Double Slit Experiment Explained

The Michelson Morley experiment conclusions are an example of Occam's razor. If we don't observe an ether wind as you call it, then there could indeed be an ether that just so happens to move in the same way as the Earth. It shouldn't take you too much thought to realise how unlikely that is - It would have to move with the Earth rotationally, around the sun and in whatever overall direction in which the sun was going. That is tantamount to saying the Earth is some special object in the universe, which is against every scientific discovery that has been made since the birth of science.

Occam's razor states that the simplest explanation for a result is probably the correct one so we could either have a horrifically complicated comoving ether (which would probably be ruled out by observations of space, although I can't be bothered to think about this too much) or we conclude that the ether does not exist.

I would like to repeat my criticism of your air gun analogy as well. A burst of air from an air gun does not have a good particle interpretation. It is a pulse that expands in all directions in it's rest frame and eventually dissipates. Particles that we observe do not do that. From the point of view of the person firing the gun, the pulse will move at some overall velocity whilst at the same time expanding and dissipating.

You should read up on some details of the scientific method, because judging from this thread you are an extremely poor scientist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The simplest explanation is all objects displace space. The Sun and the Earth both displace space. The ether does not have to move at all, except for when it is being displaced by the objects that exist and are moving in it. Similar to a balloon that reaches a certain height in the atmosphere due to the air it displaces. If the balloon has momentum and did not meet any resistance it would continually displace the air as it "orbits" the Earth.

Space simply needs to be displaced by the objects that exist in it.

There is no requirement for a comoving ether. Objects move within the ether.

The air gun is an analogy. For some period of time and distance, the air from the air gun will behave as a particle. You can feel the burst of air hit your eye. If you lined up a bunch of bottles, you could direct the burst to knock over only one of the bottles.

If the air from the air gun was traveling near the speed of light, the burst would travel even further and you would be able to set-up the bottles much further off in the distance.

For a photon, or electron, or even the Earth, there is either no resistance, or space pushes the objects along as it back-fills behind where the photon/electron/atom/molecule/Earth just was.

If Occam's razor requires the simpler solution to be the accepted solution, than space as a medium should be the accepted solution for the DSE.

It is a much simpler solution than a molecule is able to go through both slits in the DSE simultaneously.

I believe that a particle can only exist at a single point in three-dimensional space (3ds) at any given time.

The photon/electron/atom/molecule is creating a displacement wave in space. It is this displacement wave which goes through both slits and creates the interference that alters the path the object is traveling.

All of the crazy thought associated with the DSE is due to scientists inability to see space as a medium.

Why do you insist that space not be a medium?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your logic is flawed. If there is an ether either moving or defining some universal rest frame, then the earth will certainly be moving with respect to to it. The MM experiment gives a negative ether result if the ether is not moving wrt earth, so you can state that MM does not disprove an ether that moves with the same trajectory as earth. By your logic the earth is in some cosmically preferred rest frame since it is at rest with respect to the ether, although there is no reason a priori for this to be the case.

The simpler explanation and the one that Occam's razor chooses is that the ether doesn't exist.

Also, air applies a resistive force to balloons.They can't just displace it without doing any work since that would violate conservation of energy.

I repeat. The airgun analogy is simply describing a wave packet. Wave packets are well understood in physics - all you need to know is a bit of Fourier analysis. In general the size of a wave packet is time dependant - it will disperse after some time. Particles do not do that so your theory is wrong.

To be honest I'm not really sure what you mean by this constant mantra that keeps appearing in your posts: space is a medium, space is a medium etc... I'll tell you yet again general relativity describes gravity as a force that is caused by the bending and stretching of space itself. You're making a ham fisted attempt to talk about the DSE by invoking concepts that work pretty well for gravity, not EM.

I gave a talk to some second year students today about quantum field theory and told them what I've been telling you - QED and experiment agree on the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron to one part in one billion. This is proof that quantum field theory is simply the way the world works, whether you find it difficult to understand or not. Until you can do better than QED you're wasting your time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The MM Experiment does not give a negative ether result. It gives a negative ether wind result. You are making a very basic scientific mistake by taking the result of an experiment and extrapolating it out to invalid conclusions.

The Earth is not in some cosmically preferred rest frame. The Earth is moving through the ether.

Occam's razor chooses that space is a medium due to the behaviors observed in the DSE.

Correct. The air applies a resistive force to the balloon. However, the air may be pushing the balloon along as it backfills behind where the balloon just was. However, the push is not as great as the resistance it faces in the direction it is traveling.

My assumption is that space does not represent a resistive force as objects more through it, or the resistance is offset by the push space has on the object as the space backfills behind where the object just was.

Yes, this is an assumption, but it is much less an assumption than a molecule can somehow go through both slits in the DSE simultaneously.

Not if it is not meeting any resistance.

The analogy of the boat going through a slit in the DSE and interacting with the interference created by its wake is due to the water being a medium.

Similar to the balloon staying a certain height above the Earth because of the air it is displacing. The air is the medium.

I do not think space is an empty void. If it is not a void, then space is displaced by the objects that move through it.

There can only be two explanations for space. Either it is a void, or it is something. If space is something (i.e. a medium), than it is "displaceable".

That's why it is such an important mantra to my theory.

Space is not a void.
Space is something.
Space is a medium.
Space is displaced by the objects that exist in it.

How can space be bent and stretched at the same time it is a void. If it is not a void, meaning it is something, meaning it is a medium, how can it not be displaced by the objects in it?

Since space is not a void, meaning it is a medium, all moving objects create a displacement wave in space.

How long did it take before scientists concluded the best way to describe observed behaviors is to describe the Earth as not being the center of the universe?

I realize I have my work cut out for me.

Since then particle interference has been demonstrated with neutrons, atoms and molecules as large as carbon-60 and carbon-70.

How exactly is a single molecule able to go through both slits and cause interference in the DSE?

 

A molecule isn't a "boat", more of a wave. Waves can do all kinds of tricks.

Space and time are sort of imaginary. Space is just distance, time is too. Is distance anything, apart from a difference between two locations?
Space 'contains' things, things are a medium (a gas is a medium, a liquid or a solid is too). They can all carry something or move a certain way, since they aren't empty space, but something.

 

It just seems too cute by a half that everything can be a particle when it needs to be a particle and a wave when it needs to be a wave and however you look at it is able to go through both slits simultaneously in the DSE without space being a medium.

It is all too convenient.

It sounds more like a story than reality.

Even if we agree that a molecule is a wave, it still requires space to be a medium in order for the molecule to go through both slits simultaneously.

Space is a medium. Space is moved by the things it 'contains'.

 

How does nothing 'move'?? It has to be something.

There aren't many ways to be something, you need to be mass, or charge, or spin, or an interaction between things like that. Mass moves, and charge which is a fundamental property of 'mass', moves with it (but maybe not as close as it looks from a long way away).

However, the 'emptiness' of space, allows for a background tension, because there are 'waves' traveling through it. Why does a liquid have a surface? Why does it, or any physical surface have a tension?

 

Space is something.

Space has mass.

Space itself is not empty.

If 'waves' travel through it, then it is a medium.

 

The surface of a liquid is a medium, but what are the waves on it? Space is a "medium", because it isn't empty.
This implies that space itself is, or can be empty. If you see that the other way around, you kind of have the cart in front of the donkey. Is the surface of water a medium, or are waves on the surface the medium?

 

It's not the surface of a liquid that is a medium, it is the liquid itself that is the medium. Instead of thinking of a wave on it, consider a burst traveling through it. For example, a submarine will be creating a burst of water out in front of the direction it is traveling. If the submarine were to stop quickly, the burst would continue on.

If you have a tank full of water with rubber sides and you punch one side of the rubber tank, the other side of the tank would poke out. You created a burst of water that traveled through the water.

Space cannot be empty. Space exists where ever non-space matter does not exist.

Not the surface or the wave, but the water itself is the medium that the wave, or possibly better described as a burst, propagates through.

 

You are actually going around in circles here.
A medium is not the surface of a medium, and it isn't the wave disturbances. You agree with this. Although it's ok to say the surface is a medium for surface waves, like it's ok to say mass is a medium for matter waves.

A submarine isn't a pressure wave either; the wave continues on as a pressure displacement, and no matter how deep the sub, there's a surface wave because the medium extends from the bottom of the sea to the surface of it.

Space can be empty, but it isn't. The sea can be undisturbed, but it isn't.

P.S. Wilczek has a theory that space cannot be truly empty, an empty vacuum is unstable. It's a kind of 'initial space' theory, because space is definitely not empty.
But the things in it aren't the space.
The things in space are particles with mass and charge, which disturb each other, because of the 'mass field' and the 'charge field' they have, which extends infinitely, unlike a pressure wave. Photons aren't a pressure as such, they need to interact with matter to become a pressure.

 

Space cannot be empty. When an astronaut is practicing for a space walk she practices in a large tank of water. Water is everywhere non-water isn't. You would never say the tank is empty or that there is a void in the tank.

When the astronaut is in space, space replaces the water as the medium the astronaut is in.

The main difference between water and space as mediums is the water is displaced according to the volume of the astronaut while space is displaced according to the mass of the astronaut.

The sea can be undisturbed if there is nothing moving in it but that isn't the case just like it is not the case with space. There are things moving in space so it is disturbed. Maybe the instant prior to the big bang space is undisturbed, but that would be about it.

My theory is something and nothing cannot co-exist. There is either something, and if there is something, then there is something everywhere, or there is nothing.

Since you and I exist and are something, then there is something everywhere. There is no such thing as a void in the universe. There is no such thing as 'empty' space. Space, like everything else, is something.

The 'mass field' is displaced space.

I see a photon as a burst of space traveling through space.

If space is a medium, which I believe it is, then there seems to me to be only two possibilities as to how non-space matter interacts with space.

Non-space matter is either displacing space, or it is tugging on space, as in frame drag.

Either the sun is displacing space and that is what causes gravity to exist or the sun is pulling space in due to its mass.

If an electron is simply denser space, then the electron is either displacing the space where it exists, or the electron is 'thinning' out the space around it due to its density. The electron pulls on and 'thins' out the space surrounding it in order to increase its density.

The Sun is a large scale version of this.

It could also be a combination of both the displacement of space and the pulling of space.

But the main concept that needs to be accepted is that space is not, and cannot, be empty. Space is something. Space is a medium.

If that is accepted, then the next conversation can begin.

 

The first sentence is hard for me to get the logic of.
You're saying a container can travel through itself, somehow?

It isn't an empty container, but that doesn't stop us imagining it can be empty.
Space is 'something' in the same sense the room in your fridge is 'something', for the things you put in a fridge.

 

Every time I read "double slit experiment", I think of lesbian scientists.

 

If you have a tank with rubber sides full of water and you punch one side of the tank, a burst of water will travel through the water and poke out the other side.

Same idea with the air gun. If I take the pellet out and fire the air gun, air will hit your eye. If it is not the same air molecules that first exit the gun that hits your eye, it can be described as a burst of air traveling through the air.

Is it easier to comprehend the idea if I just say it is a burst that travels through the water, or a burst that travels through the air?

If that is the case, than a photon is a burst that travels through space.

It's not empty. There is air in the fridge. The empty space in the fridge is not a void. There is 'something' there and that 'something' in this case is air.

You can put a gallon of milk in the fridge and the air that was where the gallon of milk now is has been displaced. The air no longer exists where the gallon of milk now exists. The air has been displaced by the gallon of milk. If you take the gallon of milk out of the fridge, the three dimensional space (3ds) where the gallon of milk was fills back in with air. The air was pushing back against the gallon of milk.

If I go back to the astronaut in the tank full of water, the astronaut will reach out and try and grab an object. Prior to grabbing that object, what do we call what exists between the astronaut's hand and the object the astronaut is about to grab?

We don't call it 'empty' water. We just call it water.

When the astronaut is in space, and is going to perform the same function and grab an object, what should we call what exists between the astronaut's hand and the object the astronaut is about to grab?

We shouldn't call it 'empty' space. We should just call it space.

 

OK, sure, you're generalising the idea of a displacement, of matter as an impulse, to the idea of displacement of 'space', by an impulse 'in space'.

Displacing air in a container like a fridge, with objects, is possible because there is air in there taking up the space, before you displace it. Can you generalise this to the case where massless displacements occur - photons of light have no mass, so what do they displace??

"Empty water" is what I'm generalising to the idea of a medium which is undisturbed - there are no displacements in a completely smooth body of water (if such a thing is possible). Particles of mass, and 'pure' waves which are massless, are the equivalent of waves of pressure and so on in a medium like water.
Matter causes a medium like water to be disturbed. Particles of mass and charge cause the deformation of the medium of space then?

That's only the case if space is a medium. If it's empty it can't be any medium - the medium in free space is not then empty space, but what's in empty space. The medium in a water pool or a tank is water, not the tank or the pool.
You have to be careful with generalisations, that you don't lose track of the abstraction level and abstract the original idea away as well.

 

Double Slit Experiment it is because of entropy!

Also photons expanding and emit energywaves!

Thats explain also old light redshifting!

 

Photons are bursts, or waves, traveling through space, so they do not 'displace' space as an object with mass does. From below it looks like you are describing the concept of 'pure' waves, but a photon is not a wave with width only, it is a 'pure' burst and that is how it can have behaviors similar to a particle. As a 'pure' burst traveling through the medium of space it is able to emit electrons in the photoelectric effect experiment because its energy is able to hit a specific point on the metallic surface.

Yes. Space is a medium just like water is a medium. I try and avoid the term aether. I prefer to discuss space as a medium and try and differentiate it from three dimensional space (3ds). There is the concept of 3ds and then there is the 'real' stuff which is space.

It might help if you think of space as a form of matter, then it is this matter that is everywhere you are conceptually thinking of as 'empty' space.

For example, we can consider the fridge with no food in it to be 'empty', or we can consider it to be full of air.

The universe is full of space.

The medium in a water pool or a tank is water. The medium in the universe is space.

 

Do energywaves require a medium in order to propagate?

If not, how do they propagate through a void?

 

This is what scientists in Newton's time thought about. They believed that since a medium is necessary to 'carry' anything, what is space made out of, so it carries light?

This mechanistic principle existed up until the end of the 19th century, until some observations showed up, that couldn't be explained by it.
The mechanical view, however, has to be abandoned in the light of overwhelming evidence that light propagates 'all by itself' - Einstein realised that no medium is necessary; that the empty vacuum is the medium.

It's hard to get the hang of because we always consider 'contents', and so 'containers'; a container made out of nothing is a bit of a stretch, but that's what empty space is. So our logic struggles with how 'nothing' can carry something.
But the math and its logic (Einstein's theories, and Maxwell's) absolutely imply this - light propagates as itself, it's a carrier and the thing that gets carried.

Space is empty except for all the waves in it, some of which have a mass - mass is another kind of wave though. Every particle with mass has a wavelength. Mass is the 'medium' for matter-waves, the electromagnetic fields of massive particles with charge, is the medium for light waves.