0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Virtual particles never leave the confines of a Feynman diagram. Can you please explain to us dolts why that is McQueen?
Since EM waves are part of the debate, whether there is an aether or not, are there any experiments, besides using EM waves, that can propagate waves without a medium, to show a medium is not needed? If you had a tangible lab analogy, this could end the debate. If this is not possible, except on paper, that tells us something different.
I ask because I am at a loss to understand it. Is it simply because people find relativity so hard to grasp properly and an aether becomes easier to imagine since it has no mathematics attached to it.
We can observe the wavelike properties of the cathode ray as it interacts with the sample being observed. When looking at crystalline samples by TEM, one can easily see the diffraction pattern. (google image search of tem diffraction shows many beautiful examples)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_diffraction
Electron diffraction refers to the wave nature of electrons.
There are several different meanings of the term Aether.
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.
In fact the GAT has a mathematically supported explanation for it. I can post the explanation in New Theories if you like.
Water molecules which are also particles exhibit ALL of the properties quoted by you, including; interference, diffraction and so on. What is good for the goose is good for the ...........! Common sense to think that any 'particle' of that level of magnitude is going to demonstrate all of these properties not because it has wave like properties but because it is so small. Incidentally, no-one is doubting for a minute that the electron is a charged particle and can interact in the way it does.
Cleland and his team took a more direct measure of quantum weirdness at the large scale. They began with a a tiny mechanical paddle, or 'quantum drum', around 30 micrometres long that vibrates when set in motion at a particular range of frequencies. Next they connected the paddle to a superconducting electrical circuit that obeyed the laws of quantum mechanics. They then cooled the system down to temperatures below one-tenth of a kelvin.At this temperature, the paddle slipped into its quantum mechanical ground state. Using the quantum circuit, Cleland and his team verified that the paddle had no vibrational energy whatsoever. They then used the circuit to give the paddle a push and saw it wiggle at a very specific energy.Next, the researchers put the quantum circuit into a superposition of 'push' and 'don't push', and connected it to the paddle. Through a series of careful measurements, they were able to show that the paddle was both vibrating and not vibrating simultaneously.
Quote from: McQueen on 05/05/2016 15:17:57Water molecules which are also particles exhibit ALL of the properties quoted by you, including; interference, diffraction and so on. What is good for the goose is good for the ...........! Common sense to think that any 'particle' of that level of magnitude is going to demonstrate all of these properties not because it has wave like properties but because it is so small. Incidentally, no-one is doubting for a minute that the electron is a charged particle and can interact in the way it does.Too bad for you scientists have proven that objects with about a trillion or so atoms also behave according to quantum mechanics:http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.htmlQuote from: The LinkCleland and his team took a more direct measure of quantum weirdness at the large scale. They began with a a tiny mechanical paddle, or 'quantum drum', around 30 micrometres long that vibrates when set in motion at a particular range of frequencies. Next they connected the paddle to a superconducting electrical circuit that obeyed the laws of quantum mechanics. They then cooled the system down to temperatures below one-tenth of a kelvin.At this temperature, the paddle slipped into its quantum mechanical ground state. Using the quantum circuit, Cleland and his team verified that the paddle had no vibrational energy whatsoever. They then used the circuit to give the paddle a push and saw it wiggle at a very specific energy.Next, the researchers put the quantum circuit into a superposition of 'push' and 'don't push', and connected it to the paddle. Through a series of careful measurements, they were able to show that the paddle was both vibrating and not vibrating simultaneously.
Don't go posting evidence! Who needs evidence. Certainly not aetherists.
You need to read this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_rule and then look at results from the triple slit experiment then tell me you know how a wave behaves.
“Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of [the wave-function wave], arise from the interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium” which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty space”.”
“The fluidic pilot-wave system is also chaotic. It’s impossible to measure a bouncing droplet’s position accurately enough to predict its trajectory very far into the future. But in a recent series of papers, Bush, MIT professor of applied mathematics Ruben Rosales, and graduate students Anand Oza and Dan Harris applied their pilot-wave theory to show how chaotic pilot-wave dynamics leads to the quantumlike statistics observed in their experiments.”
“If you have a system that is deterministic and is what we call in the business ‘chaotic,’ or sensitive to initial conditions, sensitive to perturbations, then it can behave probabilistically,” Milewski continues. “Experiments like this weren’t available to the giants of quantum mechanics. They also didn’t know anything about chaos. Suppose these guys — who were puzzled by why the world behaves in this strange probabilistic way — actually had access to experiments like this and had the knowledge of chaos, would they have come up with an equivalent, deterministic theory of quantum mechanics, which is not the current one? That’s what I find exciting from the quantum perspective.”
'Empty' space has mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
Therefore it has density and an elestic modulus. I've shown you how to calculate one if you know the other, and you consistently refuse to answer the question, so I must assume you are lying about its existence, or are complete ignoramus. Your choice, but I won't waste any more time arguing with you in either case, and I strongly advise others to do likewise.
"This medium, called also the aether, has mass and is populated by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it"
"Wave particle duality is described as the compound system of point particle plus accompanying wave (in the æther)."
Stacyjones you really don't have a clue fo you? I think I'll take Alan's advice
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html
Quote from: agyejy on 05/05/2016 17:34:36http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.htmlSaw the video on youtube, not very convincing to tell you the truth!
In my last post, I asked if anyone was aware of an experiment that can propagate waves without a medium? ...I can show a way to propagate a wave without a medium. What you do is hang a spring vertically, that is attached at one side; top, so it can't move. Next, you pull the spring, down and let it bounce up and down. Now we have a wave. Next, the vibrating spring stays put, but the observation reference moves. If you follow any point in the spring you will see a wave moving. The way the trick works, is your reference has to belief it is not moving, but rather the spring/wave is moving.