info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The importance of Schrödinger's Cat.
34 views
Skip to first unread message
Alfonso
Jan 12, 2012, 3:40:49 PM1/12/12
to
The dogma of the Copenhagen school was that nothing exists if it
cannot be measured.
"What is in principle unobservable should not at all be contained in our
conceptual scheme" Schrödinger.
Scott Murray saw this as arrogance. The idea that physicists ego could
not accept that there existed things which they could not measure. I
think he missed the point and the real point is well illustrated by
Schrodinger's cat.
I'm not a paid up member of the physics brotherhood so I'm still
permitted to use common sense.
The common sense interpretation goes as follows - life is the antithesis
of death. One excludes the other so before the box is open the cat is
either dead or alive and the only thing which changes when the box is
opened is our knowledge - and perhaps the smell in the room :o). Common
sense says that if the cat is alive then it was before the box is
opened. If it is dead then by retrospective analysis (autopsy) one can
to some extent determine how long it has been dead. If autopsy shows it
has been dead at least 4 hours then it would appear clear that it was
dead before the box was opened.
Theoretical physics says no. The act of opening the box determines both
the state of the cat and its history. In the many worlds interpretation
there are an infinite number of universes and the action of opening the
box means that in one universe it is alive and in another it is dead and
has been for at least 4 hours. Put simply not only is the cat both dead
and alive before the box is opened but continues to be both dead (in one
universe) and alive (in another) when the box is opened.
This to the layman seems absurd. Why on earth, he would think, would
physicists take such an extreme view. The point is that what is at stake
here is the credibility of theoretical physics itself or at least the
methodology.
If the common sense interpretation is accepted it means that there is
more to physics than maths. That maths must be interpreted in terms of
context and in order to do so one must understand the context i.e. one
must understand what the maths is describing. In theoretical physics
mathematics is paramount. An equation is considered a full description
uncluttered by artefacts thought necessary in the past. The maths is
now accepted as a "physical theory" on the grounds that it predicts
physical consequences. The sort of thing the theoretical physicist does
is to manipulate the maths and make pronouncements which start "This
equation implies......". If they were forced to factor in some form of
reality outside of the maths it makes this impossible and an equation on
its own can imply nothing. Such a retrograde step is unthinkable.
Theoretical physics is about mathematical formulation, prediction and
testing of prediction. A "field" for example can be described
mathematically and nature behaves according to the maths. The difficulty
Einstein had as to whether a field consisted of some form of ponderable
matter or a state in a medium is circumvented. A field is what the
equations describe.
Schrödinger's. "What is in principle unobservable should not at all
be contained in our conceptual scheme"
Can be translated as - if you can't observe the state of the cat it it
must have all states allowed by the maths. If the maths says both states
are possible - then both states exist.
If you can't measure the position of an electron - it doesn't have one.
If you cannot determine in advance what direction a photon takes from a
source S it doesn't have one and the retrospective measurement i.e. that
it arrives at B does not mean that it set out in the direction A-B or
that it travelled along the path A-B. The maths says it may set out in
all possible directions - so it does. The many worlds interpretation
says that a massive subset of the infinite parallel universes are
affected by a single photon as there must be a universe for every
feasible point of arrival.
The many worlds interpretation is needed as follows. There is no way of
determining in which direction a photon sets out because any attempt to
determine it would drastically change it. The direction is therefore
"unobservable in principle" so direction cannot be part of the
conceptual scheme. The question is why does that particular photon
arrived at B? The only obvious reason is that it it because it set out
in the direction A-B and that is not allowed. One is left with the idea
that it arrived at B for no reason whatsoever. The many worlds
interpretation is a let off. It arrived at B because it has to arrive
at B in one parallel universe and it happens to be this one. The
integrity of the maths is preserved, there is not some underlying
"cause" which the maths cannot accommodate.
The electron is the most stable of particles and is very well behaved.
One never gets half an electron or one with part of its charge missing,
or a lighter than usual one. The most precise images we have are
produced using and controlling electrons. The point is that if it did
have a precise position and velocity we would not be able to determine
them for perfectly good physical reasons i.e there is no precise
particle with a mass negligible compared to that of an electron which we
could use to determine an electrons precise position without disturbing
it and this results naturally and physically in Heisenberg's
uncertainty. One could again have a common sense interpretation that an
electron is a precise particle with a precise location and speed and
just as our uncertainty about the cat in the common sense interpretation
is about knowledge so it is in the case of the electron. Again
retrospective measurement supports such a view and again retrospective
measurement is dismissed as invalid.
"On the one hand. a precise position measurement on the particle P in
the domain K yields the prediction of a very wide range of velocities
for P; and on the other hand, when the particle has been detected after
a time (delta t) in the spatial domain K', one can retrospectively
ascribe to P a quite sharp value of the velocity. namely KK'/(delta t),
and also a precise direction of motion. Isn’t it tempting to assert that
the particle P actually had the velocity KK'/(delta t), but
that quantum theory could not predict it'?
The only option which remains, is thus to deny that there is anything
like a particle P travelling between K and K`: "Before the second
measurement, it is ubiquitous in the cloud (it is not a particle at
all)". Or, in other more provocative words: "You have not found a
particle at K', you have produced one there!". Indeed, if this is so,
the location K is not relevant for the "particle" detected at K', and
there is no reason left to ascribe it the velocity KK'/(delta t)."
Found in "Schrödinger's philosophy of quantum mechanics" By Michel
Bitbol. The quotes are Schrödinger's.
Me I believe the cat is either dead or alive and I believe retrospective
measurement is a valid aid to understanding. The collapse of the wave
function is simply about knowledge. If a coin comes down heads the
chances of it coming down tails suddenly vanishes.
Mathematics should be the servant of physics not its master.
I agree with Murray that the physicists default was their failure to
insist sufficiently strongly in the physical reality of the physical
world when faced with a take over by the mathematicians union.
Alfonso
cannot be measured.
"What is in principle unobservable should not at all be contained in our
conceptual scheme" Schrödinger.
Scott Murray saw this as arrogance. The idea that physicists ego could
not accept that there existed things which they could not measure. I
think he missed the point and the real point is well illustrated by
Schrodinger's cat.
I'm not a paid up member of the physics brotherhood so I'm still
permitted to use common sense.
The common sense interpretation goes as follows - life is the antithesis
of death. One excludes the other so before the box is open the cat is
either dead or alive and the only thing which changes when the box is
opened is our knowledge - and perhaps the smell in the room :o). Common
sense says that if the cat is alive then it was before the box is
opened. If it is dead then by retrospective analysis (autopsy) one can
to some extent determine how long it has been dead. If autopsy shows it
has been dead at least 4 hours then it would appear clear that it was
dead before the box was opened.
Theoretical physics says no. The act of opening the box determines both
the state of the cat and its history. In the many worlds interpretation
there are an infinite number of universes and the action of opening the
box means that in one universe it is alive and in another it is dead and
has been for at least 4 hours. Put simply not only is the cat both dead
and alive before the box is opened but continues to be both dead (in one
universe) and alive (in another) when the box is opened.
This to the layman seems absurd. Why on earth, he would think, would
physicists take such an extreme view. The point is that what is at stake
here is the credibility of theoretical physics itself or at least the
methodology.
If the common sense interpretation is accepted it means that there is
more to physics than maths. That maths must be interpreted in terms of
context and in order to do so one must understand the context i.e. one
must understand what the maths is describing. In theoretical physics
mathematics is paramount. An equation is considered a full description
uncluttered by artefacts thought necessary in the past. The maths is
now accepted as a "physical theory" on the grounds that it predicts
physical consequences. The sort of thing the theoretical physicist does
is to manipulate the maths and make pronouncements which start "This
equation implies......". If they were forced to factor in some form of
reality outside of the maths it makes this impossible and an equation on
its own can imply nothing. Such a retrograde step is unthinkable.
Theoretical physics is about mathematical formulation, prediction and
testing of prediction. A "field" for example can be described
mathematically and nature behaves according to the maths. The difficulty
Einstein had as to whether a field consisted of some form of ponderable
matter or a state in a medium is circumvented. A field is what the
equations describe.
Schrödinger's. "What is in principle unobservable should not at all
be contained in our conceptual scheme"
Can be translated as - if you can't observe the state of the cat it it
must have all states allowed by the maths. If the maths says both states
are possible - then both states exist.
If you can't measure the position of an electron - it doesn't have one.
If you cannot determine in advance what direction a photon takes from a
source S it doesn't have one and the retrospective measurement i.e. that
it arrives at B does not mean that it set out in the direction A-B or
that it travelled along the path A-B. The maths says it may set out in
all possible directions - so it does. The many worlds interpretation
says that a massive subset of the infinite parallel universes are
affected by a single photon as there must be a universe for every
feasible point of arrival.
The many worlds interpretation is needed as follows. There is no way of
determining in which direction a photon sets out because any attempt to
determine it would drastically change it. The direction is therefore
"unobservable in principle" so direction cannot be part of the
conceptual scheme. The question is why does that particular photon
arrived at B? The only obvious reason is that it it because it set out
in the direction A-B and that is not allowed. One is left with the idea
that it arrived at B for no reason whatsoever. The many worlds
interpretation is a let off. It arrived at B because it has to arrive
at B in one parallel universe and it happens to be this one. The
integrity of the maths is preserved, there is not some underlying
"cause" which the maths cannot accommodate.
The electron is the most stable of particles and is very well behaved.
One never gets half an electron or one with part of its charge missing,
or a lighter than usual one. The most precise images we have are
produced using and controlling electrons. The point is that if it did
have a precise position and velocity we would not be able to determine
them for perfectly good physical reasons i.e there is no precise
particle with a mass negligible compared to that of an electron which we
could use to determine an electrons precise position without disturbing
it and this results naturally and physically in Heisenberg's
uncertainty. One could again have a common sense interpretation that an
electron is a precise particle with a precise location and speed and
just as our uncertainty about the cat in the common sense interpretation
is about knowledge so it is in the case of the electron. Again
retrospective measurement supports such a view and again retrospective
measurement is dismissed as invalid.
"On the one hand. a precise position measurement on the particle P in
the domain K yields the prediction of a very wide range of velocities
for P; and on the other hand, when the particle has been detected after
a time (delta t) in the spatial domain K', one can retrospectively
ascribe to P a quite sharp value of the velocity. namely KK'/(delta t),
and also a precise direction of motion. Isn’t it tempting to assert that
the particle P actually had the velocity KK'/(delta t), but
that quantum theory could not predict it'?
The only option which remains, is thus to deny that there is anything
like a particle P travelling between K and K`: "Before the second
measurement, it is ubiquitous in the cloud (it is not a particle at
all)". Or, in other more provocative words: "You have not found a
particle at K', you have produced one there!". Indeed, if this is so,
the location K is not relevant for the "particle" detected at K', and
there is no reason left to ascribe it the velocity KK'/(delta t)."
Found in "Schrödinger's philosophy of quantum mechanics" By Michel
Bitbol. The quotes are Schrödinger's.
Me I believe the cat is either dead or alive and I believe retrospective
measurement is a valid aid to understanding. The collapse of the wave
function is simply about knowledge. If a coin comes down heads the
chances of it coming down tails suddenly vanishes.
Mathematics should be the servant of physics not its master.
I agree with Murray that the physicists default was their failure to
insist sufficiently strongly in the physical reality of the physical
world when faced with a take over by the mathematicians union.
Alfonso
mpc755
Jan 12, 2012, 6:18:41 PM1/12/12
to
non-baryonic dark matter is aether, aether has mass, aether physically
occupies three dimensional space, aether is physically displaced by
matter and 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. 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
destroys the coherence between the particle and the associated aether
wave, there is no wave interference and the direction the particle
travels is not altered.
micro...@hotmail.com
Jan 12, 2012, 6:21:39 PM1/12/12
to
Mitchell Raemsch
xxein
Jan 12, 2012, 9:26:28 PM1/12/12
to
believing.
I can agree with a lot, but not the whole of what you say. Think more
deeply and forget beliefs brought to you by previous theories.
gu...@hotmail.com
Jan 12, 2012, 10:28:27 PM1/12/12
to
disrupting the order of the other billiard balls in the room.
Box and case closed.
Message has been deleted
mpc755
Jan 12, 2012, 11:18:34 PM1/12/12
to
On Jan 12, 10:28 pm, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> It has no importance Jones, you can't send-in a billiard ball without
> disrupting the order of the other billiard balls in the room.
>
> Box and case closed.
>
> It has no importance Jones, you can't send-in a billiard ball without
> disrupting the order of the other billiard balls in the room.
>
> Box and case closed.
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
"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.
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 no longer
creates an interference pattern.
What waves in a double slit experiment is what ripples when galaxy
clusters collide; the aether.
xxein
Jan 12, 2012, 11:44:06 PM1/12/12
to
On Jan 12, 6:18 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
want an ether? No problem. But when it is said that non-baryonic
dark matter composes ~90% of the universe, could it just be an
expanding energy field that is held in equilibrium to itself and the
unexplained gravity between masses?
But more. Double slit. Is a photon an expanding sphere of added
energy? Think. Put the emitter really close to one of the slits. I
mean almost into.
P-R, M-M? Pieces of cake to me. I understand real things. Not just
what is relatively measured.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
mpc755
Jan 13, 2012, 8:17:05 AM1/13/12
to
On Jan 12, 11:44 pm, xxein <xx...@att.net> wrote:
>
> xxein: You have to think more deeply and be more comprehensive. You
> want an ether? No problem. But when it is said that non-baryonic
> dark matter composes ~90% of the universe, could it just be an
> expanding energy field that is held in equilibrium to itself and the
> unexplained gravity between masses?
>
> But more. Double slit. Is a photon an expanding sphere of added
> energy? Think. Put the emitter really close to one of the slits. I
> mean almost into.
>
> P-R, M-M? Pieces of cake to me. I understand real things. Not just
> what is relatively measured.
What is presently postulated as non-baryonic dark matter is aether.
>
> xxein: You have to think more deeply and be more comprehensive. You
> want an ether? No problem. But when it is said that non-baryonic
> dark matter composes ~90% of the universe, could it just be an
> expanding energy field that is held in equilibrium to itself and the
> unexplained gravity between masses?
>
> But more. Double slit. Is a photon an expanding sphere of added
> energy? Think. Put the emitter really close to one of the slits. I
> mean almost into.
>
> P-R, M-M? Pieces of cake to me. I understand real things. Not just
> what is relatively measured.
Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether is physically displaced by matter. Aether displaced by matter
pushes back toward the matter.
Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.
Aether is, or behaves similar to, a superfluid with properties of a
solid; an incompressible fluid.
The Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet;
analogous to the polar jet of a black hole. Dark energy is the change
in state of the aether emitted into and propagating through the
Universal jet.
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 no longer
creates an interference pattern.
What waves in a double slit experiment is what ripples when galaxy
clusters collide; the aether. The ripple is a gravitational wave.
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 no longer
creates an interference pattern.
What waves in a double slit experiment is what ripples when galaxy
Alfonso
Jan 13, 2012, 3:50:13 PM1/13/12
to
On 12/01/12 23:18, mpc755 wrote:
> On Jan 12, 3:40 pm, Alfonso<Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
>> The dogma of the Copenhagen school was that nothing exists if it
>> cannot be measured.
>>
>> "What is in principle unobservable should not at all be contained in our
>> conceptual scheme" Schr�dinger.
> On Jan 12, 3:40 pm, Alfonso<Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
>> The dogma of the Copenhagen school was that nothing exists if it
>> cannot be measured.
>>
>> "What is in principle unobservable should not at all be contained in our
>> the particle P actually had the velocity KK'/(delta t), but
>> that quantum theory could not predict it'?
>> The only option which remains, is thus to deny that there is anything
>> like a particle P travelling between K and K`: "Before the second
>> measurement, it is ubiquitous in the cloud (it is not a particle at
>> all)". Or, in other more provocative words: "You have not found a
>> particle at K', you have produced one there!". Indeed, if this is so,
>> the location K is not relevant for the "particle" detected at K', and
>> there is no reason left to ascribe it the velocity KK'/(delta t)."
>> Found in "Schr�dinger's philosophy of quantum mechanics" By Michel
>> that quantum theory could not predict it'?
>> The only option which remains, is thus to deny that there is anything
>> like a particle P travelling between K and K`: "Before the second
>> measurement, it is ubiquitous in the cloud (it is not a particle at
>> all)". Or, in other more provocative words: "You have not found a
>> particle at K', you have produced one there!". Indeed, if this is so,
>> the location K is not relevant for the "particle" detected at K', and
>> there is no reason left to ascribe it the velocity KK'/(delta t)."
>> Bitbol. The quotes are Schr�dinger's.
>>
>> Me I believe the cat is either dead or alive and I believe retrospective
>> measurement is a valid aid to understanding. The collapse of the wave
>> function is simply about knowledge. If a coin comes down heads the
>> chances of it coming down tails suddenly vanishes.
>>
>> Mathematics should be the servant of physics not its master.
>> I agree with Murray that the physicists default was their failure to
>> insist sufficiently strongly in the physical reality of the physical
>> world when faced with a take over by the mathematicians union.
>>
>> Alfonso
>
> All of the nonsense in quantum mechanics goes away when you understand
> non-baryonic dark matter is aether, aether has mass, aether physically
> occupies three dimensional space, aether is physically displaced by
> matter and 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. 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.
I find the aether hypothesis very unattractive but more attractive than
>> Me I believe the cat is either dead or alive and I believe retrospective
>> measurement is a valid aid to understanding. The collapse of the wave
>> function is simply about knowledge. If a coin comes down heads the
>> chances of it coming down tails suddenly vanishes.
>>
>> Mathematics should be the servant of physics not its master.
>> I agree with Murray that the physicists default was their failure to
>> insist sufficiently strongly in the physical reality of the physical
>> world when faced with a take over by the mathematicians union.
>>
>> Alfonso
>
> All of the nonsense in quantum mechanics goes away when you understand
> non-baryonic dark matter is aether, aether has mass, aether physically
> occupies three dimensional space, aether is physically displaced by
> matter and 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. 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.
the absurd idea that space consists of an infinite number of FoR each of
which can control the speed at which light moves within it. A FoR is a
mathematical abstraction which cannot have physical properties and
without the aether the space mapped out by a FoR has no properties
either. Einstein himself categorised SR as a "principle theory" based on
empirical starting points. A "principle theory" is a fancy name for a
mathematical model. Contrary to popular belief it has absolutely nothing
to say on the subject of whether or not there is an aether. That is a
separate dogma. It comes from "you don't need the aether because you
don't need anything but the maths".
mpc755
Jan 13, 2012, 4:15:13 PM1/13/12
to
On Jan 13, 3:50 pm, Alfonso <Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
>
> I find the aether hypothesis very unattractive but more attractive than
> the absurd idea that space consists of an infinite number of FoR each of
> which can control the speed at which light moves within it. A FoR is a
> mathematical abstraction which cannot have physical properties and
> without the aether the space mapped out by a FoR has no properties
> either. Einstein himself categorised SR as a "principle theory" based on
> empirical starting points. A "principle theory" is a fancy name for a
> mathematical model. Contrary to popular belief it has absolutely nothing
> to say on the subject of whether or not there is an aether. That is a
> separate dogma. It comes from "you don't need the aether because you
> don't need anything but the maths".
>
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
>
> I find the aether hypothesis very unattractive but more attractive than
> the absurd idea that space consists of an infinite number of FoR each of
> which can control the speed at which light moves within it. A FoR is a
> mathematical abstraction which cannot have physical properties and
> without the aether the space mapped out by a FoR has no properties
> either. Einstein himself categorised SR as a "principle theory" based on
> empirical starting points. A "principle theory" is a fancy name for a
> mathematical model. Contrary to popular belief it has absolutely nothing
> to say on the subject of whether or not there is an aether. That is a
> separate dogma. It comes from "you don't need the aether because you
> don't need anything but the maths".
>
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
"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."
"More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special
theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether."
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable"
Alfonso
Jan 13, 2012, 5:44:53 PM1/13/12
to
in the aether until the day he died. In 1920 he knew that his theory
could be seen either as simply empirical, or as simply a specific way of
approaching Lorentz's maths. His 1920 lecture states that his one and
only objection to Lorentz's theory was the asymmetry in the theoretical
structure. The idea that there was a unique FoR stationary w.r.t the
aether which was not distinguishable. Essentially what he was after was
an aether which did not imply such a unique FoR. His "aether without the
immobility of Lorentz's". His ideas on the subject are however couched
in the vaguest of terms and the truth is he never did come up with an
alternative theoretical structure. The matter was taken out of his hands
when an arbitrary decision was made by the physics community, now
dominated by mathematicians, that theories did not need theoretical
structures, in fact they were a bad thing. Thus Maxwell's aether theory
became Maxwell's equations Einstein's mathematics was accepted as
preferable to Lorentz's theory (same mathematics) as it was uncluttered
by a theoretical structure and bizarrely Einstein was credited with
getting rid of the aether when he had come down firmly in its favour.
Some time after that Einstein went with the flow as it were
" We can distinguish various kinds of theories
in physics. Most of them are constructive.
They attempt to build up a picture of the more
complex phenomena out of the materials of a
relatively simple formal scheme from which
they start out. Thus the kinetic theory of gases
seeks to reduce mechanical, thermal, and
diffusional processes to movements of molecules
-- i.e., to build them up out of the hypothesis of
molecular motion. When we say that we have
succeeded in understanding a group of natural
processes we invariably mean that a constructive
theory has been found which covers the
processes in question.
Along with this most important class of
theories there exists a second, which I will
call "principle-theories." These employ the
analytic, not the synthetic, method. The elements
which form their bases and starting-point are not
hypothetically constructed but empirically
discovered ones, general characteristics of
natural processes, principles that give rise to
mathematically formulated criteria which these
separate processes or the theoretical
representations of them have to satisfy.
The advantages of the constructive theory
are completeness, adaptability, and clearness,
those of the principle theory are logical
perfection and security of the foundations.
The theory of relativity belongs to the latter
class. In order to grasp its nature, one needs
first of all to become acquainted with the
principles on which it is based".
Found in: "What is the Theory of Relativity?",
Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, Three Rivers
Press, p. 228-9.
His postulates have become "principles" (empirically discovered) and his
"theory" mathematics derived from those principles.
Alfonso
mpc755
Jan 13, 2012, 6:25:57 PM1/13/12
to
to in terms of the state of the aether as determined by its
connections with the matter and the state of the aether in
neighbouring places as being the state of displacement of the aether.
micro...@hotmail.com
Jan 14, 2012, 12:51:30 AM1/14/12
to
On Jan 12, 12:40 pm, Alfonso <Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
> The dogma of the Copenhagen school was that nothing exists if it
> cannot be measured.
That applies to Dark matter on Earth. It would be in abundance and
> The dogma of the Copenhagen school was that nothing exists if it
> cannot be measured.
that is obviously wrong.
Thomas Heger
Jan 14, 2012, 3:19:05 AM1/14/12
to
Am 12.01.2012 21:40, schrieb Alfonso:
> The dogma of the Copenhagen school was that nothing exists if it cannot
> be measured.
>
> "What is in principle unobservable should not at all be contained in our
> conceptual scheme" Schrödinger.
Dogmas CAN tell, how we perceive things or how physicists deal with
> The dogma of the Copenhagen school was that nothing exists if it cannot
> be measured.
>
> "What is in principle unobservable should not at all be contained in our
> conceptual scheme" Schrödinger.
matters, but only as far as the dogma goes and as long as the proponents
have power enough to put it into action.
You cannot tell nature how it should function. Whether or not something
is observed is of no relevance other than to the observer.
Things might possibly be unobservable, but we know from experience, that
certain things do not go away, because we close the eyes.
TH
mpc755
Jan 14, 2012, 7:34:27 AM1/14/12
to
he was referring to in terms of the energetic contact with a hidden
medium is the state of displacement of the aether.
'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 of wave mechanics is the aether. The 'energetic
contact' is the state of displacement of the aether. A moving particle
has an associated aether displacement wave.
Relativity and double solution are both constructive when you realise
they both are referring to the state of displacement of the aether.
Aether displacement is a constructive theory which combines relativity
and double solution.
What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double
slit experiment; the aether.
0 new messages