Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Wave-particle duality is a moving particle and its aether wave
14 views
Skip to first unread message
mpc755
Feb 11, 2012, 9:08:28 AM2/11/12
to
'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory -
Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
"any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous
“energetic contact” with a hidden medium"
The hidden medium is the aether. The "energetic contact" is the state
of displacement of the aether.
'A quantum take on certainty'
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110602/full/news.2011.344.html
"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an
unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave
theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that
takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through
both slits."
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined
trajectory which takes it through one slit. The associated aether wave
passes through both. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates
wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction
it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave
piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Detecting the particle
strongly exiting a single slit turns the associated aether wave into
chop. The aether waves exiting the slits interact with the detectors
and become many short waves with irregular motion. The waves become
disorderly. The waves are disorganized. There is no wave interference.
The particle pitches and rolls through the chop. The particle gets
knocked around by the chop and it doesn't create an interference
pattern.
Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
"any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous
“energetic contact” with a hidden medium"
The hidden medium is the aether. The "energetic contact" is the state
of displacement of the aether.
'A quantum take on certainty'
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110602/full/news.2011.344.html
"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an
unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave
theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that
takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through
both slits."
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined
trajectory which takes it through one slit. The associated aether wave
passes through both. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates
wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction
it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave
piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Detecting the particle
strongly exiting a single slit turns the associated aether wave into
chop. The aether waves exiting the slits interact with the detectors
and become many short waves with irregular motion. The waves become
disorderly. The waves are disorganized. There is no wave interference.
The particle pitches and rolls through the chop. The particle gets
knocked around by the chop and it doesn't create an interference
pattern.
ben6993
Feb 11, 2012, 2:41:14 PM2/11/12
to
On Feb 11, 2:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous
> “energetic contact” with a hidden medium"
In my model a particle cannot easily be isolated from itself because,
> "any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous
> “energetic contact” with a hidden medium"
say, an electron will change to a positron (moving backwards in time)
and back to an electron etc etc and populate a space with many
simultaneous electrons.
> The hidden medium is the aether.
>The "energetic contact" is the state
> of displacement of the aether.
particles. In my model electrons can have sub-electrons. The field
effects between two electrons are the many interactions between the
two sets of sub-electrons.
<snip>
> In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined
> trajectory which takes it through one slit. The associated aether wave
> passes through both. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates
> wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction
> it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave
> piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Detecting the particle
> strongly exiting a single slit turns the associated aether wave into
> chop. The aether waves exiting the slits interact with the detectors
> and become many short waves with irregular motion. The waves become
> disorderly. The waves are disorganized. There is no wave interference.
> The particle pitches and rolls through the chop. The particle gets
> knocked around by the chop and it doesn't create an interference
> pattern.
which causes the interference effect.
When a measurement occurs at one slit, that electron always collapses
to a single point where all the sub-electrons are no longer dispersed
in space. That loses the field and loses the interference effect.
Ben6993
Not a physicist
mpc755
Feb 11, 2012, 3:31:46 PM2/11/12
to
On Feb 11, 2:41 pm, ben6993 <ben6...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 2:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous
> > “energetic contact” with a hidden medium"
>
> In my model a particle cannot easily be isolated from itself because,
> say, an electron will change to a positron (moving backwards in time)
> and back to an electron etc etc and populate a space with many
> simultaneous electrons.
>
There is no such thing as moving backwards in time.
> On Feb 11, 2:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous
> > “energetic contact” with a hidden medium"
>
> In my model a particle cannot easily be isolated from itself because,
> say, an electron will change to a positron (moving backwards in time)
> and back to an electron etc etc and populate a space with many
> simultaneous electrons.
>
> > The hidden medium is the aether.
>
> Therefore the aether is all particles embedded in space.
>
> >The "energetic contact" is the state
> > of displacement of the aether.
>
> The energetic contact is therefore the field effects between different
> particles. In my model electrons can have sub-electrons. The field
> effects between two electrons are the many interactions between the
> two sets of sub-electrons.
>
> <snip>
>
> > In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined
> > trajectory which takes it through one slit. The associated aether wave
> > passes through both. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates
> > wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction
> > it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave
> > piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Detecting the particle
> > strongly exiting a single slit turns the associated aether wave into
> > chop. The aether waves exiting the slits interact with the detectors
> > and become many short waves with irregular motion. The waves become
> > disorderly. The waves are disorganized. There is no wave interference.
> > The particle pitches and rolls through the chop. The particle gets
> > knocked around by the chop and it doesn't create an interference
> > pattern.
>
> In a double-slit experiment, the sub-electrons interact via a field
> which causes the interference effect.
>
> When a measurement occurs at one slit, that electron always collapses
> to a single point where all the sub-electrons are no longer dispersed
> in space. That loses the field and loses the interference effect.
>
> Ben6993
> Not a physicist
throughout the following article as the ether does not consist of
individual particles which can be separately tracked through time.
I interpret Einstein's definition of motion as applied to the ether to
mean it can not be known if ether consists of particles or not.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
"if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of
the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have
no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles.
But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."
"There may be supposed to be extended physical objects to which the
idea of motion cannot be applied. They may not be thought of as
consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately
tracked through time."
"The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to
consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of
ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of
relativity."
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable;...But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with
the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts
which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be
applied to it."
Every time Einstein mentions motion as applied to the ether it is
defined as the ether does not consist of individual particles which
can be separately tracked through time. This is different than
Einstein's definition of mobility as applied to the ether.
The ether of general relativity is mobile.
"It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether
which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in
taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its
immobility."
The mobility of the ether of relatiivty as determined by its
connections with the matter is the state of displacement of the
aether.
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."
The state of the ether as determined by its connections with the
matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places is the state
of displacement of the ether.
'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory -
Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
"any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous
“energetic contact” with a hidden medium"
The hidden medium is the aether. The "energetic contact" is the state
“energetic contact” with a hidden medium"
of displacement of the aether.
'A quantum take on certainty'
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110602/full/news.2011.344.html
"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an
unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave
theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that
takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through
both slits."
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110602/full/news.2011.344.html
"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an
unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave
theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that
takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through
both slits."
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
ben6993
Feb 12, 2012, 6:22:42 PM2/12/12
to
On Feb 11, 8:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> There are no such things as sub-electrons.
OK. I understand that. The definition of a quantum rules out any
subdivision of an elementary particle, and that is one reason I
disagree with the definition. However, I do think that what is in a
particular quantum entity is forever in that quantum entity. So the
keyword is inseparable rather than indivisible.
In a world restricted to 4D, an elementary particle being a point in
4D, when measured, does seem to indicate a lack of possibility of sub-
division. But there may be a few ways around that snag. One way is to
assume more than 4D. Joy Christian's model uses 7D for Euclidean
space, though I might have paraphrased that and expressed it badly.
String theory uses more than 4D. Also, QM uses extra dimensions in
abstact mathematical space. I see that as reflecting a physical
presence beyond the 4D. Being a point in 4D does not imply a lack of
structure in N dimensions. And a structure implies sub-division, and
sub-elementary particles.
Another snag is that even if an electron has structure in N Dimensions
it is still only one point in 4D and therefore the sub-electrons are m
points in 4D ... all at the same overall point for the electron. Here
we seem to be in the realm of points within points. Or perhaps, cf,
how many angels on a pin point. I see the BB universe as a quantum.
The state of the cyclic Conformal Cosmology model at singularities
seems to me to be similar to the sub-division of an elementary
particle. If the universe started at a singularity, or regularly
cycles through singularities, then how can the universe now have a sub-
structure? If an electron cannot have sub-points then why is the same
argument not used to say that the universe could never have started at
a singularity as, if it did, it could never have gained a sub-
structure.
Penrose's answer, I believe, is that all the points need to disappear
at the universe singularity. All the fermions need to be gone as the
exclusion principle would prevent fermions occupying a single point.
Fermions can be converted to bosons and they do not have an exclusion
principle. All the universe can then occupy a single state which is
equivalent to a singularity. I see the same thing happening for an
electron. When an electron is measured, all the sub-electrons need to
have changed to sub-bosons to allow the whole electron to occupy one
single point or singularity.
But that still does not explain what happens after the electron
singularity. In my model the singularity occurs at a measurement. An
electron can only be measured when at a singularity. And it is always
a point when measured. But is an electron a point when it is not being
measured?
Sam Wormley's recent mantra in Sci.physics is: "Like aether, if one
can't detect it directly or indirectly it might as well not exist at
all." But what happens after electron measurement is then detectable
as field effects. The wave particle duality is not really a
simultaneous duality, it is a sequence of singularity-wave-singularity-
wave etc. But the electron can only be measured when at a
singularity.
The field effects are from the presence of the sub-electrons dispersed
in 4D, in between singularities. Field effects can only arise in
between measurements of the whole-electrons. Although electrons can
be measured as points, sub-electrons cannot. But if two electrons
repel one another then that is effected through the fields, ie
interactions of sub-electrons dispersed in the 4D.
<snip>
> There are no such things as sub-electrons.
subdivision of an elementary particle, and that is one reason I
disagree with the definition. However, I do think that what is in a
particular quantum entity is forever in that quantum entity. So the
keyword is inseparable rather than indivisible.
In a world restricted to 4D, an elementary particle being a point in
4D, when measured, does seem to indicate a lack of possibility of sub-
division. But there may be a few ways around that snag. One way is to
assume more than 4D. Joy Christian's model uses 7D for Euclidean
space, though I might have paraphrased that and expressed it badly.
String theory uses more than 4D. Also, QM uses extra dimensions in
abstact mathematical space. I see that as reflecting a physical
presence beyond the 4D. Being a point in 4D does not imply a lack of
structure in N dimensions. And a structure implies sub-division, and
sub-elementary particles.
Another snag is that even if an electron has structure in N Dimensions
it is still only one point in 4D and therefore the sub-electrons are m
points in 4D ... all at the same overall point for the electron. Here
we seem to be in the realm of points within points. Or perhaps, cf,
how many angels on a pin point. I see the BB universe as a quantum.
The state of the cyclic Conformal Cosmology model at singularities
seems to me to be similar to the sub-division of an elementary
particle. If the universe started at a singularity, or regularly
cycles through singularities, then how can the universe now have a sub-
structure? If an electron cannot have sub-points then why is the same
argument not used to say that the universe could never have started at
a singularity as, if it did, it could never have gained a sub-
structure.
Penrose's answer, I believe, is that all the points need to disappear
at the universe singularity. All the fermions need to be gone as the
exclusion principle would prevent fermions occupying a single point.
Fermions can be converted to bosons and they do not have an exclusion
principle. All the universe can then occupy a single state which is
equivalent to a singularity. I see the same thing happening for an
electron. When an electron is measured, all the sub-electrons need to
have changed to sub-bosons to allow the whole electron to occupy one
single point or singularity.
But that still does not explain what happens after the electron
singularity. In my model the singularity occurs at a measurement. An
electron can only be measured when at a singularity. And it is always
a point when measured. But is an electron a point when it is not being
measured?
Sam Wormley's recent mantra in Sci.physics is: "Like aether, if one
can't detect it directly or indirectly it might as well not exist at
all." But what happens after electron measurement is then detectable
as field effects. The wave particle duality is not really a
simultaneous duality, it is a sequence of singularity-wave-singularity-
wave etc. But the electron can only be measured when at a
singularity.
The field effects are from the presence of the sub-electrons dispersed
in 4D, in between singularities. Field effects can only arise in
between measurements of the whole-electrons. Although electrons can
be measured as points, sub-electrons cannot. But if two electrons
repel one another then that is effected through the fields, ie
interactions of sub-electrons dispersed in the 4D.
Message has been deleted
mpc755
Feb 13, 2012, 11:35:08 AM2/13/12
to
On Feb 12, 6:22 pm, ben6993 <ben6...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sam Wormley's recent mantra in Sci.physics is: "Like aether, if one
> can't detect it directly or indirectly it might as well not exist at
> all."
Aether is indirectly detected every time a double slit experiment is
>
> Sam Wormley's recent mantra in Sci.physics is: "Like aether, if one
> can't detect it directly or indirectly it might as well not exist at
> all."
performed.
mpc755
Feb 13, 2012, 11:36:41 AM2/13/12
to
> In a world restricted to 4D, an elementary particle being a point in
> 4D, when measured, does seem to indicate a lack of possibility of sub-
> division. But there may be a few ways around that snag. One way is to
> assume more than 4D.
There are only three dimensions. The rate at which an atomic clock
> 4D, when measured, does seem to indicate a lack of possibility of sub-
> division. But there may be a few ways around that snag. One way is to
> assume more than 4D.
ticks is determined by the physical state of the space in which it
exists. The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the
state of the aether in which it exists.
>
> Sam Wormley's recent mantra in Sci.physics is: "Like aether, if one
> can't detect it directly or indirectly it might as well not exist at
> all."
is performed.
The aether is, or behaves similar to, a superfluid with properties of
a solid.
0 new messages