0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of stuff anchored to the Milky Way. The Milky Way is moving through and displacing the aether. The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of spacetime.What is referred to geometrically as the deformation of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.
Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment?
On what basis are you making such assertions? There is absolutely no basis to assume that anything like an aether exists. So what are you basing its existence on?
That's wrong. The only time a particle is detected traveling through a slit is when an experiment is constructed to detect it and when that's done the experiment no longer behaves like a double slit experiment and the interference pattern disappears.
Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of stuff anchored to the Milky Way. The Milky Way is moving through and displacing the aether. The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of spacetime.What is referred to geometrically as the deformation of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both....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.
What evidence do you have to support any and all of your assertions? It's of no use to anybody to merely go to a forum and make claims like this. Anybody can do that. The only ones of interest to science are those which you can demonstrate and so far all you've done has been to make unsupported claims and those are of no interest to anybody.
Liquidspacetime ,You may enjoy this , May 4, 2011 Nasa along with Stanford University, sent a GPB probe out and they actually mapped the spacetime (distortion) that your looking for, which also verified one of Einstein's prediction's in regard to what your looking for. https://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html
What is described is the profile of the gravitational field of a rotating body. This is the type of vortex described by Einstein and nothing to do with an ether. It is like a spiral generated over time via the rotation of the source. Except the spiral formed does not spin it is the distribution of the field and the vectors that describe its directionality that show this. The curves will look like they intersect, criss-crossing each other. This is spacetime curvature.
"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." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
What this guy wrote is did a disservice to the physics community because many people trying to learn physics, such as yourself, will inevitably get the wrong idea and think that an ether really does exist and there's absolutely no reason to believe that such an ether exists.
Quote from: PmbPhy on 31/01/2015 23:16:52What this guy wrote is did a disservice to the physics community because many people trying to learn physics, such as yourself, will inevitably get the wrong idea and think that an ether really does exist and there's absolutely no reason to believe that such an ether exists.In the following two articles it is the aether that waves in a double slit experiment.'From the Newton's laws to motions of the fluid and superfluid vacuum: vortex tubes, rings, and others'http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3900"This medium, called also the aether, has mass and is populated by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it" ...... and displace it.'EPR program: a local interpretation of QM'http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.5612"Wave particle duality is described as the compound system of point particle plus accompanying wave (in the æther)."
This is my last post in this thread. I don't like chasing down and reading papers which haven't been published. A great deal of the time they're garbage. Many times that's why they're not published. Why do you think those papers you quoted haven't been published?
Quote from: liquidspacetimeWhy ...Tell me something. When I decide that nothing good can come from further participation in a thread I let people know that by stating so such as when I said in my last post This is my last post in this thread.. So why is it that people such as yourself post again asking more questions like this one? To me that's nothing but trolling and I'll thank you to not do it.
You make a statement saying there is no reason for there to be an aether. The aether is what waves in terms of wave-particle duality. The aether is what waves in a double slit experiment.
This explains the name "wave function", and gives rise to wave–particle duality. The wave of the wave function, however, is not a wave in physical space; it is a wave in an abstract mathematical "space", and in this respect it differs fundamentally from water waves or waves on a string.
It's as simple as understanding in a boat double slit experiment the boat always travels through a single slit and the associated bow wave passes through both.
You're asserting that The aether is what waves in terms of wave-particle duality. What you haven't done is to justify this statement. You're assuming that there must be something physical in nature that is undergoing oscillations. That's simply not true. Have you ever actually studied quantum mechanics? It doesn't appear so because in quantum theory the exists having to do with waves is the wave function, not a physical wave. There is nothing in the theory of quantum mechanics that suggests that something is actually waving. The wave function is merely a computational tool which is used to calculate the probability density of a particle and other things. It's a very powerful tool in fact because it contains all the information that anybody would want to know about the system that it's describing. But as I said, it has nothing to do with any physical "waving".
Which is why in de Broglie's double solution theory there are two waves. There is the statistical wave function wave which is used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments and the physical wave which guides the particle.
You can't prove that he was right merely by saying so. In the first place the consensus is overwhelmingly against that theory for very good reasons, reasons you keep ignoring when I post them. In the second place that's a very old paper written in a time when quantum mechanics was young. Things have changed and many experiments have been done which indicate that he's wrong. Also you keep ignoring the meaning of the wave function.
In the second place that's a very old paper written in a time when quantum mechanics was young.
I agree Pete........... It's amusing how people come to our forum quoting outdated material to support their ideas when current experiments has proven such things to be incorrect. These men were giants in their day but knowledge has moved beyond their place in history today. We should always honor these great men of science but also remember that just because, "so and so said" or "such and such was written" don't mean that they were 100% right about everything. Facts will change as new knowledge is gathered and if we don't stay current with the latest science, we might find ourselves in error as well.
Quote from: PmbPhy on 10/02/2015 01:24:55In the second place that's a very old paper written in a time when quantum mechanics was young. 5 Feb 2015 is an old paper?'Physical vacuum is a special superfluid medium'http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.06763January , 2015 is an old paper?'Pilot-wave hydrodynamicsJohn W.M. BushDepartment of Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology'http://dspace.mit.edu/openaccess-disseminate/1721.1/89790
I'm talking about the original paper which you're basing it on. I'm not convinced that the papers you quote say what you think they're saying. People who don't have a good grasp of physics often resort to quote mining which means that they look for papers which have words they want and appear to use them to support what they claim. I don't think those papers claim what you claim they do. Have you actually read them in full? Did you understand them 100%.
I'll read them this week some time and contact the authors to see if they mean what you claim they do.
You are going to read the articles before commenting on them further?
There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.
You can't be serious!!!! That's not the way physics works. You can't use that as proof because you postulated it to explain it. The only evidence that counts are observations made when you used the theory to predict something never before observed. You have a lot to learn about the philosophy of science. And I can't see spending more time with you. There's no point to it. People such as yourself don't come here to learn. They have a pet theory that they want to paste on the forum so that others can admire them for it. It's like a religion in that nothing you can say will make them see that they're wrong regardless of how many holes are in their theory they simply do not have the background in physics to understand the explanations of their mistakes.
Are you able to understand in a boat double slit experiment the boat travels through a single slit even when you close your eyes?Why don't you read the articles.
You're doing it yet again. First off you never answer my question as to why you ask me questions after I say I won't answer anymore questions. That's an odd thing to do. It's like trolling. Then there's the fact that you never answered my question about the problem with that theory in that it implies electrons in atoms should radiate and yet we don't observe that.
What do you have to say for yourself?
Quote from: liquidspacetimeProvide links.Links to what?