Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: MichaelMD on 14/08/2021 13:09:43
-
In previous threads, I have described how my model of a universal ether could account for quantum entanglement, how quantum wave forms are generated from underlying ether, and gravitation. -This Thread will describe how the model could explain the mysterious findings observed in the well-known 2-slit experiment of physics.
In the 2-slit experiment, physicists pass photons through a pair of slits, and observe the results. What this procedure produces is unpredictable, sometimes resulting in waveforms, and other times in "particles." Physicists have coined a term for these strange findings, "quantum uncertainty."
Applying my ether model to these findings, the patternless unpredictability of the results would be attributed to a "scattering" effect of unobserved, radiated, etheric units "entangled" with the quantum photons being observed, both kinds being produced by the instruments being used in the experiment.
The instruments would have been shielded from interference coming from known quantum forces, but would not be shielded from possible interference coming from unsuspected, etheric, indirect, or "scattered," radiating forces that could have been generated by the instruments, "entangled" together with the quantum forces, ether forces which could exert their effects on the experiment in a different, indirect, way. This unsuspected source of interference could then skew the results observed in the 2-slit experiment.
To illustrate how this ether model views etheric radiations becoming "entangled" with quantum forces being observed, consider how, when a flashlight is turned on at night, there is some degree of illumination seen even behind the flashlight. (in my model of the ether, there are etheric radiations having a photonic vibratory pattern coming from the flashlight, which are "tuned," or "entangled," to the area behind the flashlight, because there are always some ambient photonic units in an area, even after sunset.)
-
... What this procedure produces is unpredictable, sometimes resulting in waveforms, and other times in "particles." Physicists have coined a term for these strange findings, "quantum uncertainty." ...
The fact of interpreting the wave and the particle is precisely related to the observation. It is the collapse of the wave function and is not that of the uncertainty principle ; Even if during the observation and the measurement of the particle this principle can be applies.
Otherwise I do not see how and even with the ether how the function of quantum entanglement could work. This does not demistify the Bell's theorems.
-
In the 2-slit experiment, physicists pass photons through a pair of slits, and observe the results. What this procedure produces is unpredictable, sometimes resulting in waveforms, and other times in "particles." Physicists have coined a term for these strange findings, "quantum uncertainty."
No.
It's predictable and you are using the wrong words.
This interesting behaviour is called duality.
-
... What this procedure produces is unpredictable, sometimes resulting in waveforms, and other times in "particles." Physicists have coined a term for these strange findings, "quantum uncertainty." ...
The fact of interpreting the wave and the particle is precisely related to the observation. It is the collapse of the wave function and is not that of the uncertainty principle ; Even if during the observation and the measurement of the particle this principle can be applies.
Otherwise I do not see how and even with the ether how the function of quantum entanglement could work. This does not demistify the Bell's theorems.
I won't try to argue fine points as to the words used by quantists to define "no ether" theories.
I have given the model, of quantum entanglement in my Ether Theory, here before. It goes as follows - So-called quantum entanglement just represents radiated packets of etheric energy which have the same vibratory pattern. Elemental ether units are the only actual participants in this phenomenon, with the quantum units being "walled off," kinetically, like "cool" arms of a quiet, purring, universal, mechanism, which can turn itself on and off.
-
... What this procedure produces is unpredictable, sometimes resulting in waveforms, and other times in "particles." Physicists have coined a term for these strange findings, "quantum uncertainty." ...
The fact of interpreting the wave and the particle is precisely related to the observation. It is the collapse of the wave function and is not that of the uncertainty principle ; Even if during the observation and the measurement of the particle this principle can be applies.
Otherwise I do not see how and even with the ether how the function of quantum entanglement could work. This does not demistify the Bell's theorems.
I won't try to argue fine points as to the words used by quantists to define "no ether" theories.
I have given the model, of quantum entanglement in my Ether Theory, here before. It goes as follows - So-called quantum entanglement just represents radiated packets of etheric energy which have the same vibratory pattern. Elemental ether units are the only actual participants in this phenomenon, with the quantum units being "walled off," kinetically, like "cool" arms of a quiet, purring, universal, mechanism, which can turn itself on and off.
Postscript: A key part of my quantum entanglement model relates to another aspect of my overall Model, i.e., that all energy units, starting from the smallest ether unit up to the size of quantum units, originated as elemental ether units themselves, as "building blocks" of the larger units. That is why entangled quantum units are so closely connected to the elements of the ether. A universal ether "matrix" serves as the underlying transmission-medium.
-
I won't try to argue fine points as to the words used by quantists to define "no ether" theories.
The arguments used by quantists are based on real observations.
I have given the model, of quantum entanglement in my Ether Theory, here before.
Do you have a link to your quantum entanglement model?
A universal ether "matrix" serves as the underlying transmission-medium.
Strictly speaking, there is no transmission in quantum entanglement.
-
I won't try to argue fine points as to the words used by quantists to define "no ether" theories.
The arguments used by quantists are based on real observations.
I have given the model, of quantum entanglement in my Ether Theory, here before.
Do you have a link to your quantum entanglement model?
A universal ether "matrix" serves as the underlying transmission-medium.
Strictly speaking, there is no transmission in quantum entanglement.
To appreciate how Quantum Entanglement fits into my overall Ether Model, one would have to look at the basics of how a universal ether arose, and how quantum forces became superimposed on an underlying ether.
If an underlying ether exists, it would have to exist universally. Therefore, it would have had to arise first-causally. My Model proposes that, originally, all there was was original space, and being "pure," space was then perfectly self-compatible, such that it consisted of ultimately-small ('ether like") point-localities that oscillated, in a perfectly "pure" type of oscillation. This then transitioned to a vibrational (rather than oscillational) ether of space, in which elemental units now interacted (instead of reciprocally oscillating) with each other, via contact vibrations.
Next followed a second, or "ether," world, where etheric radiations interacted, producing larger units via alignments, and then linear entrainments, of multiple elemental units. Larger units included quantum units, and then quantum moieties, or bodies, one of which developed into a sapient Entity. Following this, a quantum world was created out of the ether world (for better magnetic stability.)
There was still a universal underlying etheric matrix, but now with quantum forces and moieties superimposed upon it. Quantum bodies, of course, are composed of quantum energy units, which, in my Model, are in turn composed of tiny etheric "building block" units, and the quantum units all still retain the ability to interact with the ether units all around them in the ether matrix, via vibration (in addition to their own quantum interactions, involving distance vectors, spin, and so on.)
Using this overall model, quantum entanglement is explainable staightforwardly, as I gave in my last Post.
-
In the Double Slit Experiment...
Where is the Gun pointing at?
1st Slit or 2nd Slit or Right in the Centre of both Slits?
There are two more possible locations: Outside of both slits.
Any serious model should successfully predict that removing the outer sides of light barriers changes the light pattern on the screen. The width of the central bright would be double of side bright lines. The aperture would effectively be a thin wire, which would produce interference pattern similar to single slit diffraction, according to Babinet's principle.
-
In the Double Slit Experiment...
Where is the Gun pointing at?
1st Slit or 2nd Slit or Right in the Centre of both Slits?
There are two more possible locations: Outside of both slits.
Any serious model should successfully predict that removing the outer sides of light barriers changes the light pattern on the screen. The width of the central bright would be double of side bright lines. The aperture would effectively be a thin wire, which would produce interference pattern similar to single slit diffraction, according to Babinet's principle.
Kartazion's Reply was in the same "ether model" framework as I intended in starting this Thread, of a new way of looking at the 2 slit experiment. Now the replies seem to want to take it back toward the "quantum forces only" framework usually used in physics.
The point of this Thread was supposed to be that physics has been overlooking a key theoretic requirement needed to explain fundamental forces behind the 2-slit results, a new way of thinking about an underlying ether matrix.
-
Hello Michael MD
Sorry i abruptly disturbed the ongoing quest.
🙏
Didn't mean to.
Was just seeking a simplistic one liner response to a layman doubt.
Instead of Creating a whole new OP just for one lil query, which did not seem apt...hence barged in here.
Apologies.
PS - Anyways, didn't help much.
Doubt still remains.
An apple gun pointing at a board with 2 slits.
All i wished to know is where is the
➕ Crosshair pointed at?
Slit 1 or 2 or right between the Centre [_|_+_|_]
If the Apple Gun is pointed Centre.
Apple should smash against the Board wall.
If it's escaping through slit 1 or 2.
That would mean curvature.
Apple's supposed to travel in a straight path.
& If it's Apple Juice that's being sprayed from the gun...then why such a fuss about the wave pattern?
Ps - Isn't a drop of water a Single droplet Particle & a Wave in itself?
Duality?
ZerO, By "barging in" to my Ether-based thread, you interrupted the Thread's main flow of thought, and possibly inhibited others from comments on whether this new ether model could better explain the key results of the experiment.
-
In what way do you think that your ether model explains double slit experiment better than other models, such as Feynman's QED and Maxwell's electromagnetic wave?
-
In what way do you think that your ether model explains double slit experiment better than other models, such as Feynman's QED and Maxwell's electromagnetic wave?
Yusuf,
The basic rationale for why my Ether Model would be a strong challenge to the conventional theories in quantum physics, such as Feynman or Maxwell, can be viewed in my opening post of this Thread (14/08/2021), also my reply # 4, 15/08/2021, and reply #6, 17/08/2021) - see above, this page.
You would have to study the points made in those posts, first, and then make your own comparison to the conventional "there is no ether" theories of physicists like the two you mentioned. I claim my model is the correct one.
-
In the 2-slit experiment, physicists pass photons through a pair of slits, and observe the results. What this procedure produces is unpredictable, sometimes resulting in waveforms, and other times in "particles." Physicists have coined a term for these strange findings, "quantum uncertainty."
Applying my ether model to these findings, the patternless unpredictability of the results would be attributed to a "scattering" effect of unobserved, radiated, etheric units "entangled" with the quantum photons being observed, both kinds being produced by the instruments being used in the experiment.
Your objection to quantum theory is due to wave particle duality. Maxwell's theory views light as a wave only, not a particle.
The question is, how a "scattering" effect of unobserved, radiated, etheric units "entangled" with the quantum photons can be considered as a better explanation?
-
In the 2-slit experiment, physicists pass photons through a pair of slits, and observe the results. What this procedure produces is unpredictable, sometimes resulting in waveforms, and other times in "particles." Physicists have coined a term for these strange findings, "quantum uncertainty."
Applying my ether model to these findings, the patternless unpredictability of the results would be attributed to a "scattering" effect of unobserved, radiated, etheric units "entangled" with the quantum photons being observed, both kinds being produced by the instruments being used in the experiment.
Your objection to quantum theory is due to wave particle duality. Maxwell's theory views light as a wave only, not a particle.
The question is, how a "scattering" effect of unobserved, radiated, etheric units "entangled" with the quantum photons can be considered as a better explanation?
My ether model has been derived from a cosmic first-causal model, in which an elemental-points oscillation of original space transitioned to a universal vibrational ether, in which elemental ether units interact with each other (rather than reciprocally oscillating) via contact vibrations. -Later, quantum moieties were formed as radiating ether units interacted, and one such moiety developed into a sapient Entity, following which, a quantum world was created (for better magnetic stability) by projecting quantum electrons toward a "virgin" ether region, which produced our world of quantum units and atoms, chain-reactionally.
That is how my model views how our quantum dynamic world became superimposed upon an. underlying universal ether.
Applying my ether model to the case you mention, the idea would be that when a 2-slit experiment is performed, the instruments used, such as tabulators, would be shielded against interfering with observations at the slits by quantum forces coming from the instruments themselves, but would not be shielded against unsuspected, unseen, etheric forces that (in my model) always accompany quantum transmissions. (In my ether model, all transmissions originate as etheric forces, with quantum forces then appearing secondarily.)
The difference in how the two kinds of forces exert their effects is key to the concept that the etheric transmissions would be indirect, or scattered, as well as direct, in contrast to quantum transmissions, which, of course, follow quantum dynamic pathways, determined by directional factors like distance vectors, waves, and so on. -Any photonic etheric component of transmissions coming from the instruments would, as they emerge, interact vibrationally with other ether units in the general area, in whatever direction they might lie. The concept is that the etheric component of the forces coming from the instruments woul interact with ambient ether forces in all the different directions, as a "scatter" effect, of etheric units in the area that have a photonic vibratory pattern. That would explain how they would be able to interfere with observations at the slits.
This concept can be correlated with the phenomenon of quantum entanglement (Q.E.). -In my model quantum entanglement represents radiated packets of etheric energy which have the same vibratory pattern. Elemental ether units are the only actual participants in Q.E. The quantum units are passively (but not kinetically) connected, because they were originally formed from vibrational ether units, and thus retain the ability to "feel" vibrations in the ether matrix all around them.
-
quantum electrons
What's that? How does it differ from ordinary electron?
-
quantum electrons
What's that? How does it differ from ordinary electron?
The electron I was referring to would be the kind physicists find occurring naturally, and is the smallest one found occurring naturally. This "natural" group of energic units does not include so-called "particle units," like muons, bosons, and the like) produced in laboratory procedures or with accelerator/collider procedures.)
This naturally occurring electron occurs in atoms, and is the smallest of the three known atomic units (protons, neutrons, and electrons.) -In my ether-based model of the original creation of our quantum-atomic world, these electrons were used to stimulate formation of quantum units and atoms, because, being the smallest, they are the speediest, and could interact with much-tinier ether units in such a way as to form larger units like atoms. (As the electrons sped through the ether, the vibratory properties of the electrons (which were originally formed from ether units, and thus retain the ability to interact vibrationally, in addition to their quantum dynamic properties) interacted with the ether units, aligning their vibrations, which in turn caused them to entrain with each other, which formed larger and larger units, like protons and neutrons, and eventually the atoms in our world.)
Since the electron/photon units was used to create our world, that meant that its velocity (the speed of light) would remain the highest speed limit in our world.
-
The electron I was referring to would be the kind physicists find occurring naturally
Well that shouldn't be a problem since every single electron is naturally occurring.
and is the smallest one found occurring naturally
This also shouldn't be a problem since all electrons are the same size.
This "natural" group of energic units does not include so-called "particle units," like muons, bosons, and the like) produced in laboratory procedures or with accelerator/collider procedures.)
Again this should be easy since bosons and muons are not electrons.
In my ether-based model
You don't have a model.
It also seems you don't have any idea what you are talking about. Asking questions about physics might be the best route for you to take.
-
The electron I was referring to would be the kind physicists find occurring naturally
Well that shouldn't be a problem since every single electron is naturally occurring.
and is the smallest one found occurring naturally
This also shouldn't be a problem since all electrons are the same size.
This "natural" group of energic units does not include so-called "particle units," like muons, bosons, and the like) produced in laboratory procedures or with accelerator/collider procedures.)
Again this should be easy since bosons and muons are not electrons.
In my ether-based model
You don't have a model.
It also seems you don't have any idea what you are talking about. Asking questions about physics might be the best route for you to take.
My Post did not say electrons have varying sizes.
Also., I didn't say that electrons are not "natural." -What I tried to convey is that electrons appeared cosmically in natural settings, whereas muons, bosons, quarks, etc. are units that have been found under artificial technological settings (Physics Lab, accelerator/collider).. (Whenever I see a headline about one of those "newly discovered particles," my reaction is "So what?) -If you bother to really look at my postings on my Ether Model, you will see that in my Model, all quantum units have been originally formed starting from elemental ether units. -A universal underlying vibratory ether preceded a later creationally-designed superimposed quantum dynamic. In my Creation model, electrons were the key units creationally projected, toward an ether region, in order to chain-reactionally produce our quantum world of electrons, protons, neutrons, and atoms. -As electrons coursed through the ether, their vibrations aligned the vibrations of the elemental ether units, ,which in turn caused them to entrain with each other, which is how larger units like quantum units and atoms originally were formed, in what I referred to as a "natural" cosmic process to distinguish it from those units found using accelerator/colliders.
For just one example, this kind of model provides a straightforward logical explanation of quantum entanglement.
-
For just one example, this kind of model provides a straightforward logical explanation of quantum entanglement.
Which explanation of quantum entanglement is more similar to your model: hidden variable or spooky action at a distance?
-
I didn't say that electrons are not "natural." -What I tried to convey is that electrons appeared cosmically in natural settings, whereas muons, bosons, quarks, etc. are units that have been found under artificial technological settings (Physics Lab, accelerator/collider)
That statement is wrong. The photons from the sun are bosons; do think those are 'not natural'? All subatomic particles are natural. Again you should be asking questions about physics if you are interested, not making random false statements.
in my Model, all quantum units have been originally formed starting from elemental ether units
That is just something you made up with zero evidence.
A universal underlying vibratory ether preceded a later creationally-designed superimposed quantum dynamic. In my Creation model, electrons were the key units creationally projected, toward an ether region, in order to chain-reactionally produce our quantum world of electrons, protons, neutrons, and atoms. -As electrons coursed through the ether, their vibrations aligned the vibrations of the elemental ether units, ,which in turn caused them to entrain with each other, which is how larger units like quantum units and atoms originally were formed, in what I referred to as a "natural" cosmic process to distinguish it from those units found using accelerator/colliders.
That is just gibberish with some 'sciency' sounding words. It is meaningless.
It seems obvious at this point that you are not interested in science and just want to play pretend science, so I will leave you to it. If you ever decide to try and learn some science, start asking some questions.
-
In previous threads, I have described how my model of a universal ether ...
You haven't explained why you drew up a model based on ether which was disproven a century ago.
-
I didn't say that electrons are not "natural." -What I tried to convey is that electrons appeared cosmically in natural settings, whereas muons, bosons, quarks, etc. are units that have been found under artificial technological settings (Physics Lab, accelerator/collider)
That statement is wrong. The photons from the sun are bosons; do think those are 'not natural'? All subatomic particles are natural. Again you should be asking questions about physics if you are interested, not making random false statements.
in my Model, all quantum units have been originally formed starting from elemental ether units
That is just something you made up with zero evidence.
A universal underlying vibratory ether preceded a later creationally-designed superimposed quantum dynamic. In my Creation model, electrons were the key units creationally projected, toward an ether region, in order to chain-reactionally produce our quantum world of electrons, protons, neutrons, and atoms. -As electrons coursed through the ether, their vibrations aligned the vibrations of the elemental ether units, ,which in turn caused them to entrain with each other, which is how larger units like quantum units and atoms originally were formed, in what I referred to as a "natural" cosmic process to distinguish it from those units found using accelerator/colliders.
That is just gibberish with some 'sciency' sounding words. It is meaningless.
It seems obvious at this point that you are not interested in science and just want to play pretend science, so I will leave you to it. If you ever decide to try and learn some science, start asking some questions.
Your criticisms include petty nit-picking about my ether model's slightly misidentifying a term in an area of quantum theory that is based upon denying that an underlying ether exists..
This kind of confrontational dialogue is pointless. It's alright by me if you "leave me to my model." This model is the correct one.
-
For just one example, this kind of model provides a straightforward logical explanation of quantum entanglement.
Which explanation of quantum entanglement is more similar to your model: hidden variable or spooky action at a distance?
My model of quantum entanglement proposes its main participant, the elemental ether unit, is "hidden" from being observed, in that (in my model of the ether) these units are ultimately-rarified, uniquely different from known force-units, being post-first-causal, and beyond the reach of our technology, which is based on the dynamics of much larger quantum/atomic force-units.
"Spooky action at a distance" was a phrase used by Einstein in 1935, in referring to the early observations of entanglement.
-
In previous threads, I have described how my model of a universal ether ...
You haven't explained why you drew up a model based on ether which was disproven a century ago.
I assume you refer to the Michelson-Morley Experiment of 1887 (MMX), which attempted to find an ether they assumed would be acting as a medium for the passage of light beams through it. They assumed that if an ether exists, they should be able to demonstrate its interaction with light. MMX used optical measurements of light beams, taken at different angles with respect to earth's rotation. Their measurements and calculations failed to show any interaction between light beams and what they assumed would be an ether, which physics has ever since to as "the null result" of MMX. -From time to time afterward, other investigators have applied different modifiications to MMX (other than varying gravity settings), but physics still retains the concept that MMX disproves ether.
However, in my Ether model, the ether is predominantly composed of ultimately-rarified "elemental" units, which are vanishingly smaller than the photons that transmit visible light beams. There would be no inertial interface between the ether units and the light beams in MMX. Therefore, MMX's attempts to show an interaction between light beams and ether were based on a false assumption about how ether would behave in the presence of light beams.
The analogy I would draw here would be with a motorcar travelling through a cloud of dust. The car ("photon") would not interact with the dust particles (elemental ether units), but instead would just brush them aside. -In technical terms, there is no inertial interface between the car and the dust particles.
(Actually, in my Ether Model, this is an over-simplification of how ether units and photonic units are connected, because in my Model, the ether units are vibratory, while the larger photonic units are able to "feel" these vibrations, because photons, like all quantum units, were originally formed out of elemental ether units, and still retain the ability to "feel" ether units vibrationally.) That kind of vibratory interaction is the basis of my model's explanation of quantum entanglement.)
Photons just can't interact with the ether inertially.
-
They assumed that if an ether exists, they should be able to demonstrate its interaction with light.
As I have pointed out before, this is not an assumption. It is pretty much the definition of the "luminiferous ether", isn't it?
If you want to talk about some "mystery stuff" that doesn't interact with light, you will be much better served to call it something other than "the ether", because that is the one thing we can be sure it is not.
-
Your criticisms include petty nit-picking about my ether model's slightly misidentifying a term in an area of quantum theory that is based upon denying that an underlying ether exists..
If you misspoke and I responded to it, please let me know what it was that was misspoken.
-
The analogy I would draw here would be with a motorcar travelling through a cloud of dust. The car ("photon") would not interact with the dust particles
Of course the dust interacts with the car! What are you talking about?
-
However, in my Ether model, the ether is predominantly composed of ultimately-rarified "elemental" units, which are vanishingly smaller than the photons that transmit visible light beams.
What's the size of the photons? what's the size of the ether?
-
Your criticisms include petty nit-picking about my ether model's slightly misidentifying a term in an area of quantum theory that is based upon denying that an underlying ether exists..
If you misspoke and I responded to it, please let me know what it was that was misspoken.
What I was referring to was not that you misstated anything. I was referring to your seemingly "scoring debate points" where I mistakenly attributed a tern used in quantum physics (muon). -I objected to the implication that I made a significant error by mislabeling one term in quantum physics.
My position in a dialogue like ours was that the main crux of a debate should focus on whether quantum physics is wrong in discarding the ether, and whether my ether model would be the correct one. -Your reference to my mislabeling one minor hypothetical unit (muon) in quantum theory was not worth making a point of in the overall context..
-
The analogy I would draw here would be with a motorcar travelling through a cloud of dust. The car ("photon") would not interact with the dust particles
Of course the dust interacts with the car! What are you talking about?
The dust particles ("elemental ether units" in my Michelson Morley analogy) are inertially insignificant relative to the motion of the car (photon.) MMX had been searching for a more readily-detectable interaction than that, in their assumption about how interaction with an ether medium would influence the passage of a light beam.
-
Your reference to my mislabeling one minor hypothetical unit (muon) in quantum theory was not worth making a point of in the overall context.
The devil is in the details and the details are important!
For instance how can I proceed in the discussion after reading your sentence above?
You wrote, "hypothetical unit (muon)", what does that even mean? Muons are not hypothetical, they are real particles that are clearly defined and easy to detect.
The second issue is I don't think I ever even mentioned muons, so I am not sure why you brought them up.
I objected to the implication that I made a significant error by mislabeling one term in quantum physics.
I never did that. I was reacting to what you wrote, if your reply back to me was something like, "I didn't mean electrons, I meant...", I would have said fine.
-
Your reference to my mislabeling one minor hypothetical unit (muon) in quantum theory was not worth making a point of in the overall context.
The devil is in the details and the details are important!
For instance how can I proceed in the discussion after reading your sentence above?
You wrote, "hypothetical unit (muon)", what does that even mean? Muons are not hypothetical, they are real particles that are clearly defined and easy to detect.
The second issue is I don't think I ever even mentioned muons, so I am not sure why you brought them up.
I objected to the implication that I made a significant error by mislabeling one term in quantum physics.
I never did that. I was reacting to what you wrote, if your reply back to me was something like, "I didn't mean electrons, I meant...", I would have said fine.
By saying muons are "hypothetical," I was generally thinking in terms of my creation/ether model, and trying to indicate that muons are not necessarily as significant as quantum theory now holds.
In my Model, what was important that happened in the context of cosmically generating tiny energy units was that certain significant energy units appeared within an early "ether world" that preceded our quantum world. As ether units there radiated, and interacted, their vibrations and their linear movement through the ether matrix aligned the vibrations of elemental ether units in the ether matrix, so that they began to entrain with each other, forming larger and larger energy units, up to the size of quantum units and atoms. Quantum moieties then appeared, and eventually, a sapient Entity appeared. Then a quantum world was created for better magnetic stability.
Creationally, the smallest and speediest quantum unit, the electron, was projected toward an ether region. As electrons traversed the ether, their linear motion and their vibrational property (in my Model, electrons, being quantum units, were originally formed out of vibratory ether units, and still retain vibrational properties; which is the basis for how my model explains quantum entanglement) aligned the vibrations of ether units so that they began entraining. As they entrained with each other, they generated larger units. The pattern of units generated in this cosmic context by the electrons were protons, neutrons, and atoms. This was a self-sustaining chain-reactional quantum-creational process.
In my model, muons would likely not have been part of the process. -When I see that a "new kind of particle" has been discovered artificially through research using accelerator/colliders, my reaction is "So what?" -The important question should instead be, how were energy units and atoms generated cosmically?
-
Quote from: MichaelMD on Yesterday at 17:52:06
"They assumed that if an ether exists, they should be able to demonstrate its interaction with light."
As I have pointed out before, this is not an assumption. It is pretty much the definition of the "luminiferous ether", isn't it?
-
The dust particles ("elemental ether units" in my Michelson Morley analogy) are inertially insignificant relative to the motion of the car (photon.) MMX had been searching for a more readily-detectable interaction than that, in their assumption about how interaction with an ether medium would influence the passage of a light beam.
The ether was what use to be thought of as the medium for light. That is the light waves were transmitted through the ether, just like water waves are transmitted through water.
The MM experiment was not looking for the interaction between light and the ether, they were looking for the movement of the ether relative to earth. The analogy with water would be that they were trying to see the current in the water that waves were moving through.
So it seems that this ether that you are talking about is not the ether that the earlier scientist were talking about. I think it would be much less confusing if you used a new term for your 'ether' since it is not the same as the generally accepted definition.
-
By saying muons are "hypothetical," I was generally thinking in terms of my creation/ether model, and trying to indicate that muons are not necessarily as significant as quantum theory now holds.
Then you should not say hypothetical since significance in not part of the definition of hypothetical.
So what you meant was muons are not significant. That seems like an odd thing to say, but, OK.
In my Model, what was important that happened in the context of cosmically generating tiny energy units
What is an energy unit? It seems like you are saying unit is like a particle. Energy cannot be a particle, it is a conserved property.
As ether units there radiated, and interacted, their vibrations and their linear movement through the ether matrix aligned the vibrations of elemental ether units in the ether matrix, so that they began to entrain with each other, forming larger and larger energy units, up to the size of quantum units and atoms
You are treating "energy" as a particle which doesn't make sense if you are talking about the normal definition of energy. Perhaps you are talking about something different than what is commonly known as energy.
-
In my model, muons would likely not have been part of the process. -When I see that a "new kind of particle" has been discovered artificially through research using accelerator/colliders, my reaction is "So what?"
Muons are continuously formed on earth by cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere, so it obviously is not something seen just in accelerators.
All the particles seen in accelerators are just naturally occurring phenomenon. The point of the accelerator is that the particles can be revealed directly into a detector. These particles produced in the accelerators are in no way unnatural or man made, they are simple naturally occurring particles that scientist are trying to study.
-
By saying muons are "hypothetical," I was generally thinking in terms of my creation/ether model, and trying to indicate that muons are not necessarily as significant as quantum theory now holds.
Then you should not say hypothetical since significance in not part of the definition of hypothetical.
So what you meant was muons are not significant. That seems like an odd thing to say, but, OK.
In my Model, what was important that happened in the context of cosmically generating tiny energy units
What is an energy unit? It seems like you are saying unit is like a particle. Energy cannot be a particle, it is a conserved property.
As ether units there radiated, and interacted, their vibrations and their linear movement through the ether matrix aligned the vibrations of elemental ether units in the ether matrix, so that they began to entrain with each other, forming larger and larger energy units, up to the size of quantum units and atoms
You are treating "energy" as a particle which doesn't make sense if you are talking about the normal definition of energy. Perhaps you are talking about something different than what is commonly known as energy.
You continue to criticize concepts in my Ether Model using criteria from quantum theory.
In my Model, there is no such thing as "particles." The correct term would be "particle capacities," because in my Model, all energy units now called particles have been originally formed out of elemental ether units, which interact via contact vibration, and entrain into larger and larger units that way.
-
In my Model, there is no such thing as "particles." The correct term would be "particle capacities," because in my Model, all energy units now called particles have been originally formed out of elemental ether units, which interact via contact vibration, and entrain into larger and larger units that way.
Word salad.
-
You continue to criticize concepts in my Ether Model using criteria from quantum theory.
My main criticisms are that you are are saying things that are demonstrably false and you are using your own made up definitions for words which makes it almost impossible to understand what you are trying to say.because in my Model, all energy units now called particles
This is a case in point. There is no such thing as a particle made of energy. It seems you are using words with definitions that you made up. You need to define your terms that have nonstandard definitions if you hope to be understood.
-
What makes you think that the results of double slit experiments are strange?
-
What makes you think that the results of double slit experiments are strange?
Yusuf,
To evaluate my thread, concerning interpretation of results of double-slit experiments, in light of my ether/creation model, you would have to read closely my earlier postings as to my models' view of how an ether came to exist, along with the rationale for how it would now work.
Don't judge my model by the posts quantum theorists have been making here, such as citing various aspects of current quantum theory to make assertions why my model can't be right.
-
Don't judge my model by the posts quantum theorists have been making here, such as citing various aspects of current quantum theory to make assertions why my model can't be right.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain... ::)