0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
There were limitations to the MMX in proving an Aether false. One type of Aether was proven very unlikely if the Aether interfered with light. If on the other hand the Aether was light the MMX no longer applies to that test. We need to be careful not to expand subjective opinions past the limits of an experiment and consider them facts.When the choices are between magic and mechanics Occam's Razor should not be an appropriate explanation for magic.
de Broglie was working in an era when aether was still a fashionable axiom. Fortunately his conclusions, at least those with some experimental justification, do not require the existence of any unknown medium.
The entire concept of w-p "duality" is outdated nonsense. The world behaves as it does, and we have two ways of describing it mathematically. That doesn't mean that the phenomenon changes, only that our description of it is incomplete. Here's an everyday example. Is it fog or is it cloud? The answer depends only on your point of view - as you walk up the mountain, the description changes from cloud to fog, but the phenomenon is unchanged.Adding aether violates Occam's Razor and is experimentally shown to be false.
With a energy ether the particle is unnecessary for energy transfer. Why complicate your understanding with an unnecessary addition of a particle? An electron wave representation of the electron traveling at c not the particle itself. A wave on a structure does not invalidate Relativity. A propagation wave on a structure is a virtual photon using no mass of the atom. Each position is subjective: Ether, no Ether. But how is the speed of light measured the same in every frame if something did not control the conditions measured in each frame?
You complicate wave-particle duality when you think the particle is the wave.
Quote from: liquidspacetime on 16/10/2015 15:48:42You complicate wave-particle duality when you think the particle is the wave.The particle in wave associated propagation through space is the complication. Particles can not go the speed of light and yet the photon is described as a particle. That is incoherent. A propagation wave on particles of (liquid space, energy space, spacetime or dark energy) an ether is all that is needed for the speed of light and not a particle that violates relativity.
While polarization can rectify the ether into two images from two slits wave mechanics without the interference of polarization in the form of a detector produces the interference.How would you distinguish between a propagation wave on particles and a moving particle?
I need to ask. How would you distinguish between a particle and a wave on particles? His claim is a virtual particle. A wave on particles is the very definition of virtual with energy transfer.
I know. But he was not taking about a particle in terms of an Ether. Either the Ether is the light wave of Ether particles or the Ether interferes with light propagation. Since the MMX suggested the latter as unlikely our subjective creation of the Ether would be outside of the box and subject to different interpretations by a new reality. Gravity, Magnetism and all things EM would be a reaction to mass rather than created by mass.
Quote from: GoC on 17/10/2015 13:09:34I know. But he was not taking about a particle in terms of an Ether. Either the Ether is the light wave of Ether particles or the Ether interferes with light propagation. Since the MMX suggested the latter as unlikely our subjective creation of the Ether would be outside of the box and subject to different interpretations by a new reality. Gravity, Magnetism and all things EM would be a reaction to mass rather than created by mass.The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moves through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. The aether is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. The space unoccupied by particles of matter has mass. I call this mass the aether.Particles of matter move through and displace the aether.'The Milky Way's dark matter halo appears to be lopsided'http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3802 [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]"the emerging picture of the dark matter halo of the Milky Way is dominantly lopsided in nature."The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter traveling along with the Milky Way. The Milky Way's halo is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the aether, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.The Milky Way moves through and curves spacetime.The Milky Way's halo is curved spacetime.The state of displacement of the aether is curved spacetime.The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.
While I can agree with the possibility of an Ether you are trying to marry the standard accepted physics with an incoherent position of resistance. Ether the EM is unobstructed by nothing or the obstruction causes entropy. The only other possibility is the Ether is constant energy spin to create the constant speed and maintain that speed as constant. While I find it unlikely that having nothing to impede a particle would also give that particle unwavering speed in the universe, we have to chose one as our basis. Its unlikely you can have it both ways. They would be two different operating systems.
The point I am trying to make is between an Ether and no Ether there is a different understanding for mechanism. For instance a particle and a wave are unnecessary with an Ether. A wave on particles. EM wavelengths using the same particle with different waves maintaining a constant speed? Wouldn't a more likely scenario be different propagation waves on Ether particles with the Ether particles having spin energy of c? The spin energy would maintain the integrity of a wave with constant speed. Otherwise a particle would meet with resistance. Without that addition the no Ether scenario seems most likely.