Wave particle duality is described as the compound system of point particle plus accompanying wave (in the æther)

[s_luke52]

'EPR program: a local interpretation of QM'

http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.5612

"Wave particle duality is described as the compound system of point particle plus accompanying wave (in the æther)."

[imatfaal]

Moved to Speculations

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

The rules state that "members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone." How about an abstract, at least.

[s_luke52]

Every time a double slit experiment is performed the particle is always detected traveling through a single slit. This is evidence the particle always travels through a single slit. When the particle is not detected it forms an interference pattern. This is evidence of the associated wave in the aether.

[imatfaal]

Every time a double slit experiment is performed the particle is always detected traveling through a single slit. This is evidence the particle always travels through a single slit. When the particle is not detected it forms an interference pattern. This is evidence of the associated wave in the aether.

 

You always detect the particles in the end - otherwise what would you build the interference pattern from. The crucial point is that if you (can) determine which slit a particle passes through then your interference disappears.

 

It is absolutely certainly not evidence of the ether - let alone a wave in an ether that is merely postulated.

 

Is there any experiment that could distinguish between the current interpretations of QM and the ideas in this paper? Is there any greater predictive power in this idea?

[Strange]

From the paper:

"First is the existence of an accompanying system, in interac tion with the isolated electron. We can denote it æther or vacuum. Of course , not the classical æther associated to an absolute rest frame."

 

So they are using the word "aether", as many people do, as a general metaphor. It has been used in this sense to describe: the electromagnetic field, space-time, quantum vacuum, and many other things. The term has effectively become quite meanignless.

 

The paper appears to be be presenting something similar to the pilot-wave interpretation (but I have only skimmed it really quicky).

[s_luke52]

 

You always detect the particles in the end - otherwise what would you build the interference pattern from. The crucial point is that if you (can) determine which slit a particle passes through then your interference disappears.

 

It is absolutely certainly not evidence of the ether - let alone a wave in an ether that is merely postulated.

 

Is there any experiment that could distinguish between the current interpretations of QM and the ideas in this paper? Is there any greater predictive power in this idea?

 

In the following experiment, if the results are as I predict then it is evidence nothing is erased and nothing is delayed in a so-called 'delayed choice quantum eraser' experiment. In the experiment I propose the which-way information of the idler photon will be known and the two interference patterns at D0 will still be discerned.

 

 

There are two interference patterns being generated at D0 regardless of what else occurs in the experiment. It is the interaction with the second beam splitter which causes certain photons to wind up at certain detectors. This allows for the two interference patterns at D0 to be discerned even though the which way information of the idler is known.

From the paper:

"First is the existence of an accompanying system, in interac tion with the isolated electron. We can denote it æther or vacuum. Of course , not the classical æther associated to an absolute rest frame."

 

So they are using the word "aether", as many people do, as a general metaphor. It has been used in this sense to describe: the electromagnetic field, space-time, quantum vacuum, and many other things. The term has effectively become quite meanignless.

 

The paper appears to be be presenting something similar to the pilot-wave interpretation (but I have only skimmed it really quicky).

 

"The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

 

"Such matter", solids, fluids, a piece of window glass and 'stuff' have mass and so does the aether. There is no such thing as dark matter anchored to matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

 

There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.

Edited December 22, 2014 by s_luke52

[andrewcellini]

There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.

so what of the attempts to demonstrate the aether's existence which aided its falsification and the development of SR?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

how do you reconcile this?

Edited December 22, 2014 by andrewcellini

[s_luke52]

so what of the attempts to demonstrate the aether's existence which aided its falsification and the development of SR?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

how do you reconcile this?

 

The MMX 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.

 

Watch the following video starting at the 0:45 mark. What is referred to as frame dragging is the state of displacement of the aether.

'NASA's Gravity Probe B Confirms Two Einstein Space-Time Theories'

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html

""Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey. As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it's the same with space and time," said Francis Everitt, GP-B principal investigator at Stanford University."

Honey has mass and so does the aether. The swirl is the state of displacement of the aether.

'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html

"Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark matter, which is somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the water."

The 'pond' consists of aether. The galaxy clusters are moving through and displacing the aether. The ripple created when galaxy clusters collide is an aether displacement wave.

[Strange]

The MMX 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.

 

Other experiments, e.g. Fizeau, disprove the hypothesis that th aether is dragged by matter.

"Such matter", solids, fluids, a piece of window glass and 'stuff' have mass and so does the aether.

 

There is no evidence of massive aether.

[s_luke52]

Other experiments, e.g. Fizeau, disprove the hypothesis that th aether is dragged by matter.

The aether isn't dragged. The aether is displaced.

 

 

There is no evidence of massive aether.

 

There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.

 

There is no such thing as dark matter anchored to matter; matter moves through and displaces the aether. The aether has mass.

 

'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html

 

"Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark matter, which is somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the water."

 

The 'pond' consists of aether. The galaxy clusters are moving through and displacing the aether. The ripple created when galaxy clusters collide is an aether displacement wave.

Edited December 22, 2014 by s_luke52

[Strange]

 

There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.

 

You need to provide evidence that:

a) There is any such aether and

b) that it waves

 

But I have seen you posting the same thing under many other usernames so I assume you are just going to endlessly repeat the same thing over and over, without providing any support .... Go!

Edited December 22, 2014 by Strange

[s_luke52]

You need to provide evidence that:

a) There is any such aether and

b) that it waves

 

But I have seen you posting the same thing under many other usernames so I assume you are just going to endlessly repeat the same thing over and over, without providing any support .... Go!

What you are unable or unwilling to understand is that the notion dark matter is anchored to matter is incorrect. There is no such thing as dark matter anchored to matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

[Strange]

What you are unable or unwilling to understand is that the notion dark matter is anchored to matter is incorrect. There is no such thing as dark matter anchored to matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

 

Please provide some evidence to support his.

[s_luke52]

Please provide some evidence to support his.

 

Why? There is no amount of evidence which will convince you otherwise.

'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html

"Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark matter, which is somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the water."

The 'pond' consists of aether. The galaxy clusters are moving through and displacing the aether. The ripple created when galaxy clusters collide is an aether displacement wave.

'Galactic Pile-Up May Point to Mysterious New Dark Force in the Universe'

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/01/musket-ball-dark-force/

"The reason this is strange is that dark matter is thought to barely interact with itself. The dark matter should just coast through itself and move at the same speed as the hardly interacting galaxies. Instead, it looks like the dark matter is crashing into something — perhaps itself – and slowing down faster than the galaxies are. But this would require the dark matter to be able to interact with itself in a completely new an unexpected way, a “dark force” that affects only dark matter."

It's not a new force. It's the aether displaced by each of the galaxy clusters interacting analogous to the bow waves of two boats which pass by each other.

'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'

http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1475

"Our data strongly support the idea that the gravitational potential in clusters is mainly due to a non-baryonic fluid, and any exotic field in gravitational theory must resemble that of CDM fields very closely."

The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether. The analogy is a submarine moving through the water. You are under water. Two miles away from you are many lights. Moving between you and the lights one mile away is a submarine. The submarine displaces the water. The state of displacement of the water causes the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water to be offset from the center of the submarine itself. The offset between the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water displaced by the submarine and the center of the submarine itself is going to remain the same as the submarine moves through the water. The submarine continually displaces different regions of the water. The state of the water connected to and neighboring the submarine remains the same as the submarine moves through the water even though it is not the same water the submarine continually displaces. This is what is occurring physically in nature as the galaxy clusters move through and displace the aether.

NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS

A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION

by

LOUIS DE BROGLIE

"Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of W, arise from the interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium” which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty space"."

The "subquantic medium" which fills what we call "empty space" is otherwise known as the aether.

There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.

You do realize physicists are trying to relate general relativity and quantum mechanics, correct?

You do realize they have been trying to do this for ~80 years now, correct?

You do realize it may require you to understand something which is new to you in order for you to understand what relates general relativity and quantum mechanics, correct?

Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Edited December 22, 2014 by s_luke52

[Strange]

Why?

 

Because this is the Speculations forum and you are required by the rules to provide evidence.

 

 

There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.

 

Yes. You have said that before. (Shall I start counting how many times you repost exactly the same thing?)

 

Now, about the evidence ...

[s_luke52]

 

Because this is the Speculations forum and you are required by the rules to provide evidence.

 

 

Yes. You have said that before. (Shall I start counting how many times you repost exactly the same thing?)

 

Now, about the evidence ...

 

You are unable or unwilling to understand the evidence, just as you are unable or unwilling to understand what relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.

 

Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.

[studiot]

Well, luke you have said what your aether is not.

 

Please explain exactly what you propose it to be.

That is what properties does have, defining equations, laws, rules of the road and whatnot.

[s_luke52]

Well, luke you have said what your aether is not.

 

Please explain exactly what you propose it to be.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

 

"Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - 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."

 

if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

 

That is what properties does have, defining equations, laws, rules of the road and whatnot.

 

In the following articles the aether is what waves in a double slit experiment.

 

'From the Newton's laws to motions of the fluid and superfluid vacuum: vortex tubes, rings, and others'

http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3900

'EPR program: a local interpretation of QM'

http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.5612

The following article describes the aether as that which produces resistance to acceleration and is responsible for the increase in mass of an object with velocity and describes the "space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."

'Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and fluidic inertia'

http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4611

"It is shown that the force exerted on a particle by an ideal fluid produces two effects: i) resistance to acceleration and, ii) an increase of mass with velocity. ... The interaction between the particle and the entrained space flow gives rise to the observed properties of inertia and the relativistic increase of mass. ... Accordingly, in this framework the non resistance of a particle in uniform motion through an ideal fluid (D’Alembert’s paradox) corresponds to Newton’s first law. The law of inertia suggests that the physical vacuum can be modeled as an ideal fluid, agreeing with the space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."

The relativistic mass of an object is the mass of the object and the mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the object which is displaced by the object. The faster an object moves with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists the greater the displacement of the aether by the object the greater the relativistic mass of the object.

 

The incompressible fluid described in the following article is the gravitational aether which "the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."

'Empty Black Holes, Firewalls, and the Origin of Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy'

http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4176

"But why an incompressible fluid? The reason comes from an attempt to solve the (old) cosmological constant problem, which is arguably the most puzzling aspect of coupling gravity to relativistic quantum mechanics [13]. Given that the natural expectation value for the vacuum of the standard model of particle physics is ∼ 60 orders of magnitude heavier than the gravitational measurements of vacuum density, it is reasonable to entertain an alternative theory of gravity where the standard model vacuum decouples from gravity. Such a theory could be realized by coupling gravity to the traceless part of the quantum mechanical energy-momentum tensor. However, the consistency/covariance of gravitational field equations then requires introducing an auxiliary fluid, the so-called gravitational aether [14]. The simplest model for gravitational aether is an incompressible fluid (with vanishing energy density, but non-vanishing pressure), which is currently consistent with all cosmological, astrophysical, and precision tests of gravity [15, 16]:

__3__

32πGN Gμν = Tμν − Tα gμν + Tμν ,

Tμν = p (uμ uν + gμν ), T μν;ν = 0,

where GN is Newton’s constant, Tμν is the matter energy momentum tensor and T'μν is the incompressible gravitational aether fluid. In vacuum, the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."

The following article describes the aether as an incompressible fluid resulting in what the article refers to as gravitational aether caused by pressure (or vorticity).

'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old Cosmological Constant Problem'

http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3955

"One proposal to address this puzzle at the semi-classical level is to decouple quantum vacuum from space-time geometry via a modification of gravity that includes an incompressible fluid, known as Gravitational Aether. In this paper, we discuss classical predictions of this theory along with its compatibility with cosmological and experimental tests of gravity. We argue that deviations from General Relativity (GR) in this theory are sourced by pressure or vorticity."

The following article describes gravity as a pressure exerted by aether toward matter.

'The aether-modified gravity and the G ̈del metric'

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5654

"As for the pressure, it is equal to p = 53−αg,6a2 so, it is positive if αg < 3 which is the weaker condition than the previous one. One notes that the results corresponding to the usual gravity are easily recovered. Also, it is easy to see that the interval αg < 15 corresponds to the usual matter."

The following article describes a gravitating vacuum where aether is the quantum vacuum of the 21-st century.

'From Analogue Models to Gravitating Vacuum'

http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.1155

"The aether of the 21-st century is the quantum vacuum, which is a new form of matter. This is the real substance"

The following articles describe what is presently postulated as dark matter is aether.

'Quantum aether and an invariant Planck scale'

http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3753

"this version of aether may have some bearing on the abundance of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in our universe."

"mass of the aether"

'Scalars, Vectors and Tensors from Metric-Affine Gravity'

http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.5168

"the model obtained here gets closer to the aether theory of , which is shown therein to be an alternative to the cold dark matter."

'Unified model for dark matter and quintessence'

http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.4758

"Superfluid dark matter is reminiscent of the aether and modeling the universe using superfluid aether is compatible."

'Vainshtein mechanism in Gauss-Bonnet gravity and Galileon aether'

http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.1892

"the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of ”aether” because of the presence of the background field"

'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum medium and the inertial motion of particles'

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0701155

"In this paper we shall show that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as a ubiquitous back ground field is a super fluid medium."

Edited December 23, 2014 by s_luke52

[studiot]

 

the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of ”aether” because of the presence of the background field"

 

So do I take it that you propose your aether to be in some sense outside Spacetime?

[s_luke52]

 

So do I take it that you propose your aether to be in some sense outside Spacetime?

 

There is no such thing as dark matter anchored to matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

 

The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter anchored to the Milky Way. The Milky Way is moving through and displacing the aether.

 

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

 

The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of spacetime.

 

What is referred to geometrically as the deformation of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

Edited December 23, 2014 by s_luke52

[studiot]

That didn't answer my question.

 

You very clearly said

 

 

the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of ”aether”

 

If the perturbations do not propagate in Spacetime, but somewhere else, then it follows that that somewhere else cannot be contained in Spactime either or else the propagation would be in something that was contained in Spacetime and therefore also in Spacetime.

 

So please answer my question as to whether you actually meant this or wish to reword ?

[s_luke52]

That didn't answer my question.

 

You very clearly said

 

 

If the perturbations do not propagate in Spacetime, but somewhere else, then it follows that that somewhere else cannot be contained in Spactime either or else the propagation would be in something that was contained in Spacetime and therefore also in Spacetime.

 

So please answer my question as to whether you actually meant this or wish to reword ?

 

Spacetime is a geometrical representation of what is occurring physically in nature. It is a mathematical construct. Spacetime does not actually physically exist in and of itself. What is referred to as the deformation of spacetime actually physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

 

The perturbations do not propagate through spacetime as it doesn't physically exist. The perturbations propagate through the aether.

Edited December 23, 2014 by s_luke52

[studiot]

 

Spacetime is a geometrical representation of what is occurring physically in nature. It is a mathematical construct. Spacetime does not actually physically exist in and of itself.

 

So are you saying that matter has no physical extent, that there is no dimension we call length?

[s_luke52]

 

So are you saying that matter has no physical extent, that there is no dimension we call length?

 

I'm saying particles of matter exist in, move through and displace the aether. I'm saying in a double slit experiment it is the aether that waves.

 

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE'

http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf

“When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles.”

“any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium”

The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether. The “energetic contact” is the state of displacement of the aether.

"For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant, forms on the v wave a small region of high energy concentration, which may be likened in a first approximation, to a moving singularity."

A particle may be likened in a first approximation to a moving singularity which has an associated aether displacement wave.

"the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave"

The particle has length as it is defined as a very small region of the wave.

In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path which takes it through one slit. The associated wave in the aether passes through both. As the 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 guiding the particle. Detecting the particle strongly exiting a single slit destroys the cohesion between the particle and its associated wave in the aether, the particle continues on the trajectory it was traveling and does not form an interference pattern.

Edited December 23, 2014 by s_luke52