Jesus, is that what they are charging for annual "membership" - of this internet "journal" with no readership?!Michael:
How much did they charge you to publish your article? I hope you didn't opt for the 4000 euro yearly membership rate. What is their pre-article rate?
Do think you got value for money?
You mentioned model, is there any mathematics behind this?
The language of physics is mathematics"Mathematics?" - The model I present is an ether model. Standard quantum physics uses mathematics in describing the dynamics being observed, but one cannot connect the two using math. It isn't only math that prevents connecting the two models. Standard quantum theory bases itself on the concept there is no ether, so any attempt to debate is impossible from the start, because it immediately becomes a case of apples and oranges. Neither side wants to yield anything there.
OK, in "past posts" do you also have an experiment?The elemental ether units inside the pair of entangled quantum units vibrate independently, of course, but taken together, inside the two similar quantum units, they form a similar vibratory pattern, a "sub quantal profile," which is unique to the two units in question. (In past posts, I describe how larger and larger sub-quantum, or "etheroidal," units are formed, as smaller units combine to form larger and larger units inside a quantum unit, according to how their sets of vibrations match up and combine.)
Sir. This is absolute nonsense. Bears no resemblance to modern physics whatsoever or historical or modern observations and the data these have yielded.The elemental ether units inside the pair of entangled quantum units vibrate independently, of course, but taken together, inside the two similar quantum units, they form a similar vibratory pattern, a "sub quantal profile," which is unique to the two units in question. (In past posts, I describe how larger and larger sub-quantum, or "etheroidal," units are formed, as smaller units combine to form larger and larger units inside a quantum unit, according to how their sets of vibrations match up and combine.)
You're telling us that you're the first physicist in 400 years to present a viable non-mathematical physical theory? Indeed, a theory that cannot be expressed mathematically?"Mathematics?" - The model I present is an ether model. Standard quantum physics uses mathematics in describing the dynamics being observed, but one cannot connect the two using math.
Does it? Please explain. I don't recall seeing that particular assumption in my quantum physics texts.Standard quantum theory bases itself on the concept there is no ether...
Ether units? Is your ether supposed to be a substance that things are made of, then? And this substance vibrates in a way that is not describable using a mathematical concept like frequency?The elemental ether units inside the pair of entangled quantum units vibrate independently, of course...
Better avoid that word "pattern". That almost sounds like something that would be right up mathematics' alley...., but taken together, inside the two similar quantum units, they form a similar vibratory pattern, a "sub quantal profile," which is unique to the two units in question.
Indeed. If you look back at this thread, which started back in 2017, you can see that this is a long-standing, er, hobby of Michael's, which has little or nothing to do with physics. If he's who I think he is, his is 85 and a retired medical man. He is polite and harmless, i.e. does not infest other parts of the forum with junk, so we tend to tolerate him and leave him to it.I am bowing out. The "paper" is clearly garbage and the journal predatory. I hope he did not pay much.
OK, is there any math of your own that can put some values to this idea?... math as used in quantum physics can't be used for the ether portion of energy transmissions.
OK, is there any math of your own that can put some values to this idea?
If not, then this isn't a theory; it's just an idea. And an unfalsifiable one.
As Dave has pointed out, that means you don't have a theory and you don't have a hypothesis.It wouldn't be possible to apply math to the ether, at least at this stage of the theory.
In my model, vanishingly-rarified units of the ether (which first arose post-first-causally as Yin/Yang units) initiate all transmissions in physics. and their vibratory dynamic involves linkage of outward vibratory "nodes," occurring between one ether unit and another ether unit. This is a direct-contact, one unit-on-one identical type of unit, type of dynamic, and is always non-thermal and linear, or "cool."
Michael:
At a minimum, your ether theory will have to be able to accurately reproduce all experimentally tested and confirmed results of regular quantum mechanics.
Can you show us any example of how to get from the postulates of your ether theory to an experimentally verified result? For example, can your ether theory correctly reproduce the results of a two-slit interference experiment involving photons or electrons? If so, can you please show me how it does that, or link me to a derivation of the interference pattern and/or its characteristics, starting from the postulates of your ether theory?
Unless and until you can demonstrate that your theory has some utility in making accurate predictions (or accurately describing quantitative experimental outcomes), I don't care to know any of the proposed "mechanisms" of your theory. You can postulate all the "fundamental" entities you like, but if your theory never connects with real-world evidence it is worthless. Do you understand this?
And there you have it, folks.A creator could...
On the contrary, conventional quantum theory can predict quantitatively where bright and dark interference fringes will form on a distant screen, when photons (or electrons) are passed through a double-slit apparatus. Conventional quantum theory is able to show how the spacing and width of the interference fringes depends on the slit separation and the slit width, for example. Moreover, conventional quantum theory is able to derive the specific intensity profile of the interference pattern.You're citing widely separate phenomena, such as, now, how photons act in the double-slit experiment and asking how my ether model would explain them, although conventional quantum theory has no clear explanation of the unpredictable behavior of these photons, itself.
Michael:
On the contrary, conventional quantum theory can predict quantitatively where bright and dark interference fringes will form on a distant screen, when photons (or electrons) are passed through a double-slit apparatus. Conventional quantum theory is able to show how the spacing and width of the interference fringes depends on the slit separation and the slit width, for example. Moreover, conventional quantum theory is able to derive the specific intensity profile of the interference pattern.
Can your ether theory do any of those things?
Particles do not "mutate" an electron and photon are different thingsIf, as you and standard-theory quantists theorize, the double slit experiment has no question marks, and the photons behave consistently, then why, if you shine a flashlight in a dark room, the part of the room where the light beam is pointing also gets illuminated to some degree? If the whole story about light transmission by photons is correct, how did photons arrive to the rear of the flashlight?
I submit that photons have a slight mutation compared with their parent electrons, which makes them to some degree dynamically unlike electrons, and that there are always photons in any dark or lit area, even after sunset.