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

[studiot]

 

I'm saying particles of matter exist in, move through and displace the aether.

 

 

You have said a great deal and referred to a great deal more,

but I'm concerned with a fundamental premise upon which your whole argument rests.

 

If I drive from London to Edinburgh am I moving through space, time or aether or what?

Edited December 23, 2014 by studiot

[s_luke52]

 

 

You have said a great deal and referred to a great deal more,

but I'm concerned with a fundamental premise upon which you whole argument rests.

 

If I drive from London to Edinburgh am I moving through space, time or aether or what?

 

Spacetime (mathematical) = aether (physical).

 

The particles of matter you consist of are physically moving through and displacing the aether.

 

'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.

Deformation of spacetime (mathematical) = State of displacement of the aether (physical).

[studiot]

Please don't respond with great tracts that only serve to cloud the issue.

 

You have made two statements that are inconsistent with each other and I am trying to reconcile them.

 

You keep referring to 'displacing' the aether.

 

Aether (or anything else) can only be displaced if it is in someplace to start with.

And when it moves to another place it is still in space.

 

We can consider space and time as linked (as in Spacetime) or spearate, so that in my example journey I travel in both space and time.

 

But you have said

 

 

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

 

This is a clear statement that the aether the perturbations propagate in, is not contained in Spactime or indeed in space.

 

Which contradicts your other statement that aether is displaced in spacetime.

 

So please resolve this contradiction.

[s_luke52]

Please don't respond with great tracts that only serve to cloud the issue.

 

You have made two statements that are inconsistent with each other and I am trying to reconcile them.

 

You keep referring to 'displacing' the aether.

 

Aether (or anything else) can only be displaced if it is in someplace to start with.

And when it moves to another place it is still in space.

 

We can consider space and time as linked (as in Spacetime) or spearate, so that in my example journey I travel in both space and time.

 

But you have said

 

 

This is a clear statement that the aether the perturbations propagate in, is not contained in Spactime or indeed in space.

 

Which contradicts your other statement that aether is displaced in spacetime.

 

So please resolve this contradiction.

 

I can't explain it to you any more clearly than the following.

 

What is referred to mathematically as spacetime physically exists in nature as the aether.

 

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

[studiot]

Returning to my travels.

 

If I travel from New York to Boston am I in England? : No I am in the USA

 

As I travel from London to Newcastle am I in England? : Yes.

 

As I travel on to Edinburgh am I in England ? : No I am in Scotland.

 

But all three are travels in space since all three (England, Scotland and the USA) are in space.

 

But I can (and do) also travel in another medium that is orthogonal (you introduced mathematics) to space. To whit Time.

 

I am moving, travelling or being displaced in time throughout, whether or not I travel in space.

 

So I can truly offer some possible mechanisms whereby you could propose that some aether is being displaced (in space/Spacetime) whilst some is not and that is the portion that the disturbance occurs in.

 

That would at least remove the inconsistency, but it is up to you to make it work as it is your theory.

Edited December 23, 2014 by studiot

[s_luke52]

Everything is with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists.

 

When you take an atomic clock to the top of a mountain it ticks faster due to the change in the state of the aether in which it exists.

 

This is why the speed of light is always determined to be 'c'.

[studiot]

That is still no answer to my question.

 

 

Everything is with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists

 

Are you now saying that Spacetime is part of the aether?

 

If so what part and are you also saying there is another part of the aether where disturbances occur?

[s_luke52]

I am saying what is referred to mathematically as spacetime physically exists in nature as the aether.

 

I am saying what is referred to geometrically as the deformation of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

[studiot]

 

I am saying what is referred to mathematically as spacetime physically exists in nature as the aether.

 

 

 

So are you just renaming something for the fun of it or is there any real significance to your new name?

 

Or are you suggesting the difference between London and Edinburgh is purely mathematical?

Edited December 23, 2014 by studiot

[s_luke52]

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

 

The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of stuff 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.

 

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

 

Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment?

A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.

 

What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the aether.

 

Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality; both are waves in the aether.

 

Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.

[swansont]

How can we determine if we are at rest with respect to the aether or moving in it?

 

How can c be invariant if it's moving through an aether?

 

Yesterday you posted links to about a dozen arxiv papers that mention aether. Am I to understand you think they are all consistent with each other? If not, what's the point?

[s_luke52]

How can we determine if we are at rest with respect to the aether or moving in it?

We can't. That's why it's relativistic.

 

Read the Robert B Laughlin quote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#General_relativity):

 

"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing *space* as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] 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".

 

How can c be invariant if it's moving through an aether?

Everything is with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists. Including the atomic clocks which are used to determine the speed of light.

 

Yesterday you posted links to about a dozen arxiv papers that mention aether. Am I to understand you think they are all consistent with each other? If not, what's the point?

Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.

[studiot]

 

Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.

 

 

I have to observe, in the absence of any reasoning, that sounds more like a religious cant than a reasoned scientific statement.

 

First you tell me the aether is outside space

 

 

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

Then you tell me that it occupies space

 

 

Aether physically occupies three dimensional space

 

So which is it?

[swansont]

We can't. That's why it's relativistic.

 

Read the Robert B Laughlin quote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#General_relativity):

 

"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing *space* as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] 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".

 

 

Laughlin is referring to virtual particles and the vacuum. Note that he is not claiming that this is "what waves" or that it is displaced when things move through it. Displacing something with mass sounds an awful lot like a conservation of momentum issue. How does that happen, exactly?

 

Quotes do not suffice as evidence, in part because of what you have exhibited here: just because they mention some word does not mean they support the concept being presented. What we need is a model and ways you can definitively test the idea to separate it from the currently-accepted physics.

[s_luke52]

I have to observe, in the absence of any reasoning, that sounds more like a religious cant than a reasoned scientific statement.

 

First you tell me the aether is outside space

I never said aether is outside space. That is your misinterpretation.

 

Then you tell me that it occupies space

Aether has mass and physically occupies what we refer to as "empty" space.

Laughlin is referring to virtual particles and the vacuum.

There are no such things as virtual particles.

 

'EPR program: a local interpretation of QM'

http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.5612

 

"We can denote it æther or vacuum. Of course, not the classical æther associated to an absolute rest frame. It should be a Lorentz invariant vacuum. There is a Lorentz invariant vacuum in QFT. It is a physical system (although there is also debate around this statement), playing a fundamental role in the formulation, and it has observable effects, as the Casimir energy."

 

It is the state of displacement of the aether which forces the plates together to cause the Casimir effect.

 

 

Note that he is not claiming that this is "what waves" or that it is displaced when things move through it. Displacing something with mass sounds an awful lot like a conservation of momentum issue. How does that happen, exactly?

 

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.

 

Quotes do not suffice as evidence, in part because of what you have exhibited here: just because they mention some word does not mean they support the concept being presented. What we need is a model and ways you can definitively test the idea to separate it from the currently-accepted physics.

 

Currently accepted physics is so <deleted by mod> up it can't understand the particle always detected in a single slit in a double slit experiment is evidence the particle is always in a single slit.

Edited December 23, 2014 by imatfaal
please try to keep the language toned down

[studiot]

 

I never said aether is outside space. That is your misinterpretation

 

Well I come back to your very words

 

 

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

 

not in Minkowski space-time but in ... aether

 

Minkowski space-time includes all of space and all of time whether it is finite or infinite.

So anything in space or time is in Minkowski space-time.

 

Yet you tell me quite clearly that there are disturbances in aether that is not in Minkowski space-time.

 

So I ask again

 

Are you saying there is some aether in space-time and some not, or that all aether is not in space-time, or that your original claim was incorrect?

Unless you are saying the definition of Minkowski space-time is incorrect and includes things not in space or time.

Edited December 23, 2014 by studiot

[s_luke52]

 

Well I come back to your very words

 

 

not in Minkowski space-time but in ... aether

 

Minkowski space-time includes all of space and all of time whether it is finite or infinite.

 

Yet you tell me quite clearly that there are disturbances in aether that is not in Minkowski space-time.

 

So I ask again

 

Are you saying there is some aether in space-time and some not, or that all aether is not in space-time, or that your original claim was incorrect?

 

Spacetime is a mathematical concept that doesn't physically exist so it can't physically include all of space.

 

What is referred to MATHEMATICALLY as spacetime PHYSICALLY exists in nature as the aether.

 

What is referred to MATHEMATICALLY 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]

 

Spacetime is a mathematical concept that doesn't physically exist so it can't physically include all of space.

 

 

Well whether it is a concept or not (debatable but off the point) doesn't lead logically to what it is a concept about or prevent it including all of space.

 

It is defined to include all of space.

 

Since you wish to state that it is mathematical, perhaps you can display some mathematical section of space that is not included, mathematically?

[s_luke52]

Well whether it is a concept or not (debatable but off the point) doesn't lead logically to what it is a concept about or prevent it including all of space.

 

It is defined to include all of space.

 

Since you wish to sitate that it is mathematical, perhaps you can display some mathematical section of space that is not included, mathematically?

For some reason you keep insisting there is spacetime and aether. Which is fine, you can do whatever you want. However, you keep insisting I'm insisting there is spacetime and aether, which is incorrect.

 

Try and understand the following:

 

spacetime = aether

 

deformation of spacetime = state of displacement of the aether

Edited December 23, 2014 by s_luke52

[studiot]

 

Try and understand the following:

 

spacetime = aether

 

deformation of spacetime = state of displacement of the aether

 

 

Well I am trying to understand but you are offering no explanation, merely repetition.

 

Repetition does not make truth.

[swansont]

 

 

There are no such things as virtual particles.

 

'EPR program: a local interpretation of QM'

http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.5612

 

"We can denote it æther or vacuum. Of course, not the classical æther associated to an absolute rest frame. It should be a Lorentz invariant vacuum. There is a Lorentz invariant vacuum in QFT. It is a physical system (although there is also debate around this statement), playing a fundamental role in the formulation, and it has observable effects, as the Casimir energy."

 

It is the state of displacement of the aether which forces the plates together to cause the Casimir effect.

 

 

Great. But simply quoting yourself isn't proof of anything, and your paper doesn't actually derive anything to be able to predict the Casimir force. So this is a rather empty claim. What is the model that tells us the specifics of the Casimir force?

 

Also, you should note that the Casimir force doesn't actually rely on the existence of virtual particles. Just that there is zero-point energy. So denial of the Casimir force really is a rejection of QM. Do you have something to replace it?

 

Oh, and if there are no such things as virtual particles, why do you use a quote that describes them as support for your idea?

[s_luke52]

Well I am trying to understand but you are offering no explanation, merely repetition.

 

Repetition does not make truth.

You aren't trying to understand when you insist aether exists outside of spacetime. Aether is the actual physical mass which fills what we call 'empty' space which is referred to mathematically as spacetime.

Great. But simply quoting yourself isn't proof of anything, and your paper doesn't actually derive anything to be able to predict the Casimir force. So this is a rather empty claim. What is the model that tells us the specifics of the Casimir force?

 

Also, you should note that the Casimir force doesn't actually rely on the existence of virtual particles. Just that there is zero-point energy.

Zero-point energy 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 de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether. The “energetic contact” is the state of displacement of the aether. The "energetic contact" is the zero-point energy.

 

So denial of the Casimir force really is a rejection of QM. Do you have something to replace it?

No one is rejecting the Casimir force. The Casimir force is caused by the state of displacement of the aether.

 

Oh, and if there are no such things as virtual particles, why do you use a quote that describes them as support for your idea?

An article doesn't have to be 100% correct in order for it to be of value.

 

I agree with Einstein.

 

'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.

 

Why are you trying so hard not to understand what occurs physically in nature?

 

Are you at least able to understand the particle always detected in a single slit in a double slit experiment is evidence the particle is always in a single slit?

[swansont]

 

No one is rejecting the Casimir force. The Casimir force is caused by the state of displacement of the aether.

 

You are rejecting the explanation of it, which predicts how big it is, as well as other vacuum energy effects, like inhibition of spontaneous emission in a cavity. So give us the new model.

 

Do you have a model that predicts the size of the Casimir force, or not? It's put up or shut up time.

[studiot]

 

You aren't trying to understand when you insist aether exists outside of spacetime

 

Actually I didn't say that, you did.

 

Further I have displayed your exact words stating this several times.

 

As to trying to understand,

 

You made a specific statement I asked, again several times, for further information, in order to understand it.

 

Instead of providing that information you simply repeat your statement and then berate me.

 

Would you do the same if you said "I have an apple"

 

and I said

 

"Really, what colour is it, red, green or yellow, or some combination?"

[s_luke52]

You are rejecting the explanation of it, which predicts how big it is, as well as other vacuum energy effects, like inhibition of spontaneous emission in a cavity. So give us the new model.

 

Do you have a model that predicts the size of the Casimir force, or not?

 

What is referred to as the "vacuum fluctuations" is the underlying energy/waves due to the chaotic nature of 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 [the wave-function wave], 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” is the aether.

‘Fluid mechanics suggests alternative to quantum orthodoxy’

http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/fluid-systems-quantum-mechanics-0912

“The fluidic pilot-wave system is also chaotic. It’s impossible to measure a bouncing droplet’s position accurately enough to predict its trajectory very far into the future. But in a recent series of papers, Bush, MIT professor of applied mathematics Ruben Rosales, and graduate students Anand Oza and Dan Harris applied their pilot-wave theory to show how chaotic pilot-wave dynamics leads to the quantumlike statistics observed in their experiments.”

A "fluidic pilot-wave system" is the aether.

'When Fluid Dynamics Mimic Quantum Mechanics'

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729111934.htm

 

"When the waves are confined to a circular corral, they reflect back on themselves, producing complex patterns (grey ripples) that steer the droplet in an apparently random trajectory (white line). But in fact, the droplet’s motion follows statistical patterns determined by the wavelength of the waves. (Credit: Dan Harris)"

 

"If you have a system that is deterministic and is what we call in the business 'chaotic,' or sensitive to initial conditions, sensitive to perturbations, then it can behave probabilistically," Milewski continues. "Experiments like this weren't available to the giants of quantum mechanics. They also didn't know anything about chaos. Suppose these guys -- who were puzzled by why the world behaves in this strange probabilistic way -- actually had access to experiments like this and had the knowledge of chaos, would they have come up with an equivalent, deterministic theory of quantum mechanics, which is not the current one? That's what I find exciting from the quantum perspective."

 

 

 

It's put up or shut up time.

 

Looks like it is choose to remain ignorant of understanding what occurs physically in nature time.

Actually I didn't say that, you did.

Again, I never said that. You are misinterpreting the quote from the article.

 

Further I have displayed your exact words stating this several times.

The quote from the article refers to the perturbations not occurring in spacetime, which is understandable when you understand spacetime is a mathematical construct that does not physically exist in and of itself. spacetime physically exists in nature as the aether.

 

As to trying to understand,

 

You made a specific statement I asked, again several times, for further information, in order to understand it.

 

Instead of providing that information you simply repeat your statement and then berate me.

I did not berate you. You are unable to understand spacetime is a mathematical construct. It doesn't physically exist in and of itself. The aether has mass and fills what we would otherwise refer to as 'empty' space.

 

Would you do the same if you said "I have an apple"

 

and I said

 

"Really, what colour is it, red, green or yellow, or some combination?"

You have an apple. I give you an apple. How many apples do you physically have?

 

Did I physically give you an apple or are we referring to the concept of me giving you an apple?