[Bored chemist]

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.

[MichaelMD (OP)]

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.

[MichaelMD (OP)]

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.

[MichaelMD (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Origin]

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.

[Origin]

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?

[hamdani yusuf]

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?

[MichaelMD (OP)]

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..

[MichaelMD (OP)]

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.

[Origin]

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.

[MichaelMD (OP)]

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? 

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Origin]

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.

[Origin]

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.

[Origin]

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.

[MichaelMD (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Origin]

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.

[hamdani yusuf]

What makes you think that the results of double slit experiments are strange?