Reality as wave-particle

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Spellbound, Mar 30, 2014.

  1. cav755 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    439
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect#Vacuum_energy

    "a "field" in physics may be envisioned as if space were filled with interconnected vibrating balls and springs, and the strength of the field can be visualized as the displacement of a ball from its rest position"

    A "field" in physics is space filled with aether, and the strength of the field is the displacement of the aether from its relativistic rest position.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543


    The aether as you have presented it, does not exist.
    It has been disproven long ago.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. cav755 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    439
    "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

    Matter, a piece of window glass and stuff have mass.

    In a double slit experiment it is the stuff which waves.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543



    The aether as you present has been experimentaly shown not to exist.

    Most physicist think of the vacuum as space/time, which seems to have an inbuilt negative energy component we have dubbed DE, which opposes gravity causing the Universe/space/time to accelerate in its expansion rate, as the mass/energy density gets less dense, and consequently the gravitational effects.
     
  8. cav755 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    439
    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
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    That's nice...The scientific mainstream see the aether as you present to be false and that has been experimentally verified.
    Fred Hoyle was also wrong about Steady State.
    Lord Kelvin said words to the effect that we would never have aeroplanes.....
     
  10. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Spellbound,

    Are you a sock puppet of the banned user gravitational_aether? By all appearances you are a sockpuppet of the troll cav755.

    cav755 and river are both cranks who deserve to be banned for using the science threads for trolling anti-science bullshit. If your intent is to celebrate ignorance with them, take that conversation to Pseudoscience or Religion.

    While is may take the mods a while to purge the Science forums of this infantile preoccupation of trashing science and academia, welcome to my ignore button.

    See ya. Wouldn't wanna be ya.
     
  11. cav755 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    439
    Robert Laughlin is a mainstream, Nobel winning, physicist.

    "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
     
  12. cav755 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    439
    Have you figured out there is a difference between virtual particles and anti-particles?
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Fred Hoyle was generally mainstream also...and Lord Kelvin even more so......
    The aether as you present, is non existent....and I would hazard a guess and say that it is different from what Robert B. Laughlin, theorised.
    Note, theorised.
     
  14. cav755 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    439
    "Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. ... 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." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

    Matter, solids, fluids, a piece of window glass and stuff have mass.

    In a double slit experiment it is the stuff which waves.
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    There is no aether as you present. It was experimentally disproven long ago.
    You need to get up to scratch with terminology also, along with SR/GR theories.
     
  16. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    As I was reading the Copenhagen Interpretation entry on Wiki I noticed an inconsistency as described here:

    The Copenhagen interpretation is one of the earliest and most commonly taught interpretations of quantum mechanics.[1] It holds that quantum mechanics does not yield a description of an objective reality but deals only with probabilities of observing, or measuring, various aspects of energy quanta, entities that fit neither the classical idea of particles nor the classical idea of waves. The act of measurement causes the set of probabilities to immediately and randomly assume only one of the possible values. This feature of mathematics is known as wavefunction collapse. The essential concepts of the interpretation were devised by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and others in the years 1924–27.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation


    Obviously, as proven in my original post, reality can be seen as a wave-particle.

    More consistent with this claim, it goes on to describe the principles of the Copenhagen Interpretation as follows:

    Principles

    Because it consists of the views developed by a number of scientists and philosophers during the second quarter of the 20th Century, there is no definitive statement of the Copenhagen interpretation.[9] Thus, various ideas have been associated with it; Asher Peres remarked that very different, sometimes opposite, views are presented as "the Copenhagen interpretation" by different authors.[10] Nonetheless, there are several basic principles that are generally accepted as being part of the interpretation:

    A system is completely described by a wave function

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    , representing the state of the system, which evolves smoothly in time, except when a measurement is made, at which point it instantaneously collapses to an eigenstate of the observable that is measured.


    1.] The description of nature is essentially probabilistic, with the probability of a given outcome of a measurement given by the square of the modulus of the amplitude of the wave function. (The Born rule, after Max Born)

    2.] It is not possible to know the value of all the properties of the system at the same time; those properties that are not known exactly must be described by probabilities. (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle)

    3.] Matter exhibits a wave–particle duality. An experiment can show the particle-like properties of matter, or the wave-like properties; in some experiments both of these complementary viewpoints must be invoked to explain the results, according to the complementarity principle of Niels Bohr.

    4.] Measuring devices are essentially classical devices, and measure only classical properties such as position and momentum.

    5.] The quantum mechanical description of large systems will closely approximate the classical description. (This is the correspondence principle of Bohr and Heisenberg.)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

    The Copenhagen Interpretation obviously supports the wave-particle dual aspect reality. So why the inconsistency? Is it because it is hinting at unreality?
     
  17. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,370
    The Physics section of this site is now the exclusive preserve of cranks.

    By contrast, an EXCELLENT exchange involving rpenner in the Chemistry section. Even a sound chemical contribution from wellwisher. Maybe that's the place to go these days for a proper discussion

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
  18. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    Are you denying the dual aspect reality of the wave-particle?
     
  19. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Yes, good advice indeed. I just came from there surprised that some science had broken out somewhere. Good to see you around, just to remind us that the cranks are not representative of any of the good folks here!

    Oh, one more thing: the cranks have nothing to say about chemistry (ok wellwisher is a part time crank). Isn't that a hoot? They really have nothing to say about principal quantum numbers or spectra or ionization energies or shells but they'll be overturning all of that evidence right here, as if physics has nothing to do with chemistry!!

    Bwa-ha-ha-ha.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    Am I still on your ignore list Aqueous? Not that I care. But do you have anything of depth to contribute to my post on the dual aspect reality of the wave-particle above?
     
  21. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    My impression is Id is somewhat 'sick and tired' with sock puppets. Just my guess. I don't think you're the sock puppet of the aether troll. I think you're the sock puppet of the 'fantasy mathematics troll'.
     
  22. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    I don't care for personal labels or snide remarks. I would like to read arguments for or against my claims.
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Nothing is proven in science.
    If you were fair dinkum, you would know that.
    You also violate point [1] in the Alternative Theory thread, if you ever wanted to be taken seriously.
     

Share This Page