There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 30 Mar 2010 09:50 On Mar 30, 8:59 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Mar 29, 12:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hey, mpc755! Ive made a +new post for you: An Alternate Theory of > Gravity. Reply, there, to your hearts content. Your static isnt > needed, on my post. If you cant get that message, you should see a > shrink. Come to think of it, your seeing a shrink wouldnt be a bad > idea in any case! NoEinstein > 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. For this gedanken, the aether is at rest with respect to the embankment. 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 A/A' and B/B'. The light arrives at M simultaneously. The flash of light occurs at B' when the clock at B' reads 12:00:01. The flash of light occurs at A' when the clock at A' reads 12:00:05. 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 from the lightning strike at B/B' arrives at M' when the clock at M' reads 12:00:08. The light from the lightning strike at A/ A' arrives at M' when the clock at M' reads 12:00:12. The three Observers get back together to discuss the experiment. The Observer at B' says the flash at B' occurred at 12:00:01. The Observer at A' says the flash of light at A' occurred at 12:00:05. The Observer at M' says the flash from B' arrived at 12:00:08 and the flash from A' arrived at 12:00:12. The Observers conclude the lightning strikes were not simultaneous and the light propagated at 'c' from B' to M' and propagated at 'c' from A' to M' and both sets of light waves took 7 seconds to arrive at M'. If the Observers on the train knew their state with respect to the state of the aether then the Observers would have been able to determine the rate at which their clocks ticked as they were walked to A' and B' and they would have been able to conclude the lightning strikes occurred simultaneously, in nature. Light propagates at 'c' with respect to the aether. The following is an explanation of what occurs in nature in a 'delayed choice quantum eraser' experiment. Following the explanation are two experiments which will provide evidence of Aether Displacement. In the image on the right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment When the downgraded photon pair are created, in order for there to be conservation of momentum, the original photons momentum is maintained. This means the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. We will describe one of the photons as being the 'up' photon and the other photon as being the 'down' photon. One of the downgraded photons travels either the red or blue path towards D0 and the other photon travels either the red or blue path towards the prism. There are physical waves in the aether propagating both the red and blue paths. The aether waves propagating towards D0 interact with the lens and create interference prior to reaching D0. The aether waves create interference which alters the direction the photon travels prior to reaching D0. There are actually two interference patterns being created at D0. One associated with the 'up' photons when they arrive at D0 and the other interference pattern associated with the 'down' photons when they arrive at D0. Both 'up' and 'down' photons are reflected by BSa and arrive at D3. Since there is a single path towards D3 there is nothing for the wave in the aether to interfere with and there is no interference pattern and since it is not determined if it is an 'up' or 'down' photon being detected at D3 there is no way to distinguish between the photons arriving at D0 which interference pattern each photon belongs to. The same for photons reflected by BSb and arrive at D4. Photons which pass through BSa and are reflected by BSc and arrive at D1 are either 'up' or 'down' photons but not both. If 'up' photons arrive at D1 then 'down' photons arrive at D2. The opposite occurs for photons which pass through BSb. Photons which pass through BSa and pass through BSb and arrive at D1 are all either 'up' or 'down' photons. If all 'up' photons arrive at D1 then all 'down' photons arrive at D2. Since the physical waves in the aether traveling both the red and blue paths are combined prior to D1 and D2 the aether waves create interference which alters the direction the photon travels. Since all 'up' photons arrive at one of the detectors and all 'down' photons arrive at the other an interference pattern is created which reflects back to the interference both sets of photons are creating at D0. Figures 3 and 4 here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9903/9903047v1.pdf Show the interference pattern of the 'up' and 'down' photons. If you were to combine the two images and add the peaks together and add the valleys together you would have the interference pattern of the original photon. This is evidence the downgraded photon pair maintain the original photons momentum and have opposite angular momentums. Nothing is erased. There is no delayed choice. Physical waves in the aether are traveling both the red and blue paths and when the paths are combined the waves create interference which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels. Experiments which will provide evidence of Aether Displacement: Experiment #1: Instead of having a single beam splitter BSc have two beam splitters BSca and BScb. Have the photons reflected by mirror Ma interact with BSca and have the photons reflected by mirror Mb interact with BScb. Do not combine the red and blue paths. Have additional detectors D1a, D2a, D1b, and D2b. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BSca be detected at D1a and D2a. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BScb be detected at D1b and D2b. If you compare the photons detected at D1a and D1b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. If you compare the photons detected at D2a and D2b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. What is occurring is all 'up' photons are being detected at one pair of detectors, for example D1a and D1b, and all 'down' photons are being detected at the other pair of detectors, for example D2a and D2b. Interference patterns do not even need to be created in order to 'go back' and determine the interference patterns created at D0. Experiment #2: Alter the experiment. When the downgraded photon pair are created, have each photon interact with its own double slit apparatus. Have detectors at one of the exits for each double slit apparatus. When a photon is detected at one of the exits, in AD, the photon's aether wave still exists and is propagating along the path exiting the other slit. When a photon is not detected at one of the exits, the photon 'particle' along with its associated aether wave exits the other slit. Combine the path the aether wave the detected photon is propagating along with the path of the other photon and its associated aether wave. An interference pattern will still be created. This shows the aether wave of a detected photon still exists and is able to create interference with the aether wave of another photon, altering the direction the photon 'particle' travels. Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory to date.
From: NoEinstein on 30 Mar 2010 09:56 On Mar 29, 9:56 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Paul: Maxwell is a 'nice' name to... drop. But he was too naive to realizewhen he proposed to A. A. Michelson that Michelson use his new interferometer to detect the drag of the ether on lightthat if ether ever could 'drag' light, that the light from the Sun and from the stars would never get here, and we would all be dead! Maxwell, wasn't a very deep thinker, now, was he. NoEinstein > > 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: > > > > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, PaulStowewrote: > > > > > On Mar 24, 7:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 23, 10:34 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > That you cannot provide a physical theory with only a mathematical > > > > > correlational expression, thus his famous quote "Hypothesis Non- > > > > > Fingo"! It's plain stupid to think otherwise. > > > > > Newton explicity said that the mathematical model is enough. From the > > > > Motte/Cajori translation: > > > > > "In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the > > > > phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. Thus it was > > > > that the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive force of > > > > bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation, were discovered. And > > > > to us it is enough that gravity does really exist; and act according to > > > > the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for > > > > all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our Sea." > > > > Hi Timo, its been a long time... > > > > As to your comment above, yes, please note 'this philosophy' which can > > > be also interpreted as in 'this case'. And sure, it's enough to get > > > by with for the time being. If that is, in fact, the goal then all of > > > science might as well be a religion with fundamental 'beliefs' forming > > > its foundation. > > > Note that this extract from the Scholium comes immediately after the > > extract I quoted below; "this philosophy" is "experimental philosophy". > > More below. > > > > > More than that, Newton explcitly stated that stories spun about the > > > > "physical" causes - tales of mechanism in the Cartesian style - have no > > > > place in physics: > > > > > But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those > > > > properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for > > > > whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an > > > > hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of > > > > occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental > > > > philosophy. > > You know, if... scientist of today were more rigorous and disciplined > with the use of term hypothesis verses theory then I would be more > inclined to accept the argument. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > Newton's "experimental philosophy" means "physics". IIRC, this was his > > first major published use of the term, and it looks like part of his > > program to establish "experimental philosophy" as a synonym for "natural > > philosophy", thereby excluding Cartesianist science from being science. > > > This is discussed in Alan E. Shapiro, Newton's "experimental philosophy", > > Early Science and Medicine 9(3), 185-217 (2004) (and the text of a talk > > which appears to be the ancestor of this paper is readily found by > > googling the title). Shapiro quotes Newton: > > > "Experimental Philosophy reduces Phaenomena to general Rules & looks > > upon the Rules to be general when they hold generally in Phaenomena.... > > Hypothetical Philosophy consists in imaginary explications of things & > > imaginary arguments for or against such explications, or against the > > arguments of Experimental Philosophers founded upon Induction. The first > > sort of Philosophy is followed by me, the latter too much by Cartes, > > Leibnitz & some others." > > > (From Newton to Cotes, 28 March 1713, Newton, The Correspondence of Isaac > > Newton, ed., H. W. Turnbull, J. F. Scott, A. Rupert Hall, and Laura > > Tilling, 7 vols. (Cambridge, 1959-77), 5: 398-399.) > > > 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. > > > > > > > The idea of data divorced from theory (not at all the same as free from > > speculation) is very Baconian. See Salomon's House in Bacon's "New > > Atlantis" Not the idea of a research institute, but the details of the > > methodology - an attempt at describing theory-free observation and > > application of such data (it isn't theory free). > > > But, back to the main point: > > > > > 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. > > > 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. > > > Do we understand the "why" of quantum mechanics, what it "really means"? > > No. In this sense, it isn't complete. It's obviously enough to provide a > > basis for a great deal of further progress, both in quantum mechanics > > itself, and other fields making use of it. It's enough for practical > > engineering. That you - and others - want more does not make it "not > > enough". > > I guess that depends upon one's perspective... > > > 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. > > > -- > > Timo > > 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... > > Paul Stowe- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: spudnik on 30 Mar 2010 18:00 just say, Duh!... so, Why, is the absorption of the energy of a quantum of wave-energy, to be considered to be the manifestation of a particle?... see, even though it "is not a classical wave," it is still a wave, as completely proven by Young, without any recourse (I guess) to Newton's alleged "theory." > The portion of the photon wave which is absorbed or 'collapses' > occupies a very small region of the photon wave and travels a single > path. This is what is considered the 'particle'. --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: mpc755 on 30 Mar 2010 18:02 On Mar 30, 5:56 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > now, just as mpc# refuses to step-away > from de Broglie's little "dual" picture of a "photon" > -- they were all puzzling over the photo-electrical *effect* > in the instrumentation -- that of a sphere-particle, punctured > by a linear wavicle-arrow ... you beieve in a "vacuum," > that is now named as an aether, yet somehow need > to resuscitate Newton's old, Young-deflated corpuscular "photon." > > there is no Einstein, > there is no photon, there is no vacuum, > there is no Fossilized Fuel (tm), and > there is no such thing as "the separation of church and state" > in the Constitution! > I don't know why you insist the photon 'particle' exists as a self contained entity. That is not what is being said. My preferred concept of a photon is as a directed/pointed wave which collapses and is detected as a quantum of matter. As I have said repeatedly, this is my preferred image of a photon: http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/foton.gif 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.
From: mpc755 on 30 Mar 2010 18:06
On Mar 30, 6:00 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > just say, Duh!... so, Why, > is the absorption of the energy of a quantum of wave-energy, > to be considered to be the manifestation of a particle?... see, > even though it "is not a classical wave," it is still a wave, > as completely proven by Young, without any recourse > (I guess) to Newton's alleged "theory." > > > The portion of the photon wave which is absorbed or 'collapses' > > occupies a very small region of the photon wave and travels a single > > path. This is what is considered the 'particle'. > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com I don't know why you insist the photon 'particle' exists as a self contained entity. That is not what is being said. My preferred concept of a photon is as a directed/pointed wave which collapses and is detected as a quantum of matter. As I have said repeatedly, this is my preferred image of a photon: http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/foton.gif 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. |