Bell's Theorem and Nonlocality

[Michael Anteski]

Maybe, but I have some thoughts about that post. You said:
Don't worry that you didn't and can't prove the model. That is not expected. What is expected, to the extent possible, is that it be falsibiable, meaning that it makes predictions that can be tested, and shown to stand up in repeatable experiments, or that can be falsified.All of which are what I call the "imponderables", meaning that they are not easily answered scientifically, but are fertile ground for speculation, hypothesis, and discussion out here in the fringe.

quantum_wave,

My Model of the Ether was gotten from a long term study of a secret code in a historical Document, which also gives directions for a field procedure to generate a selectively-etheric energy field. If successful, it would be possible to measure the density of materials within the test system to see if there was a decrease in their density, an effect not found with known forms of energy. But the test would be expensive, and I haven't been able to find a sponsor for it. -(Also, a new form of energy could have interesting new properties.)

 

[quantum_wave]

quantum_wave,

My Model of the Ether was gotten from a long term study of a secret code in a historical Document, which also gives directions for a field procedure to generate a selectively-etheric energy field. If successful, it would be possible to measure the density of materials within the test system to see if there was a decrease in their density, an effect not found with known forms of energy. But the test would be expensive, and I haven't been able to find a sponsor for it. -(Also, a new form of energy could have interesting new properties.)

That is all fine, but if the study of a secret code in a historical document reveals all of that, then spell it out. What document, what has the code revealed that makes it seem authentic to you even if you can't afford to do the experiment, how did the secret code get embedded in the document and by who, why all the secrecy, how does long term research into a document reveal a code ... and so on?

 

[Michael Anteski]

That is all fine, but if the study of a secret code in a historical document reveals all of that, then spell it out. What document, what has the code revealed that makes it seem authentic to you even if you can't afford to do the experiment, how did the secret code get embedded in the document and by who, why all the secrecy, how does long term research into a document reveal a code ... and so on?

I don't consider myself enough of an authority-figure to give the details of the Document and the sets of codes, which I more or less stumbled upon. My reluctance to do that is alluded to in the last sentence of my last post, "new form of energy...interesting new properties." Are earthly humans evolved enough for "everybody" to suddenly transition into a cosmic technology, if complex ethical-entitlement-issues are involved, which are unlike the (comparatively) mundane daily-earth-existence ethoses we are guided by?

I'm looking for someone to fund a private investigation, smaller in scale, at least at first.

 

[quantum_wave]

I don't consider myself enough of an authority-figure to give the details of the Document and the sets of codes, which I more or less stumbled upon. My reluctance to do that is alluded to in the last sentence of my last post, "new form of energy...interesting new properties." Are earthly humans evolved enough for "everybody" to suddenly transition into a cosmic technology, if complex ethical-entitlement-issues are involved, which are unlike the (comparatively) mundane daily-earth-existence ethoses we are guided by?

I understand your point, but if something like that comes along, my feeling is, ready or not here it comes.

I'm looking for someone to fund a private investigation, smaller in scale, at least at first.

Are you saying you have something better than what those people at the heart of the research have? If not, why would anyone fund you as opposed to them?

 

[CptBork]

The "advance detection" that you suggest is a superdeterminism, or a conspiracy of nature, is accomplished without any conspiracy. The out flowing gravitational wave energy from the detectors carries information about them and flows out of them into the surrounding space at the speed of light in the form of the out flowing wave energy component of the particles and objects that make up the apparatuses. That out flow becomes inflow to the photons, or electrons that are used in the experiments. And I have said that my model is speculative and hypothetical, and is not science, just layman ideas that are internally consistent and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data that are understood. By "understood", I am referring to the mechanics.

But I think your ideas are indeed very much inconsistent with scientific observations and data that are understood as well as needed for our purposes, especially given the most recent experiments. Firstly, if the basic postulates of quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics are indeed correct, then our understanding of what happens in the Bell experiments will be the same in 1000 years as it is today, other than hopefully including a better understanding of what happens in the precise moments when a measurement is made and a wave collapses. There's simply no indication of the mechanism you seek, no proof that it even exists, and without such proof you can't claim that the absence of such a mechanism implies that a theory is incomplete.

Secondly, the latest Bell experiments are set up in such a way that a gravitational wave emitted from one randomized detector at light speed, will not have time to reach the other detector before it too is randomly set, and localized communication even between the randomizers themselves is now ruled out. There's no local mechanism for the two detectors to influence each other after being set, and Bell's theorem establishes that you can't mechanically produce Bell inequality violations under such situations. You seem to be appealing to the locality loophole which has already been ruled out for decades; the only difference in the recent experiments is that the other loopholes are simultaneously closed off at the same time that local communication between the detectors is ruled out.

Since you and I both balk at the concept of superdeterminism and associate it with mystical notions of universal consciousness and intelligence, I'm assuming you agree that whatever device or sequence is used to randomize the detectors, it doesn't know or in any way take into account that it's going to be used one day in a Bell experiment.

 

[quantum_wave]

But I think your ideas are indeed very much inconsistent with scientific observations and data that are understood as well as needed for our purposes, especially given the most recent experiments. Firstly, if the basic postulates of quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics are indeed correct, then our understanding of what happens in the Bell experiments will be the same in 1000 years as it is today, other than hopefully including a better understanding of what happens in the precise moments when a measurement is made and a wave collapses. There's simply no indication of the mechanism you seek, no proof that it even exists, and without such proof you can't claim that the absence of such a mechanism implies that a theory is incomplete.

There is some indication that something is going on that we don't yet understand. There is no physical evidence as to what is going on which can be quantized and formalized in terms of the mechanics, but the absence of any evidence of such mechanics does not resolve the fact that we don't yet understand the observed results. It is incomplete until we can explain what is going on that we don't yet understand.

Secondly, the latest Bell experiments are set up in such a way that a gravitational wave emitted from one randomized detector at light speed, will not have time to reach the other detector before it too is randomly set, and localized communication even between the randomizers themselves is now ruled out. There's no local mechanism for the two detectors to influence each other after being set, and Bell's theorem establishes that you can't mechanically produce Bell inequality violations under such situations. You seem to be appealing to the locality loophole which has already been ruled out for decades; the only difference in the recent experiments is that the other loopholes are simultaneously closed off at the same time that local communication between the detectors is ruled out.

My position back when you brought up the loophole free experiments was that it did no resolve the fact that we don't understand the physics. At that time you were going to go through the experiments and apparatuses and I was going to ask about the particles being measured, how we determined various states, what exactly causes spin, how the orientation of the measured particles affects the spin that will be measured, etc. We didn't get that far in the discussion, but my position is that we don't have a complete understanding of particles, particle states, entanglement, superposition, etc. to make it definitive that loophole free experiments have resolved the unanswered questions about the nature of particles and the energy density environments that are part of the experiments.

Since you and I both balk at the concept of superdeterminism and associate it with mystical notions of universal consciousness and intelligence, I'm assuming you agree that whatever device or sequence is used to randomize the detectors in the experiment, it doesn't know or in any way take into account that it's going to be used one day in a Bell experiment.

I'm not saying there is a loophole in randomizing the detectors. You are missing my point or ignoring it. I'm saying we don't understand the physics, and so any results are not being explained physically. I assume you are OK with that?

Let's take the experiments apart piece by piece, starting with:
You generate a pair of particles in your basement, where ever that is, that you are quite certain are entangled, meaning in this example that they share the same spin state. That spin may be up or down, and we don't know which until we measure.

We send one off to Kalamazoo, and the other to Tallahassee. Someone in Tallahassee measures the spin of their particle and it is spin up. They then instantly determine that the particle in Kalamazoo is spin up as well.

Is that the kind of experimental result that makes experimenters think there is no local reality, assuming we agree that the information could not travel faster than the speed of light? If so, that result assumes that the spin of the Tallahassee particle was not determined until it was measured. How do we eliminate the possibility that the Tallahassee particle was emitted as spin up, and so it was detected in Tallahassee, not determined in Tallahassee, but instead, determined back in your basement?

 

[CptBork]

Is that the kind of experimental result that makes experimenters think there is no local reality, assuming we agree that the information could not travel faster than the speed of light? If so, that result assumes that the spin of the Tallahassee particle was not determined until it was measured. How do we eliminate the possibility that the Tallahassee particle was emitted as spin up, and so it was detected in Tallahassee, not determined in Tallahassee, but instead, determined back in your basement?

No, this is not the kind of experiment that's performed in a Bell test, nor even conceptually similar. A result like the one you're describing can easily be explained with classical mechanics by assuming that some hidden variables containing the spin information were assigned when the particle pair was generated (or shortly thereafter). Bell test experiments involve correlating measurements performed on different axes, with these axes chosen at random (we ignore the trials where both detectors coincidentally measure the same axis), as described in the proof I gave for Bell's theorem.

 

[Schmelzer]

We send one off to Kalamazoo, and the other to Tallahassee. Someone in Tallahassee measures the spin of their particle and it is spin up. They then instantly determine that the particle in Kalamazoo is spin up as well.

Is that the kind of experimental result that makes experimenters think there is no local reality, assuming we agree that the information could not travel faster than the speed of light? If so, that result assumes that the spin of the Tallahassee particle was not determined until it was measured. How do we eliminate the possibility that the Tallahassee particle was emitted as spin up, and so it was detected in Tallahassee, not determined in Tallahassee, but instead, determined back in your basement?

It is the point of Bell's inequality that it excludes the possibility that spin of the Tallahassee particle was determined until it was measured. In this case, it is easy to prove Bell's inequality. But Bell's inequality is violated. May be http://ilja-schmelzer.de/realism/game.php helps to understand the point?

 

[quantum_wave]

No, this is not the kind of experiment that's performed in a Bell test, nor even conceptually similar. A result like the one you're describing can easily be explained with classical mechanics by assuming that some hidden variables containing the spin information were assigned when the particle pair was generated (or shortly thereafter). Bell test experiments involve correlating measurements performed on different axes, with these axes chosen at random (we ignore the trials where both detectors coincidentally measure the same axis), as described in the proof I gave for Bell's theorem.

It is the point of Bell's inequality that it excludes the possibility that spin of the Tallahassee particle was determined until it was measured. In this case, it is easy to prove Bell's inequality. But Bell's inequality is violated. May be http://ilja-schmelzer.de/realism/game.php helps to understand the point?

I started with the gloves analogy because I am under the impression that the Bell experiments confirm Bell's theorem, which use the postulates of QM to mathematically prove Bell's theorem, and yet, in the case of spin, we don't even know what causes it. It can be measured on any given axis, but we don't know if the particle will have an up or down spin result at all on a given axis, and if it does, we don't know if it will be up or down relative to a particular magnetic field orientation of the measuring device, or what in fact makes a particle have spin at all.

The Copenhagen Interpretation consensus is that for any hidden variables theory that can be properly tested against the postulates of QM, then Einstein's local reality is defeated. My view is that the catch may lie in the fact that the postulates don't go far enough into the nature of particles. If there are as yet unknown characteristics to particles related to their wave-particle nature, then the hidden variables theory based on that deeper nature of particles has to be tested against a different and new set postulates. Different QM postulates might yield different results than predicted by Bell's theorem using the current postulates.

Sorry if that is too big a leap from our current understanding of particles for you to contemplate, but the wave-particle nature constructed as I hypothesize it, does seem to answer some long standing questions about what we are observing in various experiments.

You might just say no to all of that, not wanting to address my layman level model, and that is fine, even quite understandable. If so, I'll just leave it saying my position is that the wave nature of particles includes an as yet undetected internal composition composed of two components, inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy traversing the medium of space. That composition makes particles into complex standing wave patterns, as discussed in my thread. That would add new information that might be expected to change the current postulates of QM accordingly.

 

[CptBork]

I started with the gloves analogy because I am under the impression that the Bell experiments confirm Bell's theorem, which use the postulates of QM to mathematically prove Bell's theorem, and yet, in the case of spin, we don't even know what causes it.

You claim that you've followed along and agreed with the proof I gave for Bell's theorem, but your recurring statements leave me with serious doubts. Bell's theorem doesn't need any experiments in order to be proven. It's a purely mathematical result which shows that NO local hidden variables theory can duplicate all of the predictions of quantum mechanics; in particular, the theorem proves that no local hidden variables theory can predict a violation of Bell's inequality in an experiment of the type known as a "Bell test experiment". The fact that Bell test experiments actually DO result in Bell inequality violations is a separate issue from the theorem itself, and I hope you actually do in fact understand the distinction.

It can be measured on any given axis, but we don't know if the particle will have an up or down spin result at all on a given axis, and if it does, we don't know if it will be up or down relative to a particular magnetic field orientation of the measuring device, or what in fact makes a particle have spin at all.

This claim of yours doesn't make sense at all. Any measurements made on an electron's spin, on any axis, will ALWAYS yield either a "spin up" or "spin down", corresponding to angular momenta of $$\pm \frac{\hbar}{2}$$ about that axis. It's both a fundamental prediction of quantum mechanics, and an experimental fact which was first confirmed nearly a century ago. The electron's spin angular momentum can be measured in many different ways, but the most straightforward ways tend to involve observing its direction of deflection when passing through externally generated magnetic fields (look up the Stern Gerlach experiment if you want more details on these sorts of measurements).

The Copenhagen Interpretation consensus is that for any hidden variables theory that can be properly tested against the postulates of QM, then Einstein's local reality is defeated.

How many times have I already reiterated that Bell's theorem doesn't involve any postulates from quantum mechanics? Even if we knew nothing whatsoever about quantum mechanics, we could still deduce that local hidden variable theories can never violate Bell's inequality, by the exact same procedure that I already gave. As to the Copenhagen view, it hold that ALL local hidden variable theories are incorrect, period, and that was the view long before Bell's theorem was even discovered.

From your responses thus far, it doesn't seem to me like you understand what Bell's theorem actually describes. Could you please give me a brief description of the theorem and its mathematical consequences, in your own words, so I can be sure we're on the same page?

 

[quantum_wave]

You claim that you've followed along and agreed with the proof I gave for Bell's theorem, but your recurring statements leave me with serious doubts. Bell's theorem doesn't need any experiments in order to be proven. It's a purely mathematical result which shows that NO local hidden variables theory can duplicate all of the predictions of quantum mechanics; in particular, the theorem proves that no local hidden variables theory can predict a violation of Bell's inequality in an experiment of the type known as a "Bell test experiment". The fact that Bell test experiments actually DO result in Bell inequality violations is a separate issue from the theorem itself, and I hope you actually do in fact understand the distinction.

It does confuse me that you dismiss my argument that the Hidden Variables Interpretation is not falsified by Bell's theorem, proven mathematically.

This claim of yours doesn't make sense at all. Any measurements made on an electron's spin, on any axis, will ALWAYS yield either a "spin up" or "spin down", corresponding to angular momenta of $$\pm \frac{\hbar}{2}$$ about that axis. It's both a fundamental prediction of quantum mechanics, and an experimental fact which was first confirmed nearly a century ago. The electron's spin angular momentum can be measured in many different ways, but the most straightforward ways tend to involve observing its direction of deflection when passing through externally generated magnetic fields (look up the Stern Gerlach experiment if you want more details on these sorts of measurements).

I'll have to go back and look for the source of my confusion on that. Do you have a link that states that every measurement of electron spin using the Stern-Gerlach experiment results in an up or down measurement? Somehow I thought that the orientation of the spin relative to the magnetic field meant that some particles showed no up or down spin.

How many times have I already reiterated that Bell's theorem doesn't involve any postulates from quantum mechanics? Even if we knew nothing whatsoever about quantum mechanics, we could still deduce that local hidden variable theories can never violate Bell's inequality, by the exact same procedure that I already gave. As to the Copenhagen view, it hold that ALL local hidden variable theories are incorrect, period, and that was the view long before Bell's theorem was even discovered.

I thought you thought that proof of Bell's theorem violated my claim that my model was internally consistent, and not inconsistent with well understood scientific observations and data. My opinion of the thread is that we were at odds about if QM was complete or incomplete, and I characterized that as the difference between the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and the Hidden Variables interpretation. The hidden variables interpretation isn't falsified by Bell's theorem on the basis that HVI maintains that the postulates are incomplete (because of an incomplete understanding of the nature of particles and particle interactions, for example).

From your responses thus far, it doesn't seem to me like you understand what Bell's theorem actually describes. Could you please give me a brief description of the theorem and its mathematical consequences, in your own words, so I can be sure we're on the same page?

In my own words, Bell's theorem says that no hidden variables theory, when tested against the postulates of QM, can accommodate local reality unless we give up the speed of light limit on "communication" between particles. My wording certainly is an example of my poor layman level understanding I'm sure, and so I'm open to correction.

 

[CptBork]

It does confuse me that you dismiss my argument that the Hidden Variables Interpretation is not falsified by Bell's theorem, proven mathematically.

I never said that Bell's theorem or its mathematical proof falsify anything. What falsifies your interpretation is the fact that Bell's theorem requires any such interpretation to predict a certain experimental result which contradicts with what's actually measured in the lab. The lab data is what falsifies you, the theorem only constrains what your theory can possibly predict for that data. What happens in a Bell test experiment is akin to two people at opposite sides of the galaxy simultaneously flipping fair, balances coins and getting matching pairs significantly more than 50% of the time, it's a result you can't explain using any form of local hidden variables.

I'll have to go back and look for the source of my confusion on that. Do you have a link that states that every measurement of electron spin using the Stern-Gerlach experiment results in an up or down measurement? Somehow I thought that the orientation of the spin relative to the magnetic field meant that some particles showed no up or down spin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern–Gerlach_experiment

And also, I must point out that the electron's angular momentum measured on any axis is always $$\pm\frac{\hbar}{2}$$, no matter what method of measurement is used or what was previously measured beforehand.

I thought you thought that proof of Bell's theorem violated my claim that my model was internally consistent, and not inconsistent with well understood scientific observations and data. My opinion of the thread is that we were at odds about if QM was complete or incomplete, and I characterized that as the difference between the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and the Hidden Variables interpretation. The hidden variables interpretation isn't falsified by Bell's theorem on the basis that HVI maintains that the postulates are incomplete (because of an incomplete understanding of the nature of particles and particle interactions, for example).

And as such, I think you've entirely missed the point I've been making all along. As I've previously insinuated, you may need to go over my proof and statement of Bell's theorem again, because all it does is put constraints on what your theory/model would predict for Bell test experiments, if you were to complete your theory to the point of testability.

In my own words, Bell's theorem says that no hidden variables theory, when tested against the postulates of QM, can accommodate local reality unless we give up the speed of light limit on "communication" between particles. My wording certainly is an example of my poor layman level understanding I'm sure, and so I'm open to correction.

I'm definitely going to have to correct you on this one. Firstly, the most general concept of "locality" means that objects can't influence each other instantaneously over arbitrarily large distances. It means that whatever forces influence an object at a given time had to have been produced by sources somewhere in the local neighbourhood a short time earlier. In modern lingo with the advent of Relativity, locality is entirely equivalent to the speed of light as an absolute limit.

What Bell's theorem states, with proof, in simplified form, is that any local hidden variables theory, including any you might yourself one day construct, predicts at least a 33% anti-coincidence rate in electron spin measurements (or a 33%+ coincidence rate in photon polarization measurements) whenever a Bell test experiment is performed.

 

[quantum_wave]

I never said that Bell's theorem or its mathematical proof falsify anything. What falsifies your interpretation is the fact that Bell's theorem requires any such interpretation to predict a certain experimental result which contradicts with what's actually measured in the lab. The lab data is what falsifies you, the theorem only constrains what your theory can possibly predict for that data. What happens in a Bell test experiment is akin to two people at opposite sides of the galaxy simultaneously flipping fair, balances coins and getting matching pairs significantly more than 50% of the time, it's a result you can't explain using any form of local hidden variables.

I guess not. It is also a result that is better explained mathematically, than to try to take my approach of looking for how QM is incomplete.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern–Gerlach_experiment

And also, I must point out that the electron's angular momentum measured on any axis is always $$\pm\frac{\hbar}{2}$$, no matter what method of measurement is used or what was previously measured beforehand.

That Wiki does address the SG experiment, but the link I remember lead me to believe that some electrons were deflected horizontally, i.e. no spin detected. Those horizontal deflections can be and are masked off so that only the ups and downs are measured. This link refers to them:
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SternGerlach/SternGerlach.html

And as such, I think you've entirely missed the point I've been making all along. As I've previously insinuated, you may need to go over my proof and statement of Bell's theorem again, because all it does is put constraints on what your theory/model would predict for Bell test experiments, if you were to complete your theory to the point of testability.

Granted. I have to rethink what HVI territory remains, if any. Maybe all of the hidden variables interpretation advocates have been convinced; I'll look around and see if there is any territory left for HVI in current professional circles :shrug:.

I'm definitely going to have to correct you on this one. Firstly, the most general concept of "locality" means that objects can't influence each other instantaneously over arbitrarily large distances. It means that whatever forces influence an object at a given time had to have been produced by sources somewhere in the local neighbourhood a short time earlier. In modern lingo with the advent of Relativity, locality is entirely equivalent to the speed of light as an absolute limit.

What Bell's theorem states, with proof, in simplified form, is that any local hidden variables theory, including any you might yourself one day construct, predicts at least a 33% anti-coincidence rate in electron spin measurements (or a 33%+ coincidence rate in photon polarization measurements) whenever a Bell test experiment is performed.

A lot of this unpleasant outcome for me stems from my use of outdated texts and old links as I familiarized myself with QM. Often those old materials are about good sound physics, where the new major discoveries gradually become the consensus. A layman can generally hope to understood how A leads to B. That doesn't seem to be the case in QM, because the fact that it is not understood mechanically sent me down the path thinking that then it must be incomplete. That brings home the point that self learning has it loopholes, or maybe it would be better to say its gaps, i.e. we often learn better via the process of discussions like this; but an unfortunate note about forum life is that open discussions are not always as productive as they could be for a myriad of reasons.

Thanks for seeing it through from your perspective, and wish me luck in getting my model back together, given all that I have to consider going forward.

For me it is back to the drawing board, where I will have to evaluate my model and its internally consistency, in the light of the loss of local reality. I also have to work a little harder at understanding just exactly what that means when stacked up against the "spookiness" of QM. I might say that I am consoled a little by the fact that no one can explain the spookiness.

 

[Michael Anteski]

If my intrusion (as an ether-theorist, concerning quantum entanglement) can be excused, I would ask whether reports on the newest kind of Bell test do not reconfirm "quantum spookiness," by measuring comparative spins of two electrons inside diamond chips. After a laser beam had induced the diamond chips to emit a photon into the electrons' tiny cavity inside the chip, this entangled each electron with the photons. -The two photons were sent to a third lab located between the two "starting point" labs, and fed through a beam splitter. -Whenever two photons were captured simultaneously, there was "transfer of entanglement": the two electrons inside the chips were now entangled with each other. -The interpretation was that the matches occurred more often than Bell's limit.


In an article on the new test in the Science News issue of Sept. 13, this was referred to as "the Ultimate Bell test."

 

[Schmelzer]

It is quite nice to have such an "Ultimate Bell test", and to become really ultimate, one would also like to see independent ultimate confirmations.

But, on the other hand, there was not much doubt about the result of this test. I would guess, if there would have been bets about the results in the professional physicists community, they would have been something between 10:1 and 100:1. (I mean the bet about the final result of an Ultimate test, not if a particular test will give a clear result or not, or if it appears ultimate or later yet another loophole will be found, these are different questions.)

 

[Michael Anteski]

In 1935, Einstein took note of early evidences of quantum entanglement, and famously referred to it as "spooky," and because of it, he questioned the very foundations of quantum mechanics, an opinion he never really changed.

In a recent post I mentioned my codebreaking work. I'll reiterate what my informational source states:

So called quantum entanglement just represents radiated packets of etheric energy which have the same vibratory pattern. Elemental etheric units are the only actual participants in this phenomenon, with the quantum units being kinetically walled off, like "cool" arms of a quiet purring mechanism.

 

[CptBork]

Michael, if you want your work to be taken seriously, the first step is to show that your ideas can be applied to something in the real world, even if it's just a simple idealized approximation of a mechanical spring. Got anything?

 

[Aqueous Id]

So called quantum entanglement just represents radiated packets of etheric energy which have the same vibratory pattern.

I was kind of listening to you until you said that. The prior remarks seemed factual. But now you are making stuff up.

There is no aether. Michelson-Moreley disproved the aether wind, which made aether moot. Maxwell's equations state the essential laws of electromagnetics correctly, and there is no "aether" in them. Same-same for Einstein's 1905 revelation about special relativity. Nor the later development of general relativity. Nor the earliest of experiments indicating that the prevailing assumption that there must be some kind of aether were all invalidated by simple tests (primarily just to confirm the speed of light).

To cling to this is nothing less than superstition.

Elemental etheric units are the only actual participants in this phenomenon, with the quantum units being kinetically walled off, like "cool" arms of a quiet purring mechanism.

No, the better thing to say is that the aether is free space itself, with or without the (yet to be explained) effects of Fermion pair annihilation/creation.

Get over that, and you are on the way to talking about actual science. The rest is fiction.

 

[Michael Anteski]

I was kind of listening to you until you said that. The prior remarks seemed factual. But now you are making stuff up.

There is no aether. Michelson-Moreley disproved the aether wind, which made aether moot. Maxwell's equations state the essential laws of electromagnetics correctly, and there is no "aether" in them. Same-same for Einstein's 1905 revelation about special relativity. Nor the later development of general relativity. Nor the earliest of experiments indicating that the prevailing assumption that there must be some kind of aether were all invalidated by simple tests (primarily just to confirm the speed of light).

To cling to this is nothing less than superstition.


No, the better thing to say is that the aether is free space itself, with or without the (yet to be explained) effects of Fermion pair annihilation/creation.

Get over that, and you are on the way to talking about actual science. The rest is fiction.

The Michelson-Morley Experiment did not disprove an ether. The 1887 MMX was based on an assumption that any kind of ether would have to behave inertially, with respect to earth's movements through it. The MMX used optical measurements to detect inertial effects (a "wind drag" effect) "produced by earth's interaction with the ether." -However, the type of ether I propose would act non-inertially as earth moves through it. That is because the type of ether in my Model principally comprises elemental ether units, and earth itself as well as the space in its vicinity also are comprised of elemental ether units. (Everything is ultimately made of elemental ether units.) -Thus there would be a constant, interactive, vibrational-resonance going on between earth and the space nearby. That means that the ether would tend to non-inertially "follow" earth as earth moves in space.

The type of ether I propose would not be disproved by the null result of the MMX. The false interpretation of the (cosmically irrelevant) MMX was what led physicists like Einstein to come up with models for how the world could work without a medium to transmit forces. Physics has continued on that mistaken track to this day.

 

[Michael Anteski]

Michael, if you want your work to be taken seriously, the first step is to show that your ideas can be applied to something in the real world, even if it's just a simple idealized approximation of a mechanical spring. Got anything?

CptBork,

I have a possible field test, designed to produce a selectively-etheric energy field. It is based on the same kind of information that led to the ether model I derived. The test would be expensive, and so far I haven't been able to find a financial sponsor for it. (If successful, the test as designed could detect a unique effect of an etheric field, i.e., a decrease in the densities of materials inside the test system, an effect not found with known forms of energy.) -A new form of energy could also have interesting new properties.