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

'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)."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Let me guess, you're sock puppet of gravitational_aether.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1) Papers in arxiv are not peer reviewed and thus may be rubbish

2) The abstract makes no mention of an aether. It seems to be about hidden variables.

What is your point?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks for the link. I put links to the abstract and the PDF in my thread out in the Fringe.

 

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.

 

What aether?

 

The aether that waves in a double slit experiment.

"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.

 

What waves is effectively the square root of the probability density. That's what a wavefunction represents, after all. There is no need to invoke some spooky, insubstantial medium consisting of nothing, so far as I can see.

What do you mean by the "spectroscopic structure" of empty space being the same as for matter? This sounds mad.

 

A "square root of the probability density" is mathematics. It doesn't physically exist in and of itself.

NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS
A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION
by
LOUIS DE BROGLIE

"In this paper Bohm went back to my theory of the pilot-wave, considering the [wavefunction] wave as a physical reality* He made a certain number of interesting remarks on the subject, and in particular, he indicated the broad outline of a theory of measurement that seemed to answer the objections Pauli had made to my approach in 1927.3 My first reaction on reading Bohm’s work was to reiterate, in a communication to the Comptes rendus de VAcademic des Sciences [4], the objections, insurmountable in my opinion, that seemed to render impossible any attribution of physical reality to the [wavefunction] wave, and consequently, to render impossible the adoption of the pilot-wave theory."

In de Broglie's Double Solution theory there is the physical wave which guides the particle and the non-physical, statistical wavefunction wave which is used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments.

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 mistake being made by mainstream physics is in thinking dark matter is anchored to matter. There is no such thing as dark matter anchored to matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

 

OK, you're on your own with that. I'll wait until a paper is published on this that has been peer reviewed. This reads like crank stuff to me.

But tell me,

a) what do you think all this explains, that is not already explained? and
b) what experiment can you suggest to test the validity of the idea?

 

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 the aether.

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.

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

 

I'm afraid I don't follow in (a) what you are explaining that is not already explained by modern QM. Repeating lengthy quotes from sixty years ago does not help much. Can you summarise in a few lines?

 

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.

 

No, you are still asserting something that appears to me unnecessary , rather than addressing my question. What I asked is what can your idea explain that is not explained by modern QM. To convince me your idea has merit I need to see what it does that we cannot already do.

 

Can you relate general relativity and quantum mechanics?

Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.

 

Ah so that's it. This is your quantum theory of gravity. Very good, thanks.

What would happen in your experiment if your theory is wrong?

 

If you couldn't discern the two interference patterns at D0 my theory would take a hit.

 

OK.

Later note: Is this related in any way to SVT or BEC theories?

 

I liked Bohn's particle goes by only one path but the guiding wave goes via all - even bought a couple of his books, but then began to see flaws in the idea (2nd descried in my next post). First is I have shown that each photon goes by two different paths (can even be meters from itself!) when doing so. First thing you need to know is that the interference pattern is still created with light source intensity so low that most of the time there is not even one photon existing. (long exposures of film where the interference pattern will form, was first way this was proven). This is also why you don't need a coherent light source like a LASER - each photon ONLY interferes with its self. But instead of Young's two slit interferometer I used a Mach-Zender interferometer (illustrated below) to measure the length of the photons. Below is part of how that was done - and shows that the photon, not just the guiding wave goes by both paths and when I made one progressively longer the "part" using the longer path arrived at the detector (or film) too late to interfere with its self.
Following is part of long posts at: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is...rent-in-different-medium.142855/#post-3242608

"Below is one of the slightly divergent beams (only one shown), leaving the lens and going to first 45 degree beam splitter "a" and going straight thru with part (of same photon) going up to hit 45 degree mirror, b, too, which makes it again traveling parallel to the entering beam.
Sorry that these beam splitters and mirrors are not shown actually at 45 degrees - but that is best a "typed drawing" can do.

.........................................................d
..........................b/======/======.....This is the path of "self- rejoined" photon to the screen thru another lense one focal length from it.
............................||..........................||
............................||..........................||
............................||..........................||
............................||..........................||
()===== / ======/c
Lens.....................a

Optically an "extended source" with lens one focal lengh from it followed by a second lense one focal length from the screen, just images the source (up side down) on the screen. Inserting these beam splitters and mirrors does not change that. It only make it possible for slightly differing path "split photons" to arrive at the screen where they would have but now they "want" to get back in phase with them selves, and do so as best a they can. Leaving dark lines where if they can not become "particles" there as they would not exist there since their waves are 180 degrees out of phase with themselves there. Note almost all the time photons can be thought of as waves, but it detected / absorbed they "die as particles" in one spot - not spread out over miles as they can be when waves.

Note that the length of paths: abd and acd, are the same. I.e. when the separate SINGLE photo get back together with itself, after being at times in its flight it 4 feet from itself, it arrives at the screen, unified, at the same time, but some of the many slightly divergent beams arriving there are "out of phase" with themselves and cancel (make dark interference lines) on the screen. The diverse in angle beams following paths abd & acd are exactly the same length ONLY for paths with pairs of equal angle degree corners. (parallelograms or rectangles.)

Now here is what you do to measure the length of a photon: You rotate beam splitter a very slightly counter clockwise, so that the path ab passes to the left of mirror at b, but pull mirror b back to still be hit by that now tilted beam. You of course must also rotate mirror b slightly clockwise, so the beam leaving it follows the old path to beam splitter d again. Now the corner turned at b is not 90 degrees. Perhaps this adds 5 cm of extra length to path abd.

What one sees on the screen is that there is a little light where there was none. I. e. the interference pattern on the screen is a little "washed out." This slight twisting of a & b is increased and then the pattern is more washed out. I kept repeating this until with ~30 cm extra path length for abd, the screen was with uniform illumination.

Crudely speaking this implies that none of the part of the photon going via path abd had yet arrived at the screen before the full length of the part of the same photon going by path acd had already disappeared into the screen. I.e. my spectral line source was making photons that were about 30cm long.'

 

Second "flaw" in Bohm's guiding wave ideas is that it violates very strongly the idea that all electrons are identical.

For example if two electrons are travelling on same path (or my 30cm long photons) and interference pattern is produced, then each is being guided by it own "associated wave" - I. e. two guiding waves, I'll call W1 & W2 traveling along with item A & B (I say "item" as what I say applies to both photons or particles with rest mass, as they too can interfere with the selves)

Lets say W1 is associated with / is guiding A and that W2 is guiding only B. But how is that possible if A & B are identical? Why does not W1 also guide B? and W2 guide A? Answer: A & B are not identical, but in some sense have "different names" - that is getting too far fetched as there need to be an awful lot of different "names" required - a different one for each electron in the universe! Some day any pair might be traveling the same path.

I'm afraid were "stuck" with the standard theory - but Copenhagen is nice place to be stuck in. - The beer is good, girls are pretty and then there Trivially garden for fun and the little mermaid to admire, it you're striking out with the ladies.