtonian > > > fashion, or discard that approach as "not enough"? > > > Proceeds and openly declares that it's not enough, and in the long > > run, an unaceptable state. > > Lack of understanding of the ultimate secrets of the universe has been > with us for a long time. If it's "unacceptable", what do you do? > > One could try an Apollo program scale effort, a Manhattan-scale effort, to > try to get there. Would this be a good investment? > > That more than one story can lead to exactly the same quantitative model > is the giant roadblock on the road to "fundamental understanding". How is > this to be overcome? A quantitative model can be tested. How can the story > behind it be tested? > > (There are some interesting parallels in the history of theology, > concerning trying to decide what humans can know about the divine.) > > > > It's clear that more is wanted, at least by many physicists, other > > > scientists, and non-scientists. Witness the intellectual investment in the > > > various interpretations of quantum mechanics. Also witness the progress > > > that has resulted from these interpretations. > > > That's a hopeful sign that the mentality ofr the last 80 years is > > changing. > > ??? Work on interpretations of quantum mechanics has been with us as long > as quantum mechanics has been with us. > > The scientific progress that has resulted from the various interpretations > is close to zero (unless you consider "shut up and calculate" an > "intepretation"). Interpretations have at times impeded progress. > > People like interpretations, find them interesting, and contribute to > them, putting much effort and time into this. This doesn't make it > science, or scientifically productive. (Try replacing "interpretations" > with "art".) > > > > The Newtonianisation of electrical and magnetic theory by Aepinus is a > > > superb example of the progress that can be made by being willing to work > > > with "enough", and being prepared to ignore Cartesian would-be-burdens. > > > There's a nice discussion in the English translation of his book. > > > Yes but it took the insight of Maxwell to put it all together. Then, > > what does modern science do? Throws out the baby and keeps the > > bathwater and claims the baby never existed... > > Where "modern" is over a century old, at least throws out the just-so > story and keeps the scientifically useful part, the testable part, the > part that enables further progress. To Hertz, the baby was the equations, > the rest the leftover refuse of the creative act. > > But even Maxwell was doing this. Witness the role of aether in his > sequence of publication in 1861-2, 1865, and 1873. The de-aetherisation of > Maxwell's theory was well underway in Maxwell's writing. And this was > despite Maxwell being a convinced aetherist. > > Maxwell was also aware that exactly the same quantitative model could be > obtained without his story behind it. He knew that Lorenz had done this > (published in 1867, the equivalence noted in Maxwell's Treatise). Hertz > did it again some years later, making Maxwell's theory (as in the > quantitative model) much more acceptable to his contemporaries. > > Finally, a lot of Cartesianist stories only remove the unknown to one step > further away. They "explain" some observed phenomenon, but the elements of > the Cartesianist story remain unexplained. > > For example, a story of aether as a fluid with special properties might > well yield Maxwell's equations. Why does this fluid have these properties? > No good pointing at real-world materials that have some of these > properties - these real-world properties are the result of long-range > interactions between the constituent atoms. So assume that the > aether-fluid aether-atoms have such long-range interactions? What causes > these? Not sure if you are referring to 'aether-atoms' as nuclei or something else, but it is not known if the aether consists of particles or not. Also not sure if you are asking what causes nuclei to bond to form molecules and matter. 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. '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. In the analogy the moving swimmer creates a displacement wave in the water. A moving body creates a displacement wave in the aether. '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 moving particle creates a displacement wave in the super fluid medium. 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. A moving particle creates a displacement wave in the aether. Aether is displaced by an individual nucleus. When discussing gravity as the pressure associated with the aether displaced by matter, what is being discussed is the aether being displaced by each and every nucleus which is the matter which is the object. '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. 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. The Casimir Effect is caused by gravity. 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. '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 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. 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. EINSTEIN' http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy. The rate at which an atomic clock 'ticks' is based upon the aether pressure in which it exists. In terms of motion, the speed of a GPS satellite with respect to the aether causes it to displace more aether and for that aether to exert more pressure on the clock in the GPS satellite than the aether pressure associated with a clock at rest with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to "result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day". The aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure on the GPS satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth "causing the GPS clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day". The aether pressure associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves with respect to the aether and the aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth causes "clocks on the GPS satellites [to] tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground." (quoted text from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS). The state of the aether is determined by its connections with the matter which is the Earth. This means the aether is less connected to the Earth where the airplanes fly in the 'Hafele and Keating Experiment' than it is to the surface of the Earth. If you looked up from the surface of the Earth to 'see' the aether it would appear as if the aether were 'flowing' east to west compared to the surface of the Earth. The aether is still 'flowing' west to east but not at the same rate as the surface of the Earth. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Relativ/airtim.html "Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations." Flying with the Earth's rotation, eastward, is flying against the 'flow' of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, causing a greater aether pressure on the atomic clock causing the atomic clock to tick slower. Flying against the Earth's rotation, westward, is flying with the 'flow' of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, causing a lower aether pressure on the atomic clock causing the atomic clock to tick faster. I place quotes around terms like 'entrainment', 'flow', and 'drag' to note I am not 100% sure this is exactly what the state of the aether is in terms of the concepts the terms denote. The aether may be a one something. There is a train and an embankment. "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 Relative to the train and the embankment the state of the aether is most determined by its connections with the matter which is the Earth. This means the aether is more at rest with respect to the embankment than it is to the train. Three Observers get together at M'. They each hold an atomic clock. They synchronize their clocks. One Observer begins to walk to B'. As the Observer walks to B' the observer, and the clock, are walking against the 'flow' of aether. This increases the aether pressure on the clock and causes the clock to tick slower. The Observer walking the clock to A' is walking with the 'flow' of aether which reduces the pressure associated with the aether on the atomic clock and the atomic clock ticks faster. When the Observers get to A' and B' their clocks are once again under the same amount of aether pressure as is the clock at M' and all three clocks tick at the same rate. Let's assume the clocks at A', M', and B' read 12:00:05, 12:00:03, and 12:00:01 respectively when they are at A', M', and B'. A flash of light occurs at M'. The flash of light propagates against the 'flow' of aether towards B' and takes 9 seconds to reach B'. When the flash of light gets to B', the clock at B' reads 12:00:10. The flash of light propagates with the 'flow' of aether towards A' and takes 5 seconds to reach A'. The clock at A' reads 12:00:10 when the light arrives at A'. There are mirrors at A' and B' which reflect the light waves back towards M'. The light from B' propagates with the 'flow' of aether and takes 5 seconds to reach M'. The light from A' propagates against the 'flow' of aether and takes 9 seconds to reach M'. The light waves arrive at M' simultaneously and the clock at M' reads 12:00:17 when the light reaches M'. The three Observers get back together to discuss the experiment. The Observer at M' says the flash at M' occurred at 12:00:03. The Observers at A' and B' say the flash of light reached each of them at 12:00:10, determining the light took 7 seconds to arrive from M'. The Observer at M' says the light waves arrived back at M' simultaneously at 12:00:17. All three Observers conclude the lightning from the lightning strike traveled at 'c'. The Observers conclude this because everything is determined with respect to the aether. In nature, light propagates at 'c' with respect to the aether. Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory to date. > If one is willing to accept such interactions without further > explanation, what was wrong with just accepting the original > electromagnetic interactions without further explanation? > > If one were to invest time and effort in explanatory stories that lead to > _different_ quantitative models, then one can at least test which of the > models is better (but keep in mind that it'd be a test of the quantitative > models, not the explanatory stories behind them), then this might lead > somewhere. If the model arising from the new story has too many free > parameters so that the model is effectively immune from falsification, > then it's less likely to lead anywhere. > > There are good reasons why string theory is widely considered as > non-science. > > -- > Timo Nieminen
From: mpc755 on 30 Mar 2010 01:47 On Mar 29, 11:46 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Paul Stowe wrote: > > On Mar 28, 6:40 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, PaulStowewrote: > > > > On Mar 25, 4:39 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > I think the key term here is the word experimental. In that context > > > > I agree, data is data and should not be laden with speculations. Thus > > > > my fundamental disagreement with Tom Robert's claim that one cannot, > > > > possibly, do an experiment without first having a theory in which to > > > > frame it. Faraday's experiments are a great example of this. But, > > > > that is not what I'm talking about here. > [cut] > > > > The modern usage of "experiment", in a strict and restricted philosophical > > > sense, is not the same as it was for Newton, or in his time, when, more or > > > less, we had "experiment" = "experience", including pure observation, > > > modern experiment in the strict sense, and lots of stuff in-between. In > > > the strict modern usage, Tom Roberts is entirely correct, since an > > > experiment is performed to reject one of two theories. "Experiment" is > > > used in a much broader sense, even today, and such loose usage is closer > > > to that of Newton's time. > > > Many true 'discoveries' involved observations or elements of > > experiments that were NOT intended to be part of the original. And, > > more importantly, NOT! theoried before it was done. This, in and of > > itself invalidates Robert's stance. > > No. First, such observation is not "experiment", in the strict sense. That > useful discoveries can be made without experiment doesn't invalidate > anything that's been said here about experiments. > > Second, such observation remains strongly informed by theory. How else do > you know what observations are surprising, interesting, worth further > investigation? You might never have observed a dog with 212,304 hairs > before, and the number of hairs on a dog is something you could measure. > How do you know it isn't worthwhile? Answer: theory. > > An observation that isn't known theoretically beforehand can be very > interesting. It can tell you something that the theory can predict that > has escaped notice, or, even better, it can tell you that the theory is > wrong or incomplete. In the absence of theory, what does an observation > tell you? > > > > > > > > So, Newton says that the mathematical model is enough, and Newton says > > > > > that Cartesian-style "explanations" of causes are not physics. Was Newton > > > > > stupid? He clearly thought otherwise. > > > > > Correlations are useful, fruitful and point to understanding. But, if > > > > he or you believe(d) that correlations are enough then then you think > > > > reversed 'engineering' not fundamental understanding is sufficient. > > > > And I, and I think other find such philosophy a poor excuse for > > > > science. > > > > "Enough" for further progress to be made. > > > Indeed! > > > > If it's the best that can be done (at least for the visible future), > > > I think that very mentality is selling both oneself and humanity short > > if one actually believes it. > > > > does one proceed in the Newtonian > > > fashion, or discard that approach as "not enough"? > > > Proceeds and openly declares that it's not enough, and in the long > > run, an unaceptable state. > > Lack of understanding of the ultimate secrets of the universe has been > with us for a long time. If it's "unacceptable", what do you do? > > One could try an Apollo program scale effort, a Manhattan-scale effort, to > try to get there. Would this be a good investment? > > That more than one story can lead to exactly the same quantitative model > is the giant roadblock on the road to "fundamental understanding". How is > this to be overcome? A quantitative model can be tested. How can the story > behind it be tested? > > (There are some interesting parallels in the history of theology, > concerning trying to decide what humans can know about the divine.) > > > > It's clear that more is wanted, at least by many physicists, other > > > scientists, and non-scientists. Witness the intellectual investment in the > > > various interpretations of quantum mechanics. Also witness the progress > > > that has resulted from these interpretations. > > > That's a hopeful sign that the mentality ofr the last 80 years is > > changing. > > ??? Work on interpretations of quantum mechanics has been with us as long > as quantum mechanics has been with us. > > The scientific progress that has resulted from the various interpretations > is close to zero (unless you consider "shut up and calculate" an > "intepretation"). Interpretations have at times impeded progress. > > People like interpretations, find them interesting, and contribute to > them, putting much effort and time into this. This doesn't make it > science, or scientifically productive. (Try replacing "interpretations" > with "art".) > > > > The Newtonianisation of electrical and magnetic theory by Aepinus is a > > > superb example of the progress that can be made by being willing to work > > > with "enough", and being prepared to ignore Cartesian would-be-burdens. > > > There's a nice discussion in the English translation of his book. > > > Yes but it took the insight of Maxwell to put it all together. Then, > > what does modern science do? Throws out the baby and keeps the > > bathwater and claims the baby never existed... > > Where "modern" is over a century old, at least throws out the just-so > story and keeps the scientifically useful part, the testable part, the > part that enables further progress. To Hertz, the baby was the equations, > the rest the leftover refuse of the creative act. > > But even Maxwell was doing this. Witness the role of aether in his > sequence of publication in 1861-2, 1865, and 1873. The de-aetherisation of > Maxwell's theory was well underway in Maxwell's writing. And this was > despite Maxwell being a convinced aetherist. > > Maxwell was also aware that exactly the same quantitative model could be > obtained without his story behind it. He knew that Lorenz had done this > (published in 1867, the equivalence noted in Maxwell's Treatise). Hertz > did it again some years later, making Maxwell's theory (as in the > quantitative model) much more acceptable to his contemporaries. > > Finally, a lot of Cartesianist stories only remove the unknown to one step > further away. They "explain" some observed phenomenon, but the elements of > the Cartesianist story remain unexplained. > > For example, a story of aether as a fluid with special properties might > well yield Maxwell's equations. Why does this fluid have these properties? > No good pointing at real-world materials that have some of these > properties - these real-world properties are the result of long-range > interactions between the constituent atoms. So assume that the > aether-fluid aether-atoms have such long-range interactions? What causes > these? Not sure if you are referring to 'aether-atoms' as nuclei or something else, but it is not known if the aether consists of particles or not. Also not sure if you are asking what causes nuclei to bond to form molecules and matter. 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. '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. In the analogy the moving swimmer creates a displacement wave in the water. A moving body creates a displacement wave in the aether. '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 moving particle creates a displacement wave in the super fluid medium. 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. A moving particle creates a displacement wave in the aether. Aether is displaced by an individual nucleus. When discussing gravity as the pressure associated with the aether displaced by matter, what is being discussed is the aether being displaced by each and every nucleus which is the matter which is the object. '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. 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. The Casimir Effect is caused by gravity. 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. '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 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. 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. EINSTEIN' http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy. The rate at which an atomic clock 'ticks' is based upon the aether pressure in which it exists. In terms of motion, the speed of a GPS satellite with respect to the aether causes it to displace more aether and for that aether to exert more pressure on the clock in the GPS satellite than the aether pressure associated with a clock at rest with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to "result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day". The aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure on the GPS satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth "causing the GPS clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day". The aether pressure associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves with respect to the aether and the aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth causes "clocks on the GPS satellites [to] tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground." (quoted text from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS). The state of the aether is determined by its connections with the matter which is the Earth. This means the aether is less connected to the Earth where the airplanes fly in the 'Hafele and Keating Experiment' than it is to the surface of the Earth. If you looked up from the surface of the Earth to 'see' the aether it would appear as if the aether were 'flowing' east to west compared to the surface of the Earth. The aether is still 'flowing' west to east but not at the same rate as the surface of the Earth. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Relativ/airtim.html "Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations." Flying with the Earth's rotation, eastward, is flying against the 'flow' of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, causing a greater aether pressure on the atomic clock causing the atomic clock to tick slower. Flying against the Earth's rotation, westward, is flying with the 'flow' of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, causing a lower aether pressure on the atomic clock causing the atomic clock to tick faster. I place quotes around terms like 'entrainment', 'flow', and 'drag' to note I am not 100% sure this is exactly what the state of the aether is in terms of the concepts the terms denote. The aether may be a one something. There is a train and an embankment. "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 Relative to the train and the embankment the state of the aether is most determined by its connections with the matter which is the Earth. This means the aether is more at rest with respect to the embankment than it is to the train. Three Observers get together at M'. They each hold an atomic clock. They synchronize their clocks. One Observer begins to walk to B'. As the Observer walks to B' the observer, and the clock, are walking against the 'flow' of aether. This increases the aether pressure on the clock and causes the clock to tick slower. The Observer walking the clock to A' is walking with the 'flow' of aether which reduces the pressure associated with the aether on the atomic clock and the atomic clock ticks faster. When the Observers get to A' and B' their clocks are once again under the same amount of aether pressure as is the clock at M' and all three clocks tick at the same rate. Let's assume the clocks at A', M', and B' read 12:00:05, 12:00:03, and 12:00:01 respectively when they are at A', M', and B'. A flash of light occurs at M'. The flash of light propagates against the 'flow' of aether towards B' and takes 9 seconds to reach B'. When the flash of light gets to B', the clock at B' reads 12:00:10. The flash of light propagates with the 'flow' of aether towards A' and takes 5 seconds to reach A'. The clock at A' reads 12:00:10 when the light arrives at A'. There are mirrors at A' and B' which reflect the light waves back towards M'. The light from B' propagates with the 'flow' of aether and takes 5 seconds to reach M'. The light from A' propagates against the 'flow' of aether and takes 9 seconds to reach M'. The light waves arrive at M' simultaneously and the clock at M' reads 12:00:17 when the light reaches M'. The three Observers get back together to discuss the experiment. The Observer at M' says the flash at M' occurred at 12:00:03. The Observers at A' and B' say the flash of light reached each of them at 12:00:10, determining the light took 7 seconds to arrive from M'. The Observer at M' says the light waves arrived back at M' simultaneously at 12:00:17. All three Observers conclude the lightning from the lightning strike traveled at 'c'. The Observers conclude this because everything is determined with respect to the aether. In nature, light propagates at 'c' with respect to the aether. Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory to date. > If one is willing to accept such interactions without further > explanation, what was wrong with just accepting the original > electromagnetic interactions without further explanation? > > If one were to invest time and effort in explanatory stories that lead to > _different_ quantitative models, then one can at least test which of the > models is better (but keep in mind that it'd be a test of the quantitative > models, not the explanatory stories behind them), then this might lead > somewhere. If the model arising from the new story has too many free > parameters so that the model is effectively immune from falsification, > then it's less likely to lead anywhere. > The following is an explanation of what occurs in nature in a 'delayed choice quantum eraser' experiment. Following the explanation are two experiments which are evidence of Aether Displacement. For example, in the image on the right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment There are waves propagating both the red and blue paths towards D0. One of the downgraded photon 'particles' is traveling either the red or blue path towards D0. The lens causes the waves to create interference which alters the direction the particle travels. One set of downgraded photons is creating one of the interference patterns at D0 and the other set of downgraded photons is creating the other. It's all very easy to understand once you realize 'delayed-choice', 'quantum eraser', and the future determining the past is simply misinterpreting what is occurring in nature. 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 are 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. > There are good reasons why string theory is widely considered as > non-science. > > -- > Timo Nieminen
From: mpc755 on 30 Mar 2010 01:51 On Mar 29, 11:46 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Paul Stowe wrote: > > On Mar 28, 6:40 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, PaulStowewrote: > > > > On Mar 25, 4:39 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > I think the key term here is the word experimental. In that context > > > > I agree, data is data and should not be laden with speculations. Thus > > > > my fundamental disagreement with Tom Robert's claim that one cannot, > > > > possibly, do an experiment without first having a theory in which to > > > > frame it. Faraday's experiments are a great example of this. But, > > > > that is not what I'm talking about here. > [cut] > > > > The modern usage of "experiment", in a strict and restricted philosophical > > > sense, is not the same as it was for Newton, or in his time, when, more or > > > less, we had "experiment" = "experience", including pure observation, > > > modern experiment in the strict sense, and lots of stuff in-between. In > > > the strict modern usage, Tom Roberts is entirely correct, since an > > > experiment is performed to reject one of two theories. "Experiment" is > > > used in a much broader sense, even today, and such loose usage is closer > > > to that of Newton's time. > > > Many true 'discoveries' involved observations or elements of > > experiments that were NOT intended to be part of the original. And, > > more importantly, NOT! theoried before it was done. This, in and of > > itself invalidates Robert's stance. > > No. First, such observation is not "experiment", in the strict sense. That > useful discoveries can be made without experiment doesn't invalidate > anything that's been said here about experiments. > > Second, such observation remains strongly informed by theory. How else do > you know what observations are surprising, interesting, worth further > investigation? You might never have observed a dog with 212,304 hairs > before, and the number of hairs on a dog is something you could measure. > How do you know it isn't worthwhile? Answer: theory. > > An observation that isn't known theoretically beforehand can be very > interesting. It can tell you something that the theory can predict that > has escaped notice, or, even better, it can tell you that the theory is > wrong or incomplete. In the absence of theory, what does an observation > tell you? > > > > > > > > So, Newton says that the mathematical model is enough, and Newton says > > > > > that Cartesian-style "explanations" of causes are not physics. Was Newton > > > > > stupid? He clearly thought otherwise. > > > > > Correlations are useful, fruitful and point to understanding. But, if > > > > he or you believe(d) that correlations are enough then then you think > > > > reversed 'engineering' not fundamental understanding is sufficient. > > > > And I, and I think other find such philosophy a poor excuse for > > > > science. > > > > "Enough" for further progress to be made. > > > Indeed! > > > > If it's the best that can be done (at least for the visible future), > > > I think that very mentality is selling both oneself and humanity short > > if one actually believes it. > > > > does one proceed in the Newtonian > > > fashion, or discard that approach as "not enough"? > > > Proceeds and openly declares that it's not enough, and in the long > > run, an unaceptable state. > > Lack of understanding of the ultimate secrets of the universe has been > with us for a long time. If it's "unacceptable", what do you do? > > One could try an Apollo program scale effort, a Manhattan-scale effort, to > try to get there. Would this be a good investment? > > That more than one story can lead to exactly the same quantitative model > is the giant roadblock on the road to "fundamental understanding". How is > this to be overcome? A quantitative model can be tested. How can the story > behind it be tested? > > (There are some interesting parallels in the history of theology, > concerning trying to decide what humans can know about the divine.) > > > > It's clear that more is wanted, at least by many physicists, other > > > scientists, and non-scientists. Witness the intellectual investment in the > > > various interpretations of quantum mechanics. Also witness the progress > > > that has resulted from these interpretations. > > > That's a hopeful sign that the mentality ofr the last 80 years is > > changing. > > ??? Work on interpretations of quantum mechanics has been with us as long > as quantum mechanics has been with us. > > The scientific progress that has resulted from the various interpretations > is close to zero (unless you consider "shut up and calculate" an > "intepretation"). Interpretations have at times impeded progress. > > People like interpretations, find them interesting, and contribute to > them, putting much effort and time into this. This doesn't make it > science, or scientifically productive. (Try replacing "interpretations" > with "art".) > > > > The Newtonianisation of electrical and magnetic theory by Aepinus is a > > > superb example of the progress that can be made by being willing to work > > > with "enough", and being prepared to ignore Cartesian would-be-burdens. > > > There's a nice discussion in the English translation of his book. > > > Yes but it took the insight of Maxwell to put it all together. Then, > > what does modern science do? Throws out the baby and keeps the > > bathwater and claims the baby never existed... > > Where "modern" is over a century old, at least throws out the just-so > story and keeps the scientifically useful part, the testable part, the > part that enables further progress. To Hertz, the baby was the equations, > the rest the leftover refuse of the creative act. > > But even Maxwell was doing this. Witness the role of aether in his > sequence of publication in 1861-2, 1865, and 1873. The de-aetherisation of > Maxwell's theory was well underway in Maxwell's writing. And this was > despite Maxwell being a convinced aetherist. > > Maxwell was also aware that exactly the same quantitative model could be > obtained without his story behind it. He knew that Lorenz had done this > (published in 1867, the equivalence noted in Maxwell's Treatise). Hertz > did it again some years later, making Maxwell's theory (as in the > quantitative model) much more acceptable to his contemporaries. > > Finally, a lot of Cartesianist stories only remove the unknown to one step > further away. They "explain" some observed phenomenon, but the elements of > the Cartesianist story remain unexplained. > > For example, a story of aether as a fluid with special properties might > well yield Maxwell's equations. Why does this fluid have these properties? > No good pointing at real-world materials that have some of these > properties - these real-world properties are the result of long-range > interactions between the constituent atoms. So assume that the > aether-fluid aether-atoms have such long-range interactions? What causes > these? Not sure if you are referring to 'aether-atoms' as nuclei or something else, but it is not known if the aether consists of particles or not. Also not sure if you are asking what causes nuclei to bond to form molecules and matter. 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. '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. In the analogy the moving swimmer creates a displacement wave in the water. A moving body creates a displacement wave in the aether. '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 moving particle creates a displacement wave in the super fluid medium. 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. A moving particle creates a displacement wave in the aether. Aether is displaced by an individual nucleus. When discussing gravity as the pressure associated with the aether displaced by matter, what is being discussed is the aether being displaced by each and every nucleus which is the matter which is the object. '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. 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. The Casimir Effect is caused by gravity. 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. '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 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. 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. EINSTEIN' http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy. The rate at which an atomic clock 'ticks' is based upon the aether pressure in which it exists. In terms of motion, the speed of a GPS satellite with respect to the aether causes it to displace more aether and for that aether to exert more pressure on the clock in the GPS satellite than the aether pressure associated with a clock at rest with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to "result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day". The aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure on the GPS satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth "causing the GPS clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day". The aether pressure associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves with respect to the aether and the aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth causes "clocks on the GPS satellites [to] tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground." (quoted text from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS). The state of the aether is determined by its connections with the matter which is the Earth. This means the aether is less connected to the Earth where the airplanes fly in the 'Hafele and Keating Experiment' than it is to the surface of the Earth. If you looked up from the surface of the Earth to 'see' the aether it would appear as if the aether were 'flowing' east to west compared to the surface of the Earth. The aether is still 'flowing' west to east but not at the same rate as the surface of the Earth. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Relativ/airtim.html "Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations." Flying with the Earth's rotation, eastward, is flying against the 'flow' of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, causing a greater aether pressure on the atomic clock causing the atomic clock to tick slower. Flying against the Earth's rotation, westward, is flying with the 'flow' of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, causing a lower aether pressure on the atomic clock causing the atomic clock to tick faster. I place quotes around terms like 'entrainment', 'flow', and 'drag' to note I am not 100% sure this is exactly what the state of the aether is in terms of the concepts the terms denote. The aether may be a one something. There is a train and an embankment. "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 Relative to the train and the embankment the state of the aether is most determined by its connections with the matter which is the Earth. This means the aether is more at rest with respect to the embankment than it is to the train. Three Observers get together at M'. They each hold an atomic clock. They synchronize their clocks. One Observer begins to walk to B'. As the Observer walks to B' the observer, and the clock, are walking against the 'flow' of aether. This increases the aether pressure on the clock and causes the clock to tick slower. The Observer walking the clock to A' is walking with the 'flow' of aether which reduces the pressure associated with the aether on the atomic clock and the atomic clock ticks faster. When the Observers get to A' and B' their clocks are once again under the same amount of aether pressure as is the clock at M' and all three clocks tick at the same rate. Let's assume the clocks at A', M', and B' read 12:00:05, 12:00:03, and 12:00:01 respectively when they are at A', M', and B'. A flash of light occurs at M'. The flash of light propagates against the 'flow' of aether towards B' and takes 9 seconds to reach B'. When the flash of light gets to B', the clock at B' reads 12:00:10. The flash of light propagates with the 'flow' of aether towards A' and takes 5 seconds to reach A'. The clock at A' reads 12:00:10 when the light arrives at A'. There are mirrors at A' and B' which reflect the light waves back towards M'. The light from B' propagates with the 'flow' of aether and takes 5 seconds to reach M'. The light from A' propagates against the 'flow' of aether and takes 9 seconds to reach M'. The light waves arrive at M' simultaneously and the clock at M' reads 12:00:17 when the light reaches M'. The three Observers get back together to discuss the experiment. The Observer at M' says the flash at M' occurred at 12:00:03. The Observers at A' and B' say the flash of light reached each of them at 12:00:10, determining the light took 7 seconds to arrive from M'. The Observer at M' says the light waves arrived back at M' simultaneously at 12:00:17. All three Observers conclude the lightning from the lightning strike traveled at 'c'. The Observers conclude this because everything is determined with respect to the aether. In nature, light propagates at 'c' with respect to the aether. Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory to date. > If one is willing to accept such interactions without further > explanation, what was wrong with just accepting the original > electromagnetic interactions without further explanation? > > If one were to invest time and effort in explanatory stories that lead to > _different_ quantitative models, then one can at least test which of the > models is better (but keep in mind that it'd be a test of the quantitative > models, not the explanatory stories behind them), then this might lead > somewhere. If the model arising from the new story has too many free > parameters so that the model is effectively immune from falsification, > then it's less likely to lead anywhere. > The following is an explanation of what occurs in nature in a 'delayed choice quantum eraser' experiment. Following the explanation are two experiments which are 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 are 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. > There are good reasons why string theory is widely considered as > non-science. > > -- > Timo Nieminen
From: jem on 30 Mar 2010 09:23 Timo Nieminen wrote: > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Paul Stowe wrote: > >> On Mar 28, 6:40 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: >>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, PaulStowewrote: >>>> On Mar 25, 4:39 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > >>>> I think the key term here is the word experimental. In that context >>>> I agree, data is data and should not be laden with speculations. Thus >>>> my fundamental disagreement with Tom Robert's claim that one cannot, >>>> possibly, do an experiment without first having a theory in which to >>>> frame it. Faraday's experiments are a great example of this. But, >>>> that is not what I'm talking about here. > [cut] >>> The modern usage of "experiment", in a strict and restricted philosophical >>> sense, is not the same as it was for Newton, or in his time, when, more or >>> less, we had "experiment" = "experience", including pure observation, >>> modern experiment in the strict sense, and lots of stuff in-between. In >>> the strict modern usage, Tom Roberts is entirely correct, since an >>> experiment is performed to reject one of two theories. "Experiment" is >>> used in a much broader sense, even today, and such loose usage is closer >>> to that of Newton's time. >> Many true 'discoveries' involved observations or elements of >> experiments that were NOT intended to be part of the original. And, >> more importantly, NOT! theoried before it was done. This, in and of >> itself invalidates Robert's stance. > > No. First, such observation is not "experiment", in the strict sense. That > useful discoveries can be made without experiment doesn't invalidate > anything that's been said here about experiments. > > Second, such observation remains strongly informed by theory. How else do > you know what observations are surprising, interesting, worth further > investigation? You might never have observed a dog with 212,304 hairs > before, and the number of hairs on a dog is something you could measure. > How do you know it isn't worthwhile? Answer: theory. > > An observation that isn't known theoretically beforehand can be very > interesting. It can tell you something that the theory can predict that > has escaped notice, or, even better, it can tell you that the theory is > wrong or incomplete. In the absence of theory, what does an observation > tell you? > >>>>> So, Newton says that the mathematical model is enough, and Newton says >>>>> that Cartesian-style "explanations" of causes are not physics. Was Newton >>>>> stupid? He clearly thought otherwise. >>>> Correlations are useful, fruitful and point to understanding. But, if >>>> he or you believe(d) that correlations are enough then then you think >>>> reversed 'engineering' not fundamental understanding is sufficient. >>>> And I, and I think other find such philosophy a poor excuse for >>>> science. >>> "Enough" for further progress to be made. >> Indeed! >> >>> If it's the best that can be done (at least for the visible future), >> I think that very mentality is selling both oneself and humanity short >> if one actually believes it. >> >>> does one proceed in the Newtonian >>> fashion, or discard that approach as "not enough"? >> Proceeds and openly declares that it's not enough, and in the long >> run, an unaceptable state. > > Lack of understanding of the ultimate secrets of the universe has been > with us for a long time. If it's "unacceptable", what do you do? > > One could try an Apollo program scale effort, a Manhattan-scale effort, to > try to get there. Would this be a good investment? > > That more than one story can lead to exactly the same quantitative model > is the giant roadblock on the road to "fundamental understanding". How is > this to be overcome? As I think you already know (and Stowe never will), Science has NO tools to overcome it, which is why the goals of Science have been set so as to be achievable without overcoming it. A quantitative model can be tested. How can the story > behind it be tested? > > (There are some interesting parallels in the history of theology, > concerning trying to decide what humans can know about the divine.) > >>> It's clear that more is wanted, at least by many physicists, other >>> scientists, and non-scientists. Witness the intellectual investment in the >>> various interpretations of quantum mechanics. Also witness the progress >>> that has resulted from these interpretations. >> That's a hopeful sign that the mentality ofr the last 80 years is >> changing. > > ??? Work on interpretations of quantum mechanics has been with us as long > as quantum mechanics has been with us. > > The scientific progress that has resulted from the various interpretations > is close to zero (unless you consider "shut up and calculate" an > "intepretation"). Interpretations have at times impeded progress. > > People like interpretations, find them interesting, and contribute to > them, putting much effort and time into this. This doesn't make it > science, or scientifically productive. (Try replacing "interpretations" > with "art".) > >>> The Newtonianisation of electrical and magnetic theory by Aepinus is a >>> superb example of the progress that can be made by being willing to work >>> with "enough", and being prepared to ignore Cartesian would-be-burdens. >>> There's a nice discussion in the English translation of his book. >> Yes but it took the insight of Maxwell to put it all together. Then, >> what does modern science do? Throws out the baby and keeps the >> bathwater and claims the baby never existed... > > Where "modern" is over a century old, at least throws out the just-so > story and keeps the scientifically useful part, the testable part, the > part that enables further progress. To Hertz, the baby was the equations, > the rest the leftover refuse of the creative act. > > But even Maxwell was doing this. Witness the role of aether in his > sequence of publication in 1861-2, 1865, and 1873. The de-aetherisation of > Maxwell's theory was well underway in Maxwell's writing. And this was > despite Maxwell being a convinced aetherist. > > Maxwell was also aware that exactly the same quantitative model could be > obtained without his story behind it. He knew that Lorenz had done this > (published in 1867, the equivalence noted in Maxwell's Treatise). Hertz > did it again some years later, making Maxwell's theory (as in the > quantitative model) much more acceptable to his contemporaries. > > Finally, a lot of Cartesianist stories only remove the unknown to one step > further away. They "explain" some observed phenomenon, but the elements of > the Cartesianist story remain unexplained. > > For example, a story of aether as a fluid with special properties might > well yield Maxwell's equations. Why does this fluid have these properties? > No good pointing at real-world materials that have some of these > properties - these real-world properties are the result of long-range > interactions between the constituent atoms. So assume that the > aether-fluid aether-atoms have such long-range interactions? What causes > these? If one is willing to accept such interactions without further > explanation, what was wrong with just accepting the original > electromagnetic interactions without further explanation? > > If one were to invest time and effort in explanatory stories that lead to > _different_ quantitative models, then one can at least test which of the > models is better (but keep in mind that it'd be a test of the quantitative > models, not the explanatory stories behind them), then this might lead > somewhere. If the model arising from the new story has too many free > parameters so that the model is effectively immune from falsification, > then it's less likely to lead anywhere. > > There are good reasons why string theory is widely considered as > non-science. >
From: mpc755 on 30 Mar 2010 19:14
In article <88e2ffc1-6598-4dd2-855c-a832dea13ec7 @r1g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Space998(a)hotmail.com says... > > nah; your own assumption is that > "there really is a vacuum, in space, some where, > which is the same as the void or 'plenum' > of pascal's experiment," so "I need to fill this > with a medium through which the wave may ropogate; > call it, The Aether!" > > all that I am saying is not, "give poor Harry Potter a chance > to fly out of Hogwarts on a jetbroom," but that > there is only "relative vacuum," period -- duh! > > --They did not follow that money! > http://tarpley.net/bush12.htm \ A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). While the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) detectors are placed at the exits to the slits. When there are detectors at the exits to the slits the C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit. If the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) the C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern. Explain how this is possible without aether. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie "This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that any moving particle or object had an associated wave." 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory Louis de BROGLIE' http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf "I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case of an external field acting on the particle." "This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is located." de Broglie's definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of the wave. In AD, the external field is the aether. In a double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits the available slits. In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no interference. |