[jeffreyH]

McQueen. Neither of the links you posted is a theory as neither make predictions or are based upon direct observation. One is hypothetical and indicated as so. I would not strongly argue in favour of either. I don't know enough yet to do that. At least I am willing to admit that. I have learnt enough to know that you have no evidence for your speculations otherwise you would have presented it by now.

[jeffreyH]

It is if you are going to make incorrect assumptions about the properties of waves and media and then use those assumption to 'formulate questions based on these properties'.
Also, there are objects that move at relativistic speeds relative to water waves, which could be relevant if folks are going to discuss bow waves and pilot waves in a double slit experiment.
Just looking for consistency!

You may be looking for anything BUT  your language and attitude leave a lot to be desired 'incorrect assumptions' from someone who claims that the velocity of a wave moving at a few kilometres  per hour  will vary with the position of the observer.

The speed of these waves relative to an observer is dependant on the speed of the medium relative to the observer.

If this is the level of your understanding and being rude on top of everything else, what can I say. Just tagging on a  'Just looking for consistency ' on the end, doesn't really alter the gist or tenor of your message, which is totally false and reprehensible.

Since when is the correction of misconceptions considered to be rude?

[stacyjones]

so your stuff simply does not exist.

Maxwell disagrees with you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Luminiferous_aether

James Clerk Maxwell said of the aether, "In several parts of this treatise an attempt has been made to explain electromagnetic phenomena by means of mechanical action transmitted from one body to another by means of a medium occupying the space between them. The undulatory theory of light also assumes the existence of a medium. We have now to show that the properties of the electromagnetic medium are identical with those of the luminiferous medium."

Is the issue that you don't understand when Maxwell refers to the "luminiferous medium" he is referring to the aether?

[alancalverd]

Massive intellects have been wrong about all sorts of things in the past. Perhaps you believe in phlogiston and caloric, or that heavy things fall faster than light ones, because there are lots of papers on those subjects too.

Maxwell's equations make no mention of the mechanical properties of any medium. You have asserted that aether has mass, and implied that it has elastic properties, but you have failed to give them any values, any more than Maxwell did, despite the fact that they must determine the speed of light in vacuo, which is a well-known quantity.

So instead of referring to other people's outdated ideas, please man up and tell us the answer in your own figures. Or stop spouting drivel.

[stacyjones]

So instead of referring to other people's outdated ideas, please man up and tell us the answer in your own figures. Or stop spouting drivel.

You previously pointed to Maxwell's equation and then said no one had ever said they had anything to do with the aether. Maxwell himself said they did.

In a double slit experiment the particle is always detected traveling through a single slit. This is evidence the particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.

[Robcat]

IT in fact can be described as the space/time continuum  since 1915 although the detection and character must await the finding of gravity waves
Oops!
That's just been found!

[stacyjones]

IT in fact can be described as the space/time continuum  since 1915 although the detection and character must await the finding of gravity waves
Oops!
That's just been found!

"It" has mass and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it, including 'particles' as large as galaxy clusters.

What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment, the aether.

Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality, both are waves in the aether.

Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.

The state of displacement of the aether is curved spacetime.

All physicists need to do in order to understand what relates general relativity and quantum mechanics is to understand 'empty' space has mass which is displaced by matter.

[Colin2B]

the gist or tenor of your message, which is totally false and reprehensible.

I think you have read an amazing amount into my comments and are seriously overreacting.

I was merely pointing out that the statement that "the medium does not travel" is untrue, and when you made it you clearly thought it germane to the discussion.

Whether you decide to use that information is up to you. However, I would be grateful if you would not make assumptions (particularly false ones) about my thoughts or intentions and I will assume that you read into my post some slight that was not intended, and leave it at that.

I stand by the detail of my post. The behaviour of sound and ocean waves has been confirmed by experiment and are well known, as any textbook on propagation of sound in the open air, and oceanography text, will confirm. The media do move, and when they do it is necessary to consider the frame of the observer.

[McQueen]

I stand by the detail of my post. The behaviour of sound and ocean waves has been confirmed by experiment and are well known, as any textbook on propagation of sound in the open air, and oceanography text, will confirm. The media do move, and when they do it is necessary to consider the frame of the observer.

No problem, substantiate your post, give a reference that shows significant movement of the medium, and  your statement in support of it namely:

Also, there are objects that move at relativistic speeds relative to water waves, which could be relevant if folks are going to discuss bow waves and pilot waves in a double slit experiment.

That's all you need to do, instead of professing your beliefs so vehemently !

[McQueen]

McQueen. Neither of the links you posted is a theory as neither make predictions or are based upon direct observation. One is hypothetical and indicated as so. I would not strongly argue in favour of either. I don't know enough yet to do that. At least I am willing to admit that. I have learnt enough to know that you have no evidence for your speculations otherwise you would have presented it by now.

I am not concerned with any of what you state except for the fact that IF what you say is true, why did you opt to post in the New Theory forum ? 

[jeffreyH]

Generally anything that is not discussing mainstream science or things that have not been established go there. What I stated has not been established. It is my own analysis, the content of which will very likely change as I cross ideas off. That is the difference between us. I will discard ideas that are shown by myself or others to be wrong. I do that publicly so that people following a thread are not misled.

[McQueen]

The problem with wave-particle duality is that some people believe in it!

Whilst you can model the behavior of many particles with a wave, a single particle such as a visible photon or 10 keV electron cannot interact with a receptor (a photographic film or fluorescent plate) over an extended area - it doesn't have enough energy.

Therefore whilst a wave model gives an accurate prediction of the distribution of an ensemble of particles or quanta, or the probability of finding one particle or photon at any particular point in space, it can't be said that waves actually direct the particles to their destinations. 

Physics is obviously a hobby horse with this poster! What absolute twaddle to think that a photon interacts with millions of atoms in a plate and that it does so as a wave. Or don't hold your breath a " manifestation of wave/particle duality! Hahaha....... ho ho!

[stacyjones]

Physics is obviously a hobby horse with this poster! What absolute twaddle to think that a photon interacts with millions of atoms in a plate and that it does so as a wave. Or don't hold your breath a " manifestation of wave/particle duality! Hahaha....... ho ho!

Maybe they don't understand the interference pattern builds up over time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#/media/File:Double-slit_experiment_results_Tanamura_2.jpg

As the particle exits a single slit it is guided by the interference created by its associated wave in the aether exiting both.

[jeffreyH]

The problem with wave-particle duality is that some people believe in it!

Whilst you can model the behavior of many particles with a wave, a single particle such as a visible photon or 10 keV electron cannot interact with a receptor (a photographic film or fluorescent plate) over an extended area - it doesn't have enough energy.

Therefore whilst a wave model gives an accurate prediction of the distribution of an ensemble of particles or quanta, or the probability of finding one particle or photon at any particular point in space, it can't be said that waves actually direct the particles to their destinations. 

Physics is obviously a hobby horse with this poster! What absolute twaddle to think that a photon interacts with millions of atoms in a plate and that it does so as a wave. Or don't hold your breath a " manifestation of wave/particle duality! Hahaha....... ho ho!

Oh how you protest when the truth is pointed out to you of harassment and stalking. Yet the tone of your own responses seem reasonable to you even though they are childish.

[arcmetal]

The problem with wave-particle duality is that some people believe in it!

Whilst you can model the behavior of many particles with a wave, a single particle such as a visible photon or 10 keV electron cannot interact with a receptor (a photographic film or fluorescent plate) over an extended area - it doesn't have enough energy.

Therefore whilst a wave model gives an accurate prediction of the distribution of an ensemble of particles or quanta, or the probability of finding one particle or photon at any particular point in space, it can't be said that waves actually direct the particles to their destinations. 

It seems though, that they are beginning to surpass the limitations of the past, and are starting to be able to view the definite trajectories of particles.  And so it seems, these particle waves do have an influence.

"Experimental nonlocal and surreal Bohmian trajectories"
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/2/e1501466 [nofollow]

in brief:

"Researchers demonstrate 'quantum surrealism' "
http://phys.org/news/2016-02-quantum-surrealism.html [nofollow]

[jeffreyH]

Salvadore Dali meets QM. Swans reflecting photons?

[alancalverd]

Physics is obviously a hobby horse with this poster!

More of a lifelong profession, actually. Particularly the physics of photon imaging and particle diffraction.

[jeffreyH]

Physics is obviously a hobby horse with this poster!

More of a lifelong profession, actually. Particularly the physics of photon imaging and particle diffraction.

Do you think he cares a jot to find out the credentials of anyone? If he did he would actually realise just how out of his depth he really is.