Leaderboard

Because - as I have attempted to explain - time dilation is a relationship between distant clocks, whereas a field assigns a particular object (a tensor of spinor of any rank) to each local event in spacetime. You cannot point to an event in spacetime and say “I am going to assign time dilation factor X to this event”, without any further qualification - this does not make any physical sense. The most fundamental entity in GR (and the solution to the Einstein field equations) is the metric tensor field - it assigns a metric tensor to each event in spacetime. To put it in the simplest possible terms, the metric tensor field allows you to quantify how each event in spacetime is related to all other events - both in spatial terms, and in terms of time. It does so by defining a mathematically precise relationship between neighbouring events, so that, by integrating along curves, you can calculate relationships between more distant events, e.g. the length of a world line connecting them. Time dilation in GR is a geometric property of world lines, in that it is the ratio between the lengths of world lines between the same events - the total time a clock accumulates between two given events is equivalent to the geometric length of the world line traced out by that clock. And how long that world line will be depends on the geometry of the spacetime it is in, and what kind of world line it is. Take for example a rotating spherical body, such as a planet. If you let a test clock orbit the planet once in its direction of rotation, starting and finishing at some point P, then that orbit will take a total time T1. If you now start at the same spot P, but orbit in the opposite direction (counter the planet’s direction of rotation, but along the same orbit, with all other initial and boundary conditions remaining equal), you will get some orbital time T2, which will be ever so slightly different. That’s because, even though you start at the same point P, and traverse the same spatial distance along the same orbit, the geometry of spacetime is such that the lengths of the two world lines will differ. The ratio between these two geometric lengths is one example of gravitational time dilation - the value of that ratio depends on where the point P is, the initial and boundary conditions of the clock kinematics, and the global geometry of the underlying spacetime. How would you capture all this by assigning a single value to point P, as you seem to want to do with your “time dilation field” idea? Again, on closer consideration, in order to capture all relevant degrees of freedom so that all aspects of gravity can be correctly modelled, independently of the precise circumstances, at least a rank-2 tensor field is necessary. That’s what GR does.

McCorvey’s autobiography, I Am Roe, was released in 1994.

The complementary principle says we can observe only one of these natures at a time - is restriction for measurement like Heisenberg. So particles have at least one of these two natures at a time, the question is if objectively they cannot have both, like observed in experiments I have linked. Or like for the walking droplets with both natures at a time: http://dualwalkers.com/statistical.html

Metal organic frameworks are very popular at the moment. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal–organic_framework They contain organic components as well obviously, but the area sits much more squarely with inorganic chemistry. I suspect that the examples given by the OP were used to distinguish synthetic and naturally occurring macromolecules, though it is a bit confusing as rubber can also be naturally occurring.

How about calling it what it is: an analogy. The trouble is that analogies can be very powerful to illustrate a specific concept. But they break down when applied more widely or when you try and base new ideas on them. An obvious example is the "rubber sheet" analogy for GR. Some people just accept it for what it is. Others ask (very perceptively) "but if the dents in the sheet cause gravity then what is pulling the objects down to make the dents." See, the analogy has broken down. So, yes, you can draw an analogy between the Newtonian equation for gravity and Coulomb's law. But if you try and got beyond that simple analogy, you run into problems (gravity only attracts, while similar charges repel, and so on). Similarly, you can draw an analogy between refraction and gravitational lensing. But they are not the same thing. If you are unable to understand the difference between an analogy and science, then maybe you are right. You will never learn. How many years have you been flogging this particular horse, while everyone tells you it is already dead? How much real science could you have learned in that time? How much excitement of gaining knowledge have you missed out on? It is sad that you have let yourself become obsessed by one mistaken idea that stops you learning anything new. I shall suggest that this thread is closed.

Lack of context? Comparing apples and oranges? Political bias? Strawman argument? Take your pick.

So it is clearly an interesting set of experiments but apparently is not a model of (all) quantum effects.

Oh, muuuch more has happened - see my slides with links to materials: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kxvvhj0cnl1iqxr/Couder.pdf Interference in particle statistics of double-slit experiment (PRL 2006) - corpuscle travels one path, but its "pilot wave" travels all paths - affecting trajectory of corpuscle (measured by detectors). Unpredictable tunneling (PRL 2009) due to complicated state of the field ("memory"), depending on the history - they observe exponential drop of probability to cross a barrier with its width. Landau orbit quantization (PNAS 2010) - using rotation and Coriolis force as analog of magnetic field and Lorentz force (Michael Berry 1980). The intuition is that the clock has to find a resonance with the field to make it a standing wave (e.g. described by Schrödinger's equation). Zeeman-like level splitting (PRL 2012) - quantized orbits split proportionally to applied rotation speed (with sign). Double quantization in harmonic potential (Nature 2014) - of separately both radius (instead of standard: energy) and angular momentum. E.g. n=2 state switches between m=2 oval and m=0 lemniscate of 0 angular momentum. Recreating eigenstate form statistics of a walker's trajectories (PRE 2013). In the slides there are also hydrodynamical analogous of Casimir and Aharonov-Bohm.