[CraigD]

mpc755, on 19 May 2012 - 05:42 AM, said:

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.

I just explained what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment in a classical way.

That’s a reasonable hypothesis and model, and the double slit experiment a good subject.

I’d like to develop it in more detail, and with rigor. Fortunately, classical physics is computationally easy to approximately model, so this is within the ability and available resources of a part-time, armature science enthusiast like me and some others here at hypography.

As you’ve not, despite requests and warnings, posted any links to such work, Mpc, I assume you’ve not done any such work, nor know of any done by others. If I assume incorrectly, please correct me by posting or linking to such work, as I wouldn’t want to waste time duplicating it.

Would you be interested in working on a computerized, approximate model using classical physics to test you hypothesis, Mpc?

If so, what starting assumption would you suggest? I’m thinking of modeling your hypothesized aether as a large collection of identical point (radius zero) particles with non-zero mass that repel one another with a force following an inverse square () law, inside a infinitely hard walled “box” so the model starts at uniform density and pressure, big enough that it’s indistinguishable from an infinitely large box for the duration of a model run.

The goal, I think, should be to produce a realistic one-photon-at-a-time single slit experiment diffraction pattern using the model. I admit I’m skeptical this can be done without “cheating” within the model so much the original hypothesis is no longer significant, but in my experience, one can’t reasonably know if an untested hypothesis is correct of not without testing it, and approximate computer modeling is one of the easiest ways to test, something mere hackers can do, not just Nobel prize caliber mathematical physicists.

[mpc755]

CraigD, on 19 May 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

That’s a reasonable hypothesis and model, and the double slit experiment a good subject.

I’d like to develop it in more detail, and with rigor. Fortunately, classical physics is computationally easy to approximately model, so this is within the ability and available resources of a part-time, armature science enthusiast like me and some others here at hypography.

As you’ve not, despite requests and warnings, posted any links to such work, Mpc, I assume you’ve not done any such work, nor know of any done by others. If I assume incorrectly, please correct me by posting or linking to such work, as I wouldn’t want to waste time duplicating it.

The wave of pilot-wave theory is an aether wave.

http://en.wikipedia....lot_Wave_theory

It is also referred to as the de Broglie-Bohm theory.

http://en.wikipedia....0%93Bohm_theory

The biggest issue with the de Broglie-Bohm theory is it is considered a hidden variable theory. There are no such things as hidden variables. Let's hold off on discussing hidden variables for now.

This physicist is a supporter of de Broglie-Bohm theory.

http://en.wikipedia....ntony_Valentini

He doesn't yet understand the wave of pilot-wave theory is an aether wave.

Here is an arcticle which might help you to conceptualize how particles of matter interact with the aether.

http://web.mit.edu/n...anics-1020.html

The double slit example in the following video starts at 2:45. In a 'real' double slit experiment the particle is moving fast enough so the associated aether wave enters and exits both slits and creates wave interference upon exiting the slits.

Quote

Would you be interested in working on a computerized, approximate model using classical physics to test you hypothesis, Mpc?

Yes.

Quote

If so, what starting assumption would you suggest? I’m thinking of modeling your hypothesized aether as a large collection of identical point (radius zero) particles with non-zero mass that repel one another with a force following an inverse square () law, inside a infinitely hard walled “box” so the model starts at uniform density and pressure, big enough that it’s indistinguishable from an infinitely large box for the duration of a model run.

I do not think it can be known if aether consists of particles or not so if you need aether particles in order to mathematically represent the aether then that is different than what aether likely exists as.

What I do know is aether has mass, aether physically occupies three dimensional space and aether is physically displaced by matter. Aether exists where particles of matter do not. Where particles of matter exist the aether is displaced.

If you can mathematically model the aether as a 'one something' which is physically displaced by matter than that is what the aether actual is.

Something else which might help model the aether is understanding matter is condensations of aether.

When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether. As matter evaporates into aether it expands into neighboring places. The physical effects of this expansion is energy.

Quote

The goal, I think, should be to produce a realistic one-photon-at-a-time single slit experiment diffraction pattern using the model. I admit I’m skeptical this can be done without “cheating” within the model so much the original hypothesis is no longer significant, but in my experience, one can’t reasonably know if an untested hypothesis is correct of not without testing it, and approximate computer modeling is one of the easiest ways to test, something mere hackers can do, not just Nobel prize caliber mathematical physicists.

The best thing to try would be a modified 'delayed choice quantum eraser experiment'.

http://upload.wikime...ntum_Eraser.svg

If beam splitter BSb is replaced with D4 the photons traveling the blue path which are detected at D1 and D2 may correspond with the interference patterns being created at D0. If this is the case then the which-way information of the photons will be known and this is evidence nothing is delayed, nothing is erased and de Broglie was correct.

It is evidence de Broglie was correct because it is evidence the particle traveling toward D0 has associated waves traveling both the red and blue paths and that wave interference is occurring prior to the particle being detected at D0 regardless of what else happens in the experiment.

If you execute the experiment and the results are as I have predicted the article should be titled 'A no delayed choice no quantum eraser experiment'.

This post has been edited by mpc755: 19 May 2012 - 09:39 PM

[mpc755]

'Superfluid Is Shown To Have Property Of A Solid'
http://www.scienceda...90730072958.htm

"Northwestern University physicists have for the first time shown that superfluid helium-3 -- the lighter isotope of helium, which is a liquid that has lost all internal friction, allowing it to flow without resistance and ooze through tiny spaces that normal liquids cannot penetrate -- actually behaves like a solid in its ability to conduct sound waves."

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a superfliud with properties of a solid and should be modeled as such.

[Little Bang]

Ok mpc your right I do not understand what a field is nor does anyone else on this planet. So why don't you enlighten the rest of us and describe of what is the ether made?

[mpc755]

Little Bang, on 20 May 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

Ok mpc your right I do not understand what a field is nor does anyone else on this planet. So why don't you enlighten the rest of us and describe of what is the ether made?

Aether and matter are different states of the same material.

Aether and matter have mass.

Matter is condensations of aether.

Matter evaporates into aether.

When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether. The evaporation is energy. Mass is conserved.

[Little Bang]

You still have not answered my question. What is the Aether and matters constituent make up?

[mpc755]

Little Bang, on 21 May 2012 - 10:05 AM, said:

You still have not answered my question. What is the Aether and matters constituent make up?

Mass is that which physically occupies three dimensional space.

Aether and matter have mass.

Matter is condensed aether.

Aether is evaporated matter.

Aether and matter are different states of the material which physically occupies three dimensional space.

This post has been edited by mpc755: 21 May 2012 - 10:22 AM

[Little Bang]

mpc755, on 21 May 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

Mass is that which physically occupies three dimensional space.

Aether and matter have mass.

Matter is condensed aether.

Aether is evaporated matter.

Aether and matter are different states of the material which physically occupies three dimensional space.

Come on mpc, when someone asks me what a rose is and say," Well it's a rose." does not explain the rose.

[mpc755]

Little Bang, on 21 May 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

Come on mpc, when someone asks me what a rose is and say," Well it's a rose." does not explain the rose.

Einstein defined the aether as not consisting of individual particles which can be separately tracked through time.

I interpret this to mean it can not be known if aether consists of particles or not.

Aether is the material which condenses into matter.

I realize you are going to continue to insist on a further defintion of what the aether is because you are unable to understand aether being the base material which condenses into particles of matter and which does not consist of particles itself can not be further defined.

Aether is the stuff which fills three dimensional space unoccupied by particles of matter.

This post has been edited by mpc755: 21 May 2012 - 11:02 AM

[Little Bang]

If a small child asks me what causes a magnetic field I can do a pretty good job of that but if he/she asks me to explain a magnetic field I will tell them I don't know nor does anyone else so why don't you admit you can't explain the Aether anymore than I can explain an electric field?

[mpc755]

Little Bang, on 21 May 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:

If a small child asks me what causes a magnetic field I can do a pretty good job of that but if he/she asks me to explain a magnetic field I will tell them I don't know nor does anyone else so why don't you admit you can't explain the Aether anymore than I can explain an electric field?

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

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 while the associated aether wave passes through both.

When you can explain what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity or the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment then let me know.