This seems like a mechanism of generating multiple universes right then and there, but I don't know if it is taken seriously anymore.
Does anyone take seriously the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics anymore? According to this interpretation, each time a measurement is made, a universe is generated for each possible outcome state, with the observer in each universe only observing that outcome, and obviously unaware of the other universes.
This seems like a mechanism of generating multiple universes right then and there, but I don't know if it is taken seriously anymore.
This seems like a mechanism of generating multiple universes right then and there, but I don't know if it is taken seriously anymore.
QUOTE (simulus+Feb 3 2006, 12:56 PM)
each time a measurement is made, a universe is generated for each possible outcome state
By the Aether Wave theory the so called quantum effects are the result of interference energy wave with its density field, i.e. each wave of energy/mass behaves like tiny gravity lense, auto-focusing itself as the result of inhomogeneous nature of vacuum. The vacuum is full of inhomogeneities, they're mutually interfere, dispersing the energy/state of the particle to the larger area. See the Java applet for better illustration of such behaviour. It's similar to observation of object through atmosphere inhomogeneities or surface wave reflections, with the exception, such deformations are coupled with the particle mass and energy, too.
The Many Worlds hypothesis has supposedly real interpretation in (mem)brane concept of the M-theory, but I've never understood it's principle, because I believe, the energy density field should connect each world together inside our Universe. The density wave (i.e. the so called deBroglie wave) can be supposed as inertial reference point for each particle (i.e. Ernst Mach's inertial field), but I believe, such concept is useless with respect of real observation, because we aren't able to detect such waves directly just using light .
By the Aether Wave theory the so called quantum effects are the result of interference energy wave with its density field, i.e. each wave of energy/mass behaves like tiny gravity lense, auto-focusing itself as the result of inhomogeneous nature of vacuum. The vacuum is full of inhomogeneities, they're mutually interfere, dispersing the energy/state of the particle to the larger area. See the Java applet for better illustration of such behaviour. It's similar to observation of object through atmosphere inhomogeneities or surface wave reflections, with the exception, such deformations are coupled with the particle mass and energy, too.
The Many Worlds hypothesis has supposedly real interpretation in (mem)brane concept of the M-theory, but I've never understood it's principle, because I believe, the energy density field should connect each world together inside our Universe. The density wave (i.e. the so called deBroglie wave) can be supposed as inertial reference point for each particle (i.e. Ernst Mach's inertial field), but I believe, such concept is useless with respect of real observation, because we aren't able to detect such waves directly just using light .
Hi simulus,
QUOTE (simulus Posted on Feb 3 2006+ 09:56 AM)
Does anyone take seriously the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics anymore?
It is a very serious possibility. The real problem with this concept this idea is not that it can occur (since quantum computers rely critically on it) but how to integrate the concept into our real world. It will one day be better understood but we are speaking about the superposition of states which represent alternative events that may happen in our World. In the end a single state will be the result. The other states may or may not represent events as we see them but they may have a reality despite our inability to record them. You must ask the question can you believe any event that you cannot confirm or record? Do you actually believe in the possibility of alternative realities?
Events in our Universe represent a continuum of "something" that is interconnected. Please do not think of the world as being made of little separate billiard balls... this is actually quite wrong. Everything are "electromagnetic waves". We choose different outcomes for our lives by a simple binary tree process. At each fork in the road a choice is made (an event), the outcome is then simple but practically "irreversible". It is not actually a conscious choice but this "infinitesimal" process of a single event has an outcome. Does the Universe make copies of us all the way out to "infinity" to support all the possible choices we are capable of or is there some other way in which to interpret this phenomenon? I like to think of it in a different way. We usually treat particles as "points" and the way the particle "evolves" in time is its world-line... a series of points tracing the particles path through time. As T increases, the places each atom and even each sub-atomic particle has occupied sweeps out a path throughout "history". Now each person is a "collection" of such particles... an ensemble. Around this person are other ensembles of other peoples and particles. It is impossible for our mathematics to track this complex function and it is customary to reduce this process to a much simpler system that we can actually "handle" of a single point or maybe a collection of a small number of points if we are feeling "up to it" computationally.
One day our science will make it possible to do a much better job of this abstraction we call the Universe but for now we have reduced it to almost a collection of the most simplest of functions possible. Something like the reductions a child would make when they draw their parents on paper ... simple stick people with only the most superficial features visible... a line for the mouth, another line for an arm etc... this is the nature of our present Physics. Now consider this world line for just one single sub-atomic particle and consider where it really was... it is not possible to actually trace its path since there are no records and its position was a lot less "distinct" than you are willing to admit. It is a collection of dynamically variable quasi-stationary electromagnetic waves filling the space that it is existing in... the wave functions... a collection of "Fourier Components" locally collected in the general vicinity of the original particle. They are effectively "space filling".
Every particle has such an ensemble of waves and each of these are also "space filling"... in one way they are able to "superimpose" and "spread" everywhere in the vicinity of a certain "individual" particle, perhaps up to many kilometers from where you are seeing the "center of this action". Now try to visualize this "volume" of events limited by the speed of light and by the strength of the interactions rapidly dying with distance (as little perfect waves) till maybe a few kilometers away the single event no longer is appearing to have any further influence. So what is happening here may be just one single event. Where is it?... when is it?... Most importantly ... what is it?... it is very fuzzy. The event in reality is actually confined to a volume of several cubic kilometers and it is happening to a single sub-atomic particle.
An "action" by a person will be the sum total of an uncountable number of these tiny sub-nuclear events... a vast bundle of intertwining world-lines reaching everywhere this event could potentially touch as interacting "wavelets" for all those kilometers. You will say this is not the case since we only witness "one" event and one outcome and it is confined to a very small space and to a very short window in time. This is true from a single point of truth as an "observer" interacting and "disturbing" this collection of wavelets since the observers wavelets are also interacting with the "scene" as well. In this respect the observer is part of the scene and the evolving events. The interaction is far beyond our present science to compute and to evaluate but this is no impediment to the most powerful natural supercomputer that exists... it is so parallel, to almost an infinite degree, and is able to calculate this out with "natural" algorithms because the algorithm is built basically into the very base nature of the "space" this is happening in.... a kind of "resonant chamber" that is ideally conditioned to resolve these wavelets into "phenomena". At each tiny point in our many dimensioned space, its nature is a system of "components" based on energy alone and working with geometry and the natural elasticity of the "medium"... "computes" a function that localizes the tiny sub-atomic particle wavelets dynamically as if being focused by a lens. In fact a lens is the most powerful mental tool to conceptualize this "engine". To me this is the most important principle of our Universe since it "supports" everything that is happening.
The wave is "everywhere" but the particle is found to be just where you expect it to be. The particle's expectation value is "highest" where the particle's field is now becoming "evanescent". A tiny moment later this same particle is found somewhere close bye, maybe rotated through a small angle and now interacting with some other sub-atomic particle with a gluon or something. This shift in energy density affects the entire "scenario" out to a number of kilometers. It is just an interplay of waves and nodes and caustics. This "mechanism" is the only mechanism that provides us all the Laws and Physics we are able to understand... there is "nothing" else, but what more do we need? It is still way beyond the human mind to be able to produce a model that will operationally simulate this "Universe".
It is most probable (according to Feynman-Wheeler Theory of Advanced and Retarded Potentials) that half of these waves are focused from the past and the rest are from the future so that the entire ensemble make up a whole. Just as you need the whole of a hologram to produce the sharp pictures they can make. Even though a small bit of a hologram has all the "picture"... the detail is missing... so too is this "snapshot" of the local World also holographic... and to create the sharp definition we call reality... we need all the detail out to several kilometers to "resolve" everything that is occurring inside that tiny volume where this single "tiny" event is proceeding. The spatial volume itself that it is embedded in is the "machine" that captures that "dynamic" element and instantly processes it. Space may be empty... but it is not without a very important use... it is an "optical processor" for the waves. Just do not think this is only an "optical" processor since the "optics" is all there really is and it is responsible for all the electromagnetic forces including gravity and the "illusion of hardness" which is only electromagnetic force as well.
So just what are these "Many World" possibilities? What is seen by an observer and what events are occurring are not etched in stone and the phase of all these interacting phenomena... uncountable to our present technology, and for "some time to come"... actually are occurring "right now" simultaneously in that space as interacting waves. We "resolve" one aspect of them as if this was a polarizing filter at a certain angle. We make an "observation". That polarizing filter may have been rotated through a tiny angle... an angle so small that you could not resolve it on a dial... this is more than enough to change the entire phenomena way out to those kilometers distant. A different event will have occurred. The sub-atomic particle will move "imperceptibly" into a different direction and the knock on effect is a different sequence of "causes and effects" resulting in an altered history. The Universe cannot remember all this happening (there is nowhere to store it) so it "forgets" instantly what has happened and is already "computing" the next event. So in a way for this one tiny particle all histories have in one way "occurred", it remains for the quantum theorist to try and calculate the probability of each of these possible worlds, what are all the possible states for this system (a single quantum particle) when the polarizing filter is rotated through the full 2pi radians and what appears to be a "continuum" of states is resolved into one.
But suddenly a traveler from the future "pops" into the scene and the quantum theorist is aghast because he was not able to calculate this eventuality... You may ask why not?... It is not a surprise to me. It is something the quantum theorist could not have known, no matter how smart he thought he was to predict the future this possibility was always unforeseen. Time travel "opens the box" to events beyond prediction since this adds another ensemble of world-lines to the already fuzzy mess that is beyond the limits of prediction. Time travel is possible for single events... and by extrapolation... much bigger collections of events, this is noted at the particle level. All you can say here is you can never know when things may happen that cannot be predicted beforehand to happen. Will the Universe prohibit this phenomena?... I doubt it... since the Universe has no memory it just responds to the new events like the waves in a child's bathtub respond to the child splashing about... the waves cannot anticipate when the "rubber ducky" is thrown in to change the overall "equation". It will respond in a predictable way. It was always a possibility in the bathtub since it was the intention to throw the rubber ducky in all along. Our Physics is without that "mind" aspect attached to it, it deals with mostly dumb random motion and simple linear dynamics. It does not understand the dimension that the act of a predetermined mind may cause... especially if it comes from the future.
A Time Traveler can select between the many world interpretations possible and potentially choose an outcome, even an unexpected outcome. This ruins the predictions of quantum theory proving it has "limitations". The traveler and his ensemble of wave-functions will be seamlessly integrated into the "scene" because the phenomenon is "bosonic interaction". His materialization should occur beyond the earth since the fermions do not obey Bose-Einstein Statistics... it is best to "arrive" where there are no other particles to interfere with the traveler's system. From that point on we only have events occurring and these have a limited "range" so the arrival of a traveler can modify the history of the evolving system and thus change the course of a history. The time traveler is a useful concept to resolve some ideas regarding the Many World Hypothesis.
Cheers
It is a very serious possibility. The real problem with this concept this idea is not that it can occur (since quantum computers rely critically on it) but how to integrate the concept into our real world. It will one day be better understood but we are speaking about the superposition of states which represent alternative events that may happen in our World. In the end a single state will be the result. The other states may or may not represent events as we see them but they may have a reality despite our inability to record them. You must ask the question can you believe any event that you cannot confirm or record? Do you actually believe in the possibility of alternative realities?
Events in our Universe represent a continuum of "something" that is interconnected. Please do not think of the world as being made of little separate billiard balls... this is actually quite wrong. Everything are "electromagnetic waves". We choose different outcomes for our lives by a simple binary tree process. At each fork in the road a choice is made (an event), the outcome is then simple but practically "irreversible". It is not actually a conscious choice but this "infinitesimal" process of a single event has an outcome. Does the Universe make copies of us all the way out to "infinity" to support all the possible choices we are capable of or is there some other way in which to interpret this phenomenon? I like to think of it in a different way. We usually treat particles as "points" and the way the particle "evolves" in time is its world-line... a series of points tracing the particles path through time. As T increases, the places each atom and even each sub-atomic particle has occupied sweeps out a path throughout "history". Now each person is a "collection" of such particles... an ensemble. Around this person are other ensembles of other peoples and particles. It is impossible for our mathematics to track this complex function and it is customary to reduce this process to a much simpler system that we can actually "handle" of a single point or maybe a collection of a small number of points if we are feeling "up to it" computationally.
One day our science will make it possible to do a much better job of this abstraction we call the Universe but for now we have reduced it to almost a collection of the most simplest of functions possible. Something like the reductions a child would make when they draw their parents on paper ... simple stick people with only the most superficial features visible... a line for the mouth, another line for an arm etc... this is the nature of our present Physics. Now consider this world line for just one single sub-atomic particle and consider where it really was... it is not possible to actually trace its path since there are no records and its position was a lot less "distinct" than you are willing to admit. It is a collection of dynamically variable quasi-stationary electromagnetic waves filling the space that it is existing in... the wave functions... a collection of "Fourier Components" locally collected in the general vicinity of the original particle. They are effectively "space filling".
Every particle has such an ensemble of waves and each of these are also "space filling"... in one way they are able to "superimpose" and "spread" everywhere in the vicinity of a certain "individual" particle, perhaps up to many kilometers from where you are seeing the "center of this action". Now try to visualize this "volume" of events limited by the speed of light and by the strength of the interactions rapidly dying with distance (as little perfect waves) till maybe a few kilometers away the single event no longer is appearing to have any further influence. So what is happening here may be just one single event. Where is it?... when is it?... Most importantly ... what is it?... it is very fuzzy. The event in reality is actually confined to a volume of several cubic kilometers and it is happening to a single sub-atomic particle.
An "action" by a person will be the sum total of an uncountable number of these tiny sub-nuclear events... a vast bundle of intertwining world-lines reaching everywhere this event could potentially touch as interacting "wavelets" for all those kilometers. You will say this is not the case since we only witness "one" event and one outcome and it is confined to a very small space and to a very short window in time. This is true from a single point of truth as an "observer" interacting and "disturbing" this collection of wavelets since the observers wavelets are also interacting with the "scene" as well. In this respect the observer is part of the scene and the evolving events. The interaction is far beyond our present science to compute and to evaluate but this is no impediment to the most powerful natural supercomputer that exists... it is so parallel, to almost an infinite degree, and is able to calculate this out with "natural" algorithms because the algorithm is built basically into the very base nature of the "space" this is happening in.... a kind of "resonant chamber" that is ideally conditioned to resolve these wavelets into "phenomena". At each tiny point in our many dimensioned space, its nature is a system of "components" based on energy alone and working with geometry and the natural elasticity of the "medium"... "computes" a function that localizes the tiny sub-atomic particle wavelets dynamically as if being focused by a lens. In fact a lens is the most powerful mental tool to conceptualize this "engine". To me this is the most important principle of our Universe since it "supports" everything that is happening.
The wave is "everywhere" but the particle is found to be just where you expect it to be. The particle's expectation value is "highest" where the particle's field is now becoming "evanescent". A tiny moment later this same particle is found somewhere close bye, maybe rotated through a small angle and now interacting with some other sub-atomic particle with a gluon or something. This shift in energy density affects the entire "scenario" out to a number of kilometers. It is just an interplay of waves and nodes and caustics. This "mechanism" is the only mechanism that provides us all the Laws and Physics we are able to understand... there is "nothing" else, but what more do we need? It is still way beyond the human mind to be able to produce a model that will operationally simulate this "Universe".
It is most probable (according to Feynman-Wheeler Theory of Advanced and Retarded Potentials) that half of these waves are focused from the past and the rest are from the future so that the entire ensemble make up a whole. Just as you need the whole of a hologram to produce the sharp pictures they can make. Even though a small bit of a hologram has all the "picture"... the detail is missing... so too is this "snapshot" of the local World also holographic... and to create the sharp definition we call reality... we need all the detail out to several kilometers to "resolve" everything that is occurring inside that tiny volume where this single "tiny" event is proceeding. The spatial volume itself that it is embedded in is the "machine" that captures that "dynamic" element and instantly processes it. Space may be empty... but it is not without a very important use... it is an "optical processor" for the waves. Just do not think this is only an "optical" processor since the "optics" is all there really is and it is responsible for all the electromagnetic forces including gravity and the "illusion of hardness" which is only electromagnetic force as well.
So just what are these "Many World" possibilities? What is seen by an observer and what events are occurring are not etched in stone and the phase of all these interacting phenomena... uncountable to our present technology, and for "some time to come"... actually are occurring "right now" simultaneously in that space as interacting waves. We "resolve" one aspect of them as if this was a polarizing filter at a certain angle. We make an "observation". That polarizing filter may have been rotated through a tiny angle... an angle so small that you could not resolve it on a dial... this is more than enough to change the entire phenomena way out to those kilometers distant. A different event will have occurred. The sub-atomic particle will move "imperceptibly" into a different direction and the knock on effect is a different sequence of "causes and effects" resulting in an altered history. The Universe cannot remember all this happening (there is nowhere to store it) so it "forgets" instantly what has happened and is already "computing" the next event. So in a way for this one tiny particle all histories have in one way "occurred", it remains for the quantum theorist to try and calculate the probability of each of these possible worlds, what are all the possible states for this system (a single quantum particle) when the polarizing filter is rotated through the full 2pi radians and what appears to be a "continuum" of states is resolved into one.
But suddenly a traveler from the future "pops" into the scene and the quantum theorist is aghast because he was not able to calculate this eventuality... You may ask why not?... It is not a surprise to me. It is something the quantum theorist could not have known, no matter how smart he thought he was to predict the future this possibility was always unforeseen. Time travel "opens the box" to events beyond prediction since this adds another ensemble of world-lines to the already fuzzy mess that is beyond the limits of prediction. Time travel is possible for single events... and by extrapolation... much bigger collections of events, this is noted at the particle level. All you can say here is you can never know when things may happen that cannot be predicted beforehand to happen. Will the Universe prohibit this phenomena?... I doubt it... since the Universe has no memory it just responds to the new events like the waves in a child's bathtub respond to the child splashing about... the waves cannot anticipate when the "rubber ducky" is thrown in to change the overall "equation". It will respond in a predictable way. It was always a possibility in the bathtub since it was the intention to throw the rubber ducky in all along. Our Physics is without that "mind" aspect attached to it, it deals with mostly dumb random motion and simple linear dynamics. It does not understand the dimension that the act of a predetermined mind may cause... especially if it comes from the future.
A Time Traveler can select between the many world interpretations possible and potentially choose an outcome, even an unexpected outcome. This ruins the predictions of quantum theory proving it has "limitations". The traveler and his ensemble of wave-functions will be seamlessly integrated into the "scene" because the phenomenon is "bosonic interaction". His materialization should occur beyond the earth since the fermions do not obey Bose-Einstein Statistics... it is best to "arrive" where there are no other particles to interfere with the traveler's system. From that point on we only have events occurring and these have a limited "range" so the arrival of a traveler can modify the history of the evolving system and thus change the course of a history. The time traveler is a useful concept to resolve some ideas regarding the Many World Hypothesis.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Feb 3 2006, 06:05 PM)
...function that localizes the tiny sub-atomic particle wavelets dynamically as if being focused by a lens. In fact a lens is the most powerful mental tool to conceptualize this "engine"...
I'm pretty sure, the M-theory doesn't know about such concept, because it's coming directly from Aether wave theory (no other mainstream theory is currently using such concept by my knowledge), and the N-brane world intepretation of M-theory supposes, the universe can be sliced to lot of "chips" along branes, which are behaving a quite independently. I can even rememeber well to the Greene's presentation of such concept using a slices of bread on the BBC show.
The only problem with you is, you're able to explain all these concepts like real expert at the same time...
I'm pretty sure, the M-theory doesn't know about such concept, because it's coming directly from Aether wave theory (no other mainstream theory is currently using such concept by my knowledge), and the N-brane world intepretation of M-theory supposes, the universe can be sliced to lot of "chips" along branes, which are behaving a quite independently. I can even rememeber well to the Greene's presentation of such concept using a slices of bread on the BBC show.
The only problem with you is, you're able to explain all these concepts like real expert at the same time...
QUOTE (Zephir+Feb 3 2006, 03:34 PM)
QUOTE (Good Elf+Feb 3 2006, 06:05 PM)
...function that localizes the tiny sub-atomic particle wavelets dynamically as if being focused by a lens. In fact a lens is the most powerful mental tool to conceptualize this "engine"...
I'm pretty sure, the M-theory doesn't know about such concept, because it's coming directly from Aether wave theory (no other mainstream theory is currently using such concept by my knowledge), and the N-brane world intepretation of M-theory supposes, the universe can be sliced to lot of "chips" along branes, which are behaving a quite independently. I can even rememeber well to the Greene's presentation of such concept using a slices of bread on the BBC show.
The only problem with you is, you're able to explain all these concepts like real expert at the same time...
zephir,
For your reading pleasure zephir. Page 536, 'The Fabric of the Cosmos'. If you will read from who you have quoted from, Brian Greene- [aether, luminiferous aether: Hypothetical substance filling space that provides the medium for light to propogate; 'DISCREDITED'.
M-theory does not except the Aether theory that is why we do not use it, why should we know about something that is discredited. Eh!
Thank you.
ciao_
yquantum
I'm pretty sure, the M-theory doesn't know about such concept, because it's coming directly from Aether wave theory (no other mainstream theory is currently using such concept by my knowledge), and the N-brane world intepretation of M-theory supposes, the universe can be sliced to lot of "chips" along branes, which are behaving a quite independently. I can even rememeber well to the Greene's presentation of such concept using a slices of bread on the BBC show.
The only problem with you is, you're able to explain all these concepts like real expert at the same time...
zephir,For your reading pleasure zephir. Page 536, 'The Fabric of the Cosmos'. If you will read from who you have quoted from, Brian Greene- [aether, luminiferous aether: Hypothetical substance filling space that provides the medium for light to propogate; 'DISCREDITED'.
M-theory does not except the Aether theory that is why we do not use it, why should we know about something that is discredited. Eh!
Thank you.
ciao_
yquantum
QUOTE (simulus+Feb 3 2006, 09:56 AM)
Does anyone take seriously the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics anymore? According to this interpretation, each time a measurement is made, a universe is generated for each possible outcome state, with the observer in each universe only observing that outcome, and obviously unaware of the other universes.
This seems like a mechanism of generating multiple universes right then and there, but I don't know if it is taken seriously anymore.
Simulus,
I think the evidence "exists" everywhere. By this, from our perspective, which at the moment is a composite of many millions of zero space perspectives (vision).
Each of which can be regarded as a universe of its own...look around and the "picture" changes.......move a mile and it changes more....27 parsecs even more......we live in a plane of the near infinite, which is in the process of being "played out".
Sorry if this post sounds a bit strange...but I'm currenly fixated with the zero dimension.
Tough luck buddy
This seems like a mechanism of generating multiple universes right then and there, but I don't know if it is taken seriously anymore.
Simulus,
I think the evidence "exists" everywhere. By this, from our perspective, which at the moment is a composite of many millions of zero space perspectives (vision).
Each of which can be regarded as a universe of its own...look around and the "picture" changes.......move a mile and it changes more....27 parsecs even more......we live in a plane of the near infinite, which is in the process of being "played out".
Sorry if this post sounds a bit strange...but I'm currenly fixated with the zero dimension.
Tough luck buddy
QUOTE (yquantum+Feb 3 2006, 10:41 PM)
Hypothetical substance filling space that provides the medium for light to propogate; 'DISCREDITED'.
For example the Scientific American, November 21, 2005 issue: Sound waves in a fluid behave uncannily like light waves in space. Black holes even have acoustic counterparts. Could spacetime literally be a kind of fluid, like the ether of pre-Einsteinian physics?
What does it mean 'DISCREDITED' exactly, yquantum - by our understanding? After all, the cold fusion and some others ideas were officially "discredited" betweentimes, too, even in the Nature twicetimes in 1989 [1], [2] - but does it mean something?
I really don't think so...
By the public definition, the luminiferous aether = medium for the propagation of light
1) Can you prove, the light is propagating without medium?
2) Or you just simple believe it?
3) No, I don't want to answer.
You're not required to answer such questions, of course - but I'm not obliged to discuss such nuances with You, after than.
For example the Scientific American, November 21, 2005 issue: Sound waves in a fluid behave uncannily like light waves in space. Black holes even have acoustic counterparts. Could spacetime literally be a kind of fluid, like the ether of pre-Einsteinian physics?
What does it mean 'DISCREDITED' exactly, yquantum - by our understanding? After all, the cold fusion and some others ideas were officially "discredited" betweentimes, too, even in the Nature twicetimes in 1989 [1], [2] - but does it mean something?
I really don't think so...
By the public definition, the luminiferous aether = medium for the propagation of light
1) Can you prove, the light is propagating without medium?
2) Or you just simple believe it?
3) No, I don't want to answer.
You're not required to answer such questions, of course - but I'm not obliged to discuss such nuances with You, after than.
Hi yquantum, zephir, simulus, fivedoughnut et al,
QUOTE (Zephir Posted on Feb 3 2006+ 03:34 PM)
The only problem with you is, you're able to explain all these concepts like real expert at the same time...
I think by now zephir that you will probably realize that my "theory" is not the "commercial Microsoft package" of String Theory. I already know that M-Theory does not have this emphasis and "scale". I think all the practical experiments that suggest that what I am saying is indeed correct such as Circuit QED and the practical existence of CAT states or quantum gates, Fourier Processing Techniques and the science of Photonics and the way current technology is able to "resolve" a single "solution" from these simple entangled systems. What we see is the harmonic nature of this process and the complex interaction through symmetry. Our physical laws must arise naturally via an emergent process from not only below but from around us and also from out of time. I am not saying that I can personally calculate the outcome of even one single event with this "super theory"... it is far too complex. The other point is it is futile since we do not have all the data to complete the model even if we could. I suppose what this is about is to show that any attempt by man to totally understand the Universe by observation alone is doomed. It also illustrates the hubris of 21st Century man and his total conceit for the Laws of the Universe combined with his 19th Century mindset of "knowing everything", the application of "force" to solve all problems, and crude social theories such as "Social Darwinism". Man is nothing but an intelligent ape at really solving problems.
Having said that we can still carry on regardless, and still do "real physics". A quantum computer will one day most certainly be built from systems that already exist on bench-tops today. Even though our world is difficult to predict much can be done to resolve certain problems. Take for instance weather models... the old story of a butterfly fluttering in South America ultimately affecting the root cause of a tropical hurricane that devastates Louisiana. The problem looks hopeless and intractable from that point of view. Consider though... one day when man wields enough power to effect his environment, such as through cloud seeding with Potassium Iodide for instance, and quickly noticing and predicting the gross outcomes of developing cells, that the worst aspects of that Hurricane may be averted.
In a way most of our physics is a forcing of a natural process by imposing strong boundary conditions that ultimately decide the outcome of particular events. We actually do this all the time in a Physics Lab. Nothing is really natural about all that bench-top electronics and optical equipment, we are dialing up to order a particular outcome by "specification". We (observers) are part of the events that are happening and this is OK.
The real question is what is the difference between one tiny sub-atomic event happening in "isolation" and the apparent chaos of all that quantum mush we are surrounded with. M-Theory fails to even want to predict this level of phenomena and confines itself to a "truncated energy spectrum" due to the inherent chaos at the small scale. It is an expression of a kind of "hopelessness" in the face of awesome physical limitations. The indeterminacy and the quantum chaos is "tooled in" to this simple particle Universe view of reality.
What if this is wrong... still indeterminacy... still quantum unpredictability... no way to measure the measurables we need. Yet lets just say that there is a continuum "down there" and the chaos is not actually "built in", just a limit to man's capacity to understand and to measure. That is what I am getting at. Way, way down at that single event level of the Universe perhaps... that one event we are discussing is obeying Bohmian Mechanics and the result is as sure as it is ever going to be even before it has happened (without the Time Traveler ) the simple product of "dynamics". It changes everything. We can't measure it but the chaos can be controlled with a judicious application of a fine touch on the "experiment". The chaos and scale of a forest fire or a house burning begins with a single spark. That first spark is mostly under our control. How many fires begin with children and their matches, or adult and a cigarette butt, and how many faulty electrical heaters or candles used as "night lights" cause a tragedy that may have be avoided? Thought of in those terms we are in control...
If chaos was the ultimate reality of the Universe then the quantum computers being partially built today would not be able to operate. Already we are able to solve simple problems using "fixed program" quantum computing. This should not work if the influence of chaos was the dominant driver in these processes. I am continually amazed by the ability of man to direct the course of an "outcome" by his will (almost alone). Though we do not control the single quantum event we certainly can take a group of these events and modify the outcome of a large scale phenomena by "conditioning" its emergent nature if we could see how this process was developing in time.
There is some hope here and in the end this is all we really want to do. If the tiny smoldering cigarette butt can be found soon enough and extinguished an entire state forest may be saved and the lives of its animals and many humans too may be preserved. This could be an "application" that awaits the future to be able to see through the quantum fog and solve it anyway.
When I was at University there was a problem (you will all know of it) Maxwell's Daemon. If we could enlist the services of such a daemon we could utilize the velocity of atoms to sort the 'hot" ones from the "cold" ones by allowing the daemon to open and close a shutter preferentially depending on the speed of single atoms, trapping them in another chamber. This way you could chill a room or heat a room using only the Boltzmann Distribution of velocities... Well you all know there are no such daemons don't we... it breaks so many laws of physics and even of the quantum that it is laughable... isn't it?
Here is your "daemon"...
Vortex Tubes
This concept has always been around... at least since the early 20th Century. I was told this was "impossible".
The British Astronomer Royal once said that space travel should stay where it belongs... on the back of cereal packets. He then went on to show that using well established laws of dynamics, no particle could carry a sufficiently energetic source of propulsion to allow it to escape Earth's Gravity. This then proved once and for all time the folly of any "space rockets". His maths were dead right. His conclusions were dead wrong. The very next year the Russians launched Sputnik.
Cheers
I think by now zephir that you will probably realize that my "theory" is not the "commercial Microsoft package" of String Theory. I already know that M-Theory does not have this emphasis and "scale". I think all the practical experiments that suggest that what I am saying is indeed correct such as Circuit QED and the practical existence of CAT states or quantum gates, Fourier Processing Techniques and the science of Photonics and the way current technology is able to "resolve" a single "solution" from these simple entangled systems. What we see is the harmonic nature of this process and the complex interaction through symmetry. Our physical laws must arise naturally via an emergent process from not only below but from around us and also from out of time. I am not saying that I can personally calculate the outcome of even one single event with this "super theory"... it is far too complex. The other point is it is futile since we do not have all the data to complete the model even if we could. I suppose what this is about is to show that any attempt by man to totally understand the Universe by observation alone is doomed. It also illustrates the hubris of 21st Century man and his total conceit for the Laws of the Universe combined with his 19th Century mindset of "knowing everything", the application of "force" to solve all problems, and crude social theories such as "Social Darwinism". Man is nothing but an intelligent ape at really solving problems.
Having said that we can still carry on regardless, and still do "real physics". A quantum computer will one day most certainly be built from systems that already exist on bench-tops today. Even though our world is difficult to predict much can be done to resolve certain problems. Take for instance weather models... the old story of a butterfly fluttering in South America ultimately affecting the root cause of a tropical hurricane that devastates Louisiana. The problem looks hopeless and intractable from that point of view. Consider though... one day when man wields enough power to effect his environment, such as through cloud seeding with Potassium Iodide for instance, and quickly noticing and predicting the gross outcomes of developing cells, that the worst aspects of that Hurricane may be averted.
In a way most of our physics is a forcing of a natural process by imposing strong boundary conditions that ultimately decide the outcome of particular events. We actually do this all the time in a Physics Lab. Nothing is really natural about all that bench-top electronics and optical equipment, we are dialing up to order a particular outcome by "specification". We (observers) are part of the events that are happening and this is OK.
The real question is what is the difference between one tiny sub-atomic event happening in "isolation" and the apparent chaos of all that quantum mush we are surrounded with. M-Theory fails to even want to predict this level of phenomena and confines itself to a "truncated energy spectrum" due to the inherent chaos at the small scale. It is an expression of a kind of "hopelessness" in the face of awesome physical limitations. The indeterminacy and the quantum chaos is "tooled in" to this simple particle Universe view of reality.
What if this is wrong... still indeterminacy... still quantum unpredictability... no way to measure the measurables we need. Yet lets just say that there is a continuum "down there" and the chaos is not actually "built in", just a limit to man's capacity to understand and to measure. That is what I am getting at. Way, way down at that single event level of the Universe perhaps... that one event we are discussing is obeying Bohmian Mechanics and the result is as sure as it is ever going to be even before it has happened (without the Time Traveler
) the simple product of "dynamics". It changes everything. We can't measure it but the chaos can be controlled with a judicious application of a fine touch on the "experiment". The chaos and scale of a forest fire or a house burning begins with a single spark. That first spark is mostly under our control. How many fires begin with children and their matches, or adult and a cigarette butt, and how many faulty electrical heaters or candles used as "night lights" cause a tragedy that may have be avoided? Thought of in those terms we are in control...If chaos was the ultimate reality of the Universe then the quantum computers being partially built today would not be able to operate. Already we are able to solve simple problems using "fixed program" quantum computing. This should not work if the influence of chaos was the dominant driver in these processes. I am continually amazed by the ability of man to direct the course of an "outcome" by his will (almost alone). Though we do not control the single quantum event we certainly can take a group of these events and modify the outcome of a large scale phenomena by "conditioning" its emergent nature if we could see how this process was developing in time.
There is some hope here and in the end this is all we really want to do. If the tiny smoldering cigarette butt can be found soon enough and extinguished an entire state forest may be saved and the lives of its animals and many humans too may be preserved. This could be an "application" that awaits the future to be able to see through the quantum fog and solve it anyway.
When I was at University there was a problem (you will all know of it) Maxwell's Daemon. If we could enlist the services of such a daemon we could utilize the velocity of atoms to sort the 'hot" ones from the "cold" ones by allowing the daemon to open and close a shutter preferentially depending on the speed of single atoms, trapping them in another chamber. This way you could chill a room or heat a room using only the Boltzmann Distribution of velocities... Well you all know there are no such daemons don't we... it breaks so many laws of physics and even of the quantum that it is laughable... isn't it?
Here is your "daemon"...
Vortex Tubes
This concept has always been around... at least since the early 20th Century. I was told this was "impossible".
The British Astronomer Royal once said that space travel should stay where it belongs... on the back of cereal packets. He then went on to show that using well established laws of dynamics, no particle could carry a sufficiently energetic source of propulsion to allow it to escape Earth's Gravity. This then proved once and for all time the folly of any "space rockets". His maths were dead right. His conclusions were dead wrong. The very next year the Russians launched Sputnik.
Cheers
Good Elf,
Thanks for todays entertaining posts.....
Thanks for todays entertaining posts.....
Hi fivedoughnut,
You are all very welcome....
You are all very welcome....
Yes Zephir, we all read the magazine... I actually thought of you immediately when I saw the title, then promptly gagged. Or maybe I didn't actually gag, maybe it was waves in the aether in my body, can you explain that? With a pretty picture?
Actually, what the problem we all have with you is that you still have not proven your credibility. You aren't the first person to come to this forum with an aether theory, nor will you be the last.
I have three questions for you that I know we all would like answered.
a. do you have a phd?
b. do you work for a university or lab?
c. is your paper being reviewed? - by the right people?
As far as we know, you flunked university. If we knew you had the right degrees and worked in the right places, we might even be able to tolerate your obnoxious arrogance.
Actually, what the problem we all have with you is that you still have not proven your credibility. You aren't the first person to come to this forum with an aether theory, nor will you be the last.
I have three questions for you that I know we all would like answered.
a. do you have a phd?
b. do you work for a university or lab?
c. is your paper being reviewed? - by the right people?
As far as we know, you flunked university. If we knew you had the right degrees and worked in the right places, we might even be able to tolerate your obnoxious arrogance.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Feb 4 2006, 02:34 AM)
I think by now zephir that you will probably realize that my "theory" is not the "commercial Microsoft package" of String Theory...
Well, Good Elf, to be perfectly honest - I'm not very sure, if you have some consistent theory at all. But it can be determined easily, after all - are you able to explain/predict something not explained/predicted somewhere else just using your theory?
btw I'd prefer the brief anwer, as possible - I know, you're not even able to answer the simple boolean question in one sentence, and I'm not interested about essays here.
I can live with this - but please, don't use the foreign ideas as its very own. You know - it's not the very first time, I'm asking you about something like it. Here is a lot of people, but your'e the only one, who requires such notes from my side - you can think about it...
Concerning the Maxwell daemon example of yours, we can see easily, if some idea or concept was refuted as "impossible", it doesn't meen too much concerning the reality.
Well, Good Elf, to be perfectly honest - I'm not very sure, if you have some consistent theory at all. But it can be determined easily, after all - are you able to explain/predict something not explained/predicted somewhere else just using your theory?
btw I'd prefer the brief anwer, as possible - I know, you're not even able to answer the simple boolean question in one sentence, and I'm not interested about essays here.
I can live with this - but please, don't use the foreign ideas as its very own. You know - it's not the very first time, I'm asking you about something like it. Here is a lot of people, but your'e the only one, who requires such notes from my side - you can think about it...
Concerning the Maxwell daemon example of yours, we can see easily, if some idea or concept was refuted as "impossible", it doesn't meen too much concerning the reality.
QUOTE ("THEY"+Feb 4 2006, 04:30 AM)
I have three questions for you that I know we all would like answered.
a. do you have a phd?
b. do you work for a university or lab?
c. is your paper being reviewed? - by the right people?
Well, Albert Einstein didn't work in any lab at the time of his relativity theory publishing, being the patent officer - the story goes, he even never seen the Brownian motion, which was fully explained by him...
a. do you have a phd?
b. do you work for a university or lab?
c. is your paper being reviewed? - by the right people?
Well, Albert Einstein didn't work in any lab at the time of his relativity theory publishing, being the patent officer - the story goes, he even never seen the Brownian motion, which was fully explained by him...
QUOTE ("THEY"+Feb 4 2006, 04:30 AM)
If we knew you had the right degrees and worked in the right places, we might even be able to tolerate your obnoxious arrogance
Sorry, but I feel, the arrogant are just you. I've never met you here, I don't know your ideas about problems, which are discussed here - just the opinion about me. It's not enough, so here are my standard questions:
By the public definition, the luminiferous aether = medium for the propagation of light
1) Can you prove, the light is propagating without medium?
2) Or you just simple believe it?
3) No, I don't want to answer.
You're not required to answer such simple questions, of course - but I'm not obliged to discuss my creditability with You, after than - as You probably feel.
Sorry, but I feel, the arrogant are just you. I've never met you here, I don't know your ideas about problems, which are discussed here - just the opinion about me. It's not enough, so here are my standard questions:
By the public definition, the luminiferous aether = medium for the propagation of light
1) Can you prove, the light is propagating without medium?
2) Or you just simple believe it?
3) No, I don't want to answer.
You're not required to answer such simple questions, of course - but I'm not obliged to discuss my creditability with You, after than - as You probably feel.
QUOTE ("THEY"+Feb 4 2006, 04:30 AM)
As far as we know, you flunked university
I hope, your professional knowledges are better, than this...
You're simply liar: you don't know anything about my education. End of story.
I hope, your professional knowledges are better, than this...
You're simply liar: you don't know anything about my education. End of story.
Hi yquantum, zephir, "THEY", simulus, fivedoughnut et al,
QUOTE (Zephir Posted on Feb 4 2006+ 02:04 AM)
Concerning the Maxwell daemon, you can see easily, if some idea or concept was refuted as "impossible", it doesn't mean to much concerning the reality.
Yes you are indeed right. Todays "star" in Theories is tomorrow's trashcan liner. I just find aether theories impossible to deal with. I perfectly understand why some analogies seem to work for the real world. Your Scientific American article is potentially interesting as an analogy. I am perfectly sure that there are indeed close parallels with other concepts in physics. I am only concerned where there are differences. It is easy to draw parallels between sound waves and light waves but when push comes to shove there are significant differences. In the end it is the differences that count.
It is not easy coming up with an idea that has most of the "i's" dotted and the "t's" crossed, be testable and be relatively original. I am in that "pristine state" where I can say all these things and nobody wants to follow. This is a sort of "curse". of Physics where once you have gone outside the protective envelope of the mainstream you are in a no mans land. There is no easy way to get from there to here. Too much would need to change. At least being an elf this does not concern me too much! At least zephir, you have the comfort of others who think as you do and are publishing. The only people that would publish my theories would be Marvel Comics. 
Cheers
Yes you are indeed right. Todays "star" in Theories is tomorrow's trashcan liner. I just find aether theories impossible to deal with. I perfectly understand why some analogies seem to work for the real world. Your Scientific American article is potentially interesting as an analogy. I am perfectly sure that there are indeed close parallels with other concepts in physics. I am only concerned where there are differences. It is easy to draw parallels between sound waves and light waves but when push comes to shove there are significant differences. In the end it is the differences that count.
It is not easy coming up with an idea that has most of the "i's" dotted and the "t's" crossed, be testable and be relatively original. I am in that "pristine state" where I can say all these things and nobody wants to follow. This is a sort of "curse".
of Physics where once you have gone outside the protective envelope of the mainstream you are in a no mans land. There is no easy way to get from there to here. Too much would need to change. At least being an elf this does not concern me too much! At least zephir, you have the comfort of others who think as you do and are publishing. The only people that would publish my theories would be Marvel Comics. Cheers
As an analogy to mountain climbers, we all start at the bottom and choose routes of ascent; some soon realized impossible, others seemingly attainable.
Progress initially fast, now begins to ebb, as conditions worsen the higher we get.
With the peak in sight, our journeys converge....like our many different theories becoming the one.
I hope one day all of us can share this "grand view" from achievable elevation.
......What was that?.....Did I hear...."that donut guy's really absolutely, amazingly sensitive and like, immoderately poetic"......nah, thought not..back to nasty old doughnut....Grrrr let me at those blithering sycophantic deciples of yquantum... I'll tell them where to go....up their collective condescending back-sides for a start.
Progress initially fast, now begins to ebb, as conditions worsen the higher we get.
With the peak in sight, our journeys converge....like our many different theories becoming the one.
I hope one day all of us can share this "grand view" from achievable elevation.
......What was that?.....Did I hear...."that donut guy's really absolutely, amazingly sensitive and like, immoderately poetic"......nah, thought not..back to nasty old doughnut....Grrrr let me at those blithering sycophantic deciples of yquantum... I'll tell them where to go....up their collective condescending back-sides for a start.
Hi fivedoughnut,
Yes... I can see you are deeply sensitive "fella". I also see you can't sustain it though 
He he he!
Cheers
Yes... I can see you are deeply sensitive "fella". I also see you can't sustain it though He he he!Cheers
Hi all. Is the slice of bread reference from the Brian Greene documentary, a description of parallel universe's that coexist within the same "loaf"? I don't believe it was meant to descibe the "many world interpretation". As I can best recall I thought it was used to show how gravity in one universe may influence or be felt by another universe. In the documentary a new universe would be created when one universe that exists on a brane (Slice of Bread) collides with another and a new universe and brane is created. (Purely speclative of course). Doesn't the concept of a "slice" of space and time require a smallest bit of time, (The Chronon)? Physics is mankinds way to explain scientifically our reality. It depends on the measurement of time to make predictions and prove the results of an experiment. The problem is the true meaning or definition of time is not known or well understood. You can construct an extremely accurate atomic clock for making measurements of time, but that in itself does not define or describe exactly what time is. In the same way Newtons predictions of gravity accurately predict the laws of gravity but it fails to explain the mechanism that causes it. The quantum world is filled with wierdness, the theory and experimental results in the lab yield results that don't make sense to us yet we are forced to accept the results due to the extreme accuracy of prediction. So in other words, don't try to make sense of quantum mechanics but accept the fact that it is "reality", however wierd that may seem to be. Who knows, with quantum computers a visual representation of the quantum world might be possible that makes a connection within the human brain that raises our conciouness to a higher level where the quantum world won't seem so mysterious.....Mike001.
Bohr wanted us to just accept it.....but this was a monumentally sad leap of ignorance. There must be an underlying mechanism. I've wormholes, hypertoroids and singularities to explain quantum interconnectivity, others choose Aether vortices etc. We represent people who will not lie down and sup crap <e.o.m> 
QUOTE (Mike001+Feb 4 2006, 11:20 AM)
...don't try to make sense of quantum mechanics but accept the fact that it is "reality", however weird that may seem to be...
It's solely your decision, but for me the so called quantum effects are simple result of mutual interaction of energy wave with the density waves of its own and with the density waves of the others waves (i.e. with movable inhomogeneities of vacuum behaving like gravity lens).
From this point of view, the waves in different levels of convolution space (i.e. "branes"?) can mutually influence itself through gravity and it can be understood a quite easily. The Aether Wave theory isn't about developing a new theories so far, but about understanding of the existing ones.
It's solely your decision, but for me the so called quantum effects are simple result of mutual interaction of energy wave with the density waves of its own and with the density waves of the others waves (i.e. with movable inhomogeneities of vacuum behaving like gravity lens).
From this point of view, the waves in different levels of convolution space (i.e. "branes"?) can mutually influence itself through gravity and it can be understood a quite easily. The Aether Wave theory isn't about developing a new theories so far, but about understanding of the existing ones.
Thanks to those who have replied regarding MWI. Many interpretations of MWI?
I am not sure if the concept is strictly quantum mechanical involving wave functions or if it also applies to something like a simple toss of a coin.
I am not sure if the concept is strictly quantum mechanical involving wave functions or if it also applies to something like a simple toss of a coin.
QUOTE (simulus+Feb 4 2006, 06:40 PM)
I am not sure if the concept is strictly quantum mechanical involving wave functions or if it also applies to something like a simple toss of a coin.
Hugh Everett just tried to explain the quantum indeterminism of microscopic events as the result of the multiple synchronous events in different parallel universes, which are created/destroyed in-situ as the result of such event.
From certain point of view he was particularly right, because the density wave splitted by the vacuum fluctuations can be considered to be a tiny bit of independently moving space (i.e. the "universe") with respect of photon wave spreading. It separates/isolates the original energy of particle to the multiple "pieces" and it spreads them to the larger area/volume of space. And at the end of event, the original energy of particle is restored from all such "pieces" to its original state.
Try to realize the wave spreading at the water surface: considering the Brownian motion waves are reaching the centimeter range, you'll see the simple macroscopic analogy of quantum effects. Considering you're a tiny "water animal" composed solely from water vortices, it will be an even more exact analogy of the quantum vacuum situation from the real world observer perspective.
Here is no mystery on quantum mechanic effects, considering we are formed by the torsion deformations of real elastic inhomogeneous dense environment, which can be called the Aether, of course. It means, the space with respect of the photon wave spreading is quite real physical entity, because is formed by the density fluctuations of such environment. It can be separated and restored again from such fluctuations again at each moment.
Hugh Everett just tried to explain the quantum indeterminism of microscopic events as the result of the multiple synchronous events in different parallel universes, which are created/destroyed in-situ as the result of such event.
From certain point of view he was particularly right, because the density wave splitted by the vacuum fluctuations can be considered to be a tiny bit of independently moving space (i.e. the "universe") with respect of photon wave spreading. It separates/isolates the original energy of particle to the multiple "pieces" and it spreads them to the larger area/volume of space. And at the end of event, the original energy of particle is restored from all such "pieces" to its original state.
Try to realize the wave spreading at the water surface: considering the Brownian motion waves are reaching the centimeter range, you'll see the simple macroscopic analogy of quantum effects. Considering you're a tiny "water animal" composed solely from water vortices, it will be an even more exact analogy of the quantum vacuum situation from the real world observer perspective.
Here is no mystery on quantum mechanic effects, considering we are formed by the torsion deformations of real elastic inhomogeneous dense environment, which can be called the Aether, of course. It means, the space with respect of the photon wave spreading is quite real physical entity, because is formed by the density fluctuations of such environment. It can be separated and restored again from such fluctuations again at each moment.
QUOTE (Zephir+Feb 3 2006, 10:38 PM)
QUOTE (yquantum+Feb 3 2006, 10:41 PM)
Hypothetical substance filling space that provides the medium for light to propogate; 'DISCREDITED'.
For example the Scientific American, November 21, 2005 issue: Sound waves in a fluid behave uncannily like light waves in space. Black holes even have acoustic counterparts. Could spacetime literally be a kind of fluid, like the ether of pre-Einsteinian physics?
What does it mean 'DISCREDITED' exactly, yquantum - by our understanding? After all, the cold fusion and some others ideas were officially "discredited" betweentimes, too, even in the Nature twicetimes in 1989 [1], [2] - but does it mean something?
I really don't think so...
By the public definition, the luminiferous aether = medium for the propagation of light
1) Can you prove, the light is propagating without medium?
2) Or you just simple believe it?
3) No, I don't want to answer.
You're not required to answer such questions, of course - but I'm not obliged to discuss such nuances with You, after than.
zephir,
You asked three questions, I can answer all in one. I do not have to dodge any of the questions below! But you seem not to want to hear anyone except yourself & you do dodge you legitimacy and the questions. And that is fine if your are right, but you are not. I am the one who told you about Scientific American, but if you understood it then you would not have quoted it. It is dealing with the strangeness of the problematic dynamics of extreme conditions of the BLACK HOLE [you do understand the strangeness of the dynamics of a black hole and its nuances, I do not, that is why the speculation was given but it was not FACT, zephire], also it also goes on to mention acoustic analogues have begun to light the path and sound out the ways let me give you another reference to check into 'Frame dragging,' [spacetime]. There is no aether, zephir!
Your three questions, answered in one!
Can I prove, the light is propagating without medium? [YES!] You say this so much, yet you do not listen. Why is that zephir?
I will try and type it slow for you.
Modern instruments could easily detect any ether drift if it existed. The Earth moves around the sun at a speed of about 30 km/s, so if velocities added vectorially as Newtonian mechanics requires, the last 5 digits in the value of the speed of light now used in the SI definition of the metre would be meaningless. Today, high energy physicists at CERN in Geneva and Fermilab in Chicago routinely accelerate particles to within a whisper of the speed of light. Any dependence of the speed of light on reference frames would have shown up long ago.
Unless you have billions of Eurodollars in your account, and have built an independent lab that is reputable (Which you do not), then except the fact and please move on?
Good Elf is trying to help you here, but the more insults you toss his way in dodging the issues by asking off the wall questions, the more you will shut everyone out. Stay out of your own box as well please, zephir.
"THEY", fivedoughnut & many more, has much to say! We are not all knowing I confess that, but the data is clear on the fundamentals of physics. You can read this from so many parties involved in this forum
ciao_
yquantum
For example the Scientific American, November 21, 2005 issue: Sound waves in a fluid behave uncannily like light waves in space. Black holes even have acoustic counterparts. Could spacetime literally be a kind of fluid, like the ether of pre-Einsteinian physics?
What does it mean 'DISCREDITED' exactly, yquantum - by our understanding? After all, the cold fusion and some others ideas were officially "discredited" betweentimes, too, even in the Nature twicetimes in 1989 [1], [2] - but does it mean something?
I really don't think so...
By the public definition, the luminiferous aether = medium for the propagation of light
1) Can you prove, the light is propagating without medium?
2) Or you just simple believe it?
3) No, I don't want to answer.
You're not required to answer such questions, of course - but I'm not obliged to discuss such nuances with You, after than.
zephir,
You asked three questions, I can answer all in one. I do not have to dodge any of the questions below! But you seem not to want to hear anyone except yourself & you do dodge you legitimacy and the questions. And that is fine if your are right, but you are not. I am the one who told you about Scientific American, but if you understood it then you would not have quoted it. It is dealing with the strangeness of the problematic dynamics of extreme conditions of the BLACK HOLE [you do understand the strangeness of the dynamics of a black hole and its nuances, I do not, that is why the speculation was given but it was not FACT, zephire], also it also goes on to mention acoustic analogues have begun to light the path and sound out the ways let me give you another reference to check into 'Frame dragging,' [spacetime]. There is no aether, zephir!
Your three questions, answered in one!
Can I prove, the light is propagating without medium? [YES!] You say this so much, yet you do not listen. Why is that zephir?
I will try and type it slow for you.
Modern instruments could easily detect any ether drift if it existed. The Earth moves around the sun at a speed of about 30 km/s, so if velocities added vectorially as Newtonian mechanics requires, the last 5 digits in the value of the speed of light now used in the SI definition of the metre would be meaningless. Today, high energy physicists at CERN in Geneva and Fermilab in Chicago routinely accelerate particles to within a whisper of the speed of light. Any dependence of the speed of light on reference frames would have shown up long ago.
Unless you have billions of Eurodollars in your account, and have built an independent lab that is reputable (Which you do not), then except the fact and please move on?
Good Elf is trying to help you here, but the more insults you toss his way in dodging the issues by asking off the wall questions, the more you will shut everyone out. Stay out of your own box as well please, zephir.
"THEY", fivedoughnut & many more, has much to say! We are not all knowing I confess that, but the data is clear on the fundamentals of physics. You can read this from so many parties involved in this forum
ciao_
yquantum
yquantum,
Please do not include me as "one of your merry men"....I respect Zeph' and what he is trying to accomplish.....You have a great talent for politics; perhaps you should reside in this sphere.....with regards to messing with peoples "heads", I find this a repulsive anti-progressive act
Please do not include me as "one of your merry men"....I respect Zeph' and what he is trying to accomplish.....You have a great talent for politics; perhaps you should reside in this sphere.....with regards to messing with peoples "heads", I find this a repulsive anti-progressive act
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Feb 4 2006, 05:02 PM)
yquantum,
Please do not include me as "one of your merry men"....I respect Zeph' and what he is trying to accomplish.....You have a great talent for politics; perhaps you should reside in this sphere.....with regards to messing with peoples "heads", I find this a repulsive anti-progressive act
My apologizes 5dn,
We do not know each other, but I see where you are coming from.
Follow the piper, I really do not care who you suck up too.
I will do real work in real labs around the world, and you can just insult people with your view. Oh, please stay angry it suits you so very well.....
I will not address or mention you again.
y
Please do not include me as "one of your merry men"....I respect Zeph' and what he is trying to accomplish.....You have a great talent for politics; perhaps you should reside in this sphere.....with regards to messing with peoples "heads", I find this a repulsive anti-progressive act
My apologizes 5dn,
We do not know each other, but I see where you are coming from.
Follow the piper, I really do not care who you suck up too.
I will do real work in real labs around the world, and you can just insult people with your view. Oh, please stay angry it suits you so very well.....
I will not address or mention you again.
y
The space concept based on energy density gradient can be easily understood from the wave spreading perspective, i.e. from the energy spreading perspective, be more specific. As you can see, at the phase interface with two different energy density gradients, the wave should always prefer the phase interface alone, because it leads to the largest energy density changes during the subsequent wave spreading. This is a reason of so called spontaneous symmetry breaking followed by the new phase interface formation.
It means, just the energy density gradient is able to create a new path (i.e. "dimension") for the subsequent energy wave spreading, being more dense with respect of the energy density changes, than both the environments, which are forming it.
This is a reason for example, why most of energy during shallow underwater explosion is spreading along the water surface, not through the air or the even the underwater itself. The explosion shock wave has a rather subtle effect both in the air, both in the underwater environment. Instead of this, the most of energy is spreading along the water surface. The water surface is simply forming a new space-time for the energy wave spreading.
Is such space concept clear? It explains, why the energy changes, even the energy wave alone can form it's space (i.e. "temporarily universe" from Everett's perspective) for the subsequent wave spreading. The so called "quantum effects" aren't mystery at all, if you'll understand it from such perspective.
It means, just the energy density gradient is able to create a new path (i.e. "dimension") for the subsequent energy wave spreading, being more dense with respect of the energy density changes, than both the environments, which are forming it.
This is a reason for example, why most of energy during shallow underwater explosion is spreading along the water surface, not through the air or the even the underwater itself. The explosion shock wave has a rather subtle effect both in the air, both in the underwater environment. Instead of this, the most of energy is spreading along the water surface. The water surface is simply forming a new space-time for the energy wave spreading.
Is such space concept clear? It explains, why the energy changes, even the energy wave alone can form it's space (i.e. "temporarily universe" from Everett's perspective) for the subsequent wave spreading. The so called "quantum effects" aren't mystery at all, if you'll understand it from such perspective.
QUOTE (yquantum+Feb 4 2006, 07:48 PM)
There is no aether, zephir!
Hi, yquantum, I understand your motivation totally - but from the public (i.e. inter-subjective) perspective of Aether definition the vacuum can be simply considered as the environment for the light spreading, i.e. the luminiferous Aether. It's just semantic question of definition understanding, i.e. no science at all. You can propose and establish the another public definition of Aether, if you want - I will respect this, after than.
The current situation is, the Aether can be considered not just only the environment for light wave spreading, but the massive environment. And not just only the massive environment, but inhomogeneous massive environment. Moreover, is obvious, the mechanism of energy spreading through the common matter composed from particles (i.e. inhomogeneities of it) is quite similar, as through an Aether - here's no significant difference at all, in fact. It's based on the same mechanism, i.e. the mechanism of energy density gradient space formation through surface, i.e. phase interface.
The Aether is damned real thing, yquantum, as it behaves exactly like the common massive environments composed by energy inhomogeneities like particles - no matter, what are you thinking about it - sorry.
Hi, yquantum, I understand your motivation totally
- but from the public (i.e. inter-subjective) perspective of Aether definition the vacuum can be simply considered as the environment for the light spreading, i.e. the luminiferous Aether. It's just semantic question of definition understanding, i.e. no science at all. You can propose and establish the another public definition of Aether, if you want - I will respect this, after than.The current situation is, the Aether can be considered not just only the environment for light wave spreading, but the massive environment. And not just only the massive environment, but inhomogeneous massive environment. Moreover, is obvious, the mechanism of energy spreading through the common matter composed from particles (i.e. inhomogeneities of it) is quite similar, as through an Aether - here's no significant difference at all, in fact. It's based on the same mechanism, i.e. the mechanism of energy density gradient space formation through surface, i.e. phase interface.
The Aether is damned real thing, yquantum, as it behaves exactly like the common massive environments composed by energy inhomogeneities like particles - no matter, what are you thinking about it - sorry.
QUOTE (yquantum+Feb 4 2006, 05:16 PM)
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Feb 4 2006, 05:02 PM)
yquantum,
Please do not include me as "one of your merry men"....I respect Zeph' and what he is trying to accomplish.....You have a great talent for politics; perhaps you should reside in this sphere.....with regards to messing with peoples "heads", I find this a repulsive anti-progressive act
My apologizes 5dn,
We do not know each other, but I see where you are coming from.
Follow the piper, I really do not care who you suck up too.
I will do real work in real labs around the world, and you can just insult people with your view. Oh, please stay angry it suits you so very well.....
I will not address or mention you again.
y
I've probably got you all wrong yquantum. However, I just desire progress irrespective of the low life who may gain from my concepts...yes 5-doughnut is purely humanitarian
This aside, can't we all be constructively mutable without the natural urge to dislike anything which represents a challange to our mind-set.
We live on a dirt-ball infested with mormons, christians, muslims etc, who just can't agree to disagree, moreover create something larger better and unifying.
What religion is, science is rapidly becoming....please let's put a stop to this and work together with tolerance wisdom and beer
I do not suck-up to anyone, but merely identify as one does, with reflections
of "self"...this is the basis of "like"
Of course we need the mainstream to utilize all which one good model brings....but do not forget the modellers...even though most of us are delusional idiots...with alcohol problems
Why not just use vacuum instead of aether terminology? Much less obfuscating!
Going back to MWI, a 50% probability event can be interpreted as half the universes having outcome A, half having outcome B. Yet the probability is determined by observations within one universe. The probability ultimately comes from the symmetry of the event outcomes(e.g., heads vs. tails side or spin up vs spin down).
What about probabilities of rare event outcomes, like rare particle decay modes? That should come from severely broken symmetries, I guess.
The observation of rare events is disturbing to me. Why should we be in a universe where such an event occurred, as opposed to a slightly different universe where the event did not occur?
Why not just use vacuum instead of aether terminology? Much less obfuscating!
Going back to MWI, a 50% probability event can be interpreted as half the universes having outcome A, half having outcome B. Yet the probability is determined by observations within one universe. The probability ultimately comes from the symmetry of the event outcomes(e.g., heads vs. tails side or spin up vs spin down).
What about probabilities of rare event outcomes, like rare particle decay modes? That should come from severely broken symmetries, I guess.
The observation of rare events is disturbing to me. Why should we be in a universe where such an event occurred, as opposed to a slightly different universe where the event did not occur?
I feel broken symmetries are an illusion, as I predict symmetry is fully restored in other brane continuum(s) via higher dimensional vacuolar collapse.
Rare events are just unlikely outcomes: i.e A flipped coin landing on its edge.
However, with higher dimensional wave propagation/re-distribution, this would equate to rare concurrent brane interactions producing an atypical "decay".
Particle physicists see this occuring routinely. All these types of events produce discrepancies with regards to pre & post decay energies (eV's), in ignorance they've simply labelled this mechanism "the neutrino".
Please read my input in Kinetic Energy and E=mc^2 / Spacial Vacuoles stuff for clarity.
p.s This might also explain virtual particles...just re-distributed energy eminating from other branes......however I'm still a little uncertain
Please do not include me as "one of your merry men"....I respect Zeph' and what he is trying to accomplish.....You have a great talent for politics; perhaps you should reside in this sphere.....with regards to messing with peoples "heads", I find this a repulsive anti-progressive act
My apologizes 5dn,
We do not know each other, but I see where you are coming from.
Follow the piper, I really do not care who you suck up too.
I will do real work in real labs around the world, and you can just insult people with your view. Oh, please stay angry it suits you so very well.....
I will not address or mention you again.
y
I've probably got you all wrong yquantum. However, I just desire progress irrespective of the low life who may gain from my concepts...yes 5-doughnut is purely humanitarian
This aside, can't we all be constructively mutable without the natural urge to dislike anything which represents a challange to our mind-set.
We live on a dirt-ball infested with mormons, christians, muslims etc, who just can't agree to disagree, moreover create something larger better and unifying.
What religion is, science is rapidly becoming....please let's put a stop to this and work together with tolerance wisdom and beer
I do not suck-up to anyone, but merely identify as one does, with reflections
of "self"...this is the basis of "like"
Of course we need the mainstream to utilize all which one good model brings....but do not forget the modellers...even though most of us are delusional idiots...with alcohol problems
QUOTE (yquantum+Feb 4 2006, 08:16 PM)
..I will do real work in real labs around the world...
The general acceptance of the massive Aether concept around the world should solely depend on the Occam's razor criterion, not the politic (well, I'm too idealistic at this point, I know about it...).
But I'm presenting the Aether here as a concept, which enables the understanding of vacuum behavior by the same consistent way, as the observable mass behavior, thus simplifying the understanding of both significantly. And not just the mass, but its evolution too, because the complexity waves are spreading by the same way, as the energy waves, being dependent on its gradient, too. It means, the Aether is the common metaphysical denominator for the evolutionary environment based on recursive wave equation solution.
Instead of this, we can believe henceforward, the vacuum behaves a quite differently with compare to matter and the evolution behaves a quite differently with respect to energy spreading and search some artificial explanation for each particular aspect of reality independently.
It's solely your decision, what model of understanding you'll choose - I don't care about it.
The general acceptance of the massive Aether concept around the world should solely depend on the Occam's razor criterion, not the politic (well, I'm too idealistic at this point, I know about it...).
But I'm presenting the Aether here as a concept, which enables the understanding of vacuum behavior by the same consistent way, as the observable mass behavior, thus simplifying the understanding of both significantly. And not just the mass, but its evolution too, because the complexity waves are spreading by the same way, as the energy waves, being dependent on its gradient, too. It means, the Aether is the common metaphysical denominator for the evolutionary environment based on recursive wave equation solution.
Instead of this, we can believe henceforward, the vacuum behaves a quite differently with compare to matter and the evolution behaves a quite differently with respect to energy spreading and search some artificial explanation for each particular aspect of reality independently.
It's solely your decision, what model of understanding you'll choose - I don't care about it.
QUOTE
the vacuum can be simply considered as the environment for the light spreading, i.e. the luminiferous Aether
Why not just use vacuum instead of aether terminology? Much less obfuscating!
Going back to MWI, a 50% probability event can be interpreted as half the universes having outcome A, half having outcome B. Yet the probability is determined by observations within one universe. The probability ultimately comes from the symmetry of the event outcomes(e.g., heads vs. tails side or spin up vs spin down).
What about probabilities of rare event outcomes, like rare particle decay modes? That should come from severely broken symmetries, I guess.
The observation of rare events is disturbing to me. Why should we be in a universe where such an event occurred, as opposed to a slightly different universe where the event did not occur?
QUOTE (simulus+Feb 5 2006, 03:28 AM)
QUOTE
the vacuum can be simply considered as the environment for the light spreading, i.e. the luminiferous Aether
Why not just use vacuum instead of aether terminology? Much less obfuscating!
Going back to MWI, a 50% probability event can be interpreted as half the universes having outcome A, half having outcome B. Yet the probability is determined by observations within one universe. The probability ultimately comes from the symmetry of the event outcomes(e.g., heads vs. tails side or spin up vs spin down).
What about probabilities of rare event outcomes, like rare particle decay modes? That should come from severely broken symmetries, I guess.
The observation of rare events is disturbing to me. Why should we be in a universe where such an event occurred, as opposed to a slightly different universe where the event did not occur?
I feel broken symmetries are an illusion, as I predict symmetry is fully restored in other brane continuum(s) via higher dimensional vacuolar collapse.
Rare events are just unlikely outcomes: i.e A flipped coin landing on its edge.
However, with higher dimensional wave propagation/re-distribution, this would equate to rare concurrent brane interactions producing an atypical "decay".
Particle physicists see this occuring routinely. All these types of events produce discrepancies with regards to pre & post decay energies (eV's), in ignorance they've simply labelled this mechanism "the neutrino".
Please read my input in Kinetic Energy and E=mc^2 / Spacial Vacuoles stuff for clarity.
p.s This might also explain virtual particles...just re-distributed energy eminating from other branes.
.....however I'm still a little uncertain
Hi yquantum, fivedoughnut, zephir, simulus et al,
I have often heard quoted that the Universe "flips a coin" to decide the outcome of events. I know for a fact that the flip of a coin could be predicted based on an accurate understanding of the dynamics of the particle. I suppose you are then going to say that there is some other "mechanism" used by the Universe to resolve its difficulties when it finds itself in a quandary of "indecision". Is there any proven mechanism here at that level of the Universe that you can point to that is the "clincher" for "coin flipping" at the quantum level or in this case the many world level. If you can't finger that mechanism perhaps we should start this again and try and decide the real basis of "many worlds". Is a "world"... the result of this "flipping process"... equally probable as any other world (no matter how remote from our present world)? If not then this is not a "flipping process" and you need to think again. The Universe does not have a gaming table only the Casinos. The outcomes of chance in a system "might" be due to the inability to correctly predict a process due to lack of the correct information regards the measurables of a system.
I haven't heard any scientific argument against my interpretation yet... a lot of personal religious beliefs but no substance. Remember this world does build technology and that technology is exhibiting this phenomenon. No coin flipping going on there... it is straight electronics.
Oh fivedoughnut you can't say "I predict symmetry is fully restored in other brane continuum(s) via higher dimensional vacuolar collapse." I have already said that the symmetry is only broken as seen from certain external relativistic non-inertial frames of reference. This can be at least demonstrated through experiment. Your theory does nothing more than state a possible observation... you need a reason for why your observation is going to be valid. Guessing does not count.
Cheers
I have often heard quoted that the Universe "flips a coin" to decide the outcome of events. I know for a fact that the flip of a coin could be predicted based on an accurate understanding of the dynamics of the particle. I suppose you are then going to say that there is some other "mechanism" used by the Universe to resolve its difficulties when it finds itself in a quandary of "indecision". Is there any proven mechanism here at that level of the Universe that you can point to that is the "clincher" for "coin flipping" at the quantum level or in this case the many world level. If you can't finger that mechanism perhaps we should start this again and try and decide the real basis of "many worlds". Is a "world"... the result of this "flipping process"... equally probable as any other world (no matter how remote from our present world)? If not then this is not a "flipping process" and you need to think again. The Universe does not have a gaming table only the Casinos. The outcomes of chance in a system "might" be due to the inability to correctly predict a process due to lack of the correct information regards the measurables of a system.
I haven't heard any scientific argument against my interpretation yet... a lot of personal religious beliefs but no substance. Remember this world does build technology and that technology is exhibiting this phenomenon. No coin flipping going on there... it is straight electronics.
Oh fivedoughnut you can't say "I predict symmetry is fully restored in other brane continuum(s) via higher dimensional vacuolar collapse." I have already said that the symmetry is only broken as seen from certain external relativistic non-inertial frames of reference. This can be at least demonstrated through experiment. Your theory does nothing more than state a possible observation... you need a reason for why your observation is going to be valid. Guessing does not count.
Cheers
No point in quoting the whole of Good_Elf's post .. a particular point..
Is there any proven mechanism here at that level of the Universe that you can point to that is the "clincher" for "coin flipping" at the quantum level or in this case the many world level. If you can't finger that mechanism
Imho Young's two slit experiment is the experimental clincher for coin flipping. At the single photon level it seems the result is unpredictable by any physics or theory available to us. Only when the experiment is repeated many time does order emerge from the chaos. It should be remembered that this is far more than a simple 'flipping' .. the result is ultimately a continuous curve .. infinitely more variation than a simple choice between this and that.
One can choose between a universe where the two slit experiment reveals something that is built into every nucleus, atom, molecule, and thus into the entire fabric of the universe, alternatively one can choose to believe that the atom is made of electrons going round the nucleus like little planets .. once we know where the planets are we can make perfect predictions.
Hopefully Good_Elf will 'finger' the mechanism that supports the planetary view of the atom. Alternatively his view that there is a mechanism but we don't know what it is should stand in line with the other religions - awaiting proof.
5dn's suggestion seems to be that the universe keeps discarded results in a pocket somewhere else.. does it play them later, play them somewhere else, or just keep them as a souvenir of all the places it didn't go?
Imho Young's two slit experiment is the experimental clincher for coin flipping. At the single photon level it seems the result is unpredictable by any physics or theory available to us. Only when the experiment is repeated many time does order emerge from the chaos. It should be remembered that this is far more than a simple 'flipping' .. the result is ultimately a continuous curve .. infinitely more variation than a simple choice between this and that.
One can choose between a universe where the two slit experiment reveals something that is built into every nucleus, atom, molecule, and thus into the entire fabric of the universe, alternatively one can choose to believe that the atom is made of electrons going round the nucleus like little planets .. once we know where the planets are we can make perfect predictions.
Hopefully Good_Elf will 'finger' the mechanism that supports the planetary view of the atom. Alternatively his view that there is a mechanism but we don't know what it is should stand in line with the other religions - awaiting proof.
5dn's suggestion seems to be that the universe keeps discarded results in a pocket somewhere else.. does it play them later, play them somewhere else, or just keep them as a souvenir of all the places it didn't go?
(5dn)
What religion is, science is rapidly becoming....please let's put a stop to this and work together with tolerance wisdom and beer
I'll drink to that.
-C2.
QUOTE
Is there any proven mechanism here at that level of the Universe that you can point to that is the "clincher" for "coin flipping" at the quantum level or in this case the many world level. If you can't finger that mechanism
Imho Young's two slit experiment is the experimental clincher for coin flipping. At the single photon level it seems the result is unpredictable by any physics or theory available to us. Only when the experiment is repeated many time does order emerge from the chaos. It should be remembered that this is far more than a simple 'flipping' .. the result is ultimately a continuous curve .. infinitely more variation than a simple choice between this and that.
One can choose between a universe where the two slit experiment reveals something that is built into every nucleus, atom, molecule, and thus into the entire fabric of the universe, alternatively one can choose to believe that the atom is made of electrons going round the nucleus like little planets .. once we know where the planets are we can make perfect predictions.
Hopefully Good_Elf will 'finger' the mechanism that supports the planetary view of the atom. Alternatively his view that there is a mechanism but we don't know what it is should stand in line with the other religions - awaiting proof.
5dn's suggestion seems to be that the universe keeps discarded results in a pocket somewhere else.. does it play them later, play them somewhere else, or just keep them as a souvenir of all the places it didn't go?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Is there any proven mechanism here at that level of the Universe that you can point to that is the "clincher" for "coin flipping" at the quantum level or in this case the many world level. If you can't finger that mechanism |
Imho Young's two slit experiment is the experimental clincher for coin flipping. At the single photon level it seems the result is unpredictable by any physics or theory available to us. Only when the experiment is repeated many time does order emerge from the chaos. It should be remembered that this is far more than a simple 'flipping' .. the result is ultimately a continuous curve .. infinitely more variation than a simple choice between this and that.
One can choose between a universe where the two slit experiment reveals something that is built into every nucleus, atom, molecule, and thus into the entire fabric of the universe, alternatively one can choose to believe that the atom is made of electrons going round the nucleus like little planets .. once we know where the planets are we can make perfect predictions.
Hopefully Good_Elf will 'finger' the mechanism that supports the planetary view of the atom. Alternatively his view that there is a mechanism but we don't know what it is should stand in line with the other religions - awaiting proof.
5dn's suggestion seems to be that the universe keeps discarded results in a pocket somewhere else.. does it play them later, play them somewhere else, or just keep them as a souvenir of all the places it didn't go?
(5dn)
What religion is, science is rapidly becoming....please let's put a stop to this and work together with tolerance wisdom and beer
I'll drink to that.
-C2.
QUOTE (simulus+Feb 5 2006, 06:28 AM)
Why not just use vacuum instead of aether terminology?
In common interpretation, the vacuum is distinguished from observable mass in its properties. In Aether terminology, both the vacuum, both the elementary particles are coming from the same environment, the particles are simply more dense parts, i.e. "loupes" of the Aether with compare of vacuum.
It's rather different concept, sometime is used terms like "fabric of space", "quantum foam", "Dirac's sea" etc.. which are confusing as well. The Aether is classical and well established terminology for the environment for the light spreading by its public definition.
In common interpretation, the vacuum is distinguished from observable mass in its properties. In Aether terminology, both the vacuum, both the elementary particles are coming from the same environment, the particles are simply more dense parts, i.e. "loupes" of the Aether with compare of vacuum.
It's rather different concept, sometime is used terms like "fabric of space", "quantum foam", "Dirac's sea" etc.. which are confusing as well. The Aether is classical and well established terminology for the environment for the light spreading by its public definition.
QUOTE (simulus+Feb 5 2006, 06:28 AM)
The observation of rare events is disturbing to me. Why should we be in a universe where such an event occurred?
The Everett hypothesis is just a model of real situation, which I'm describing. No new universe is created by the motion of particles, just the more dense place ("additional density of vacuum", "gravity lens") is created at the place of particle. Did you catch my explanations at all? It's incredibly simple.
The Everett hypothesis is just a model of real situation, which I'm describing. No new universe is created by the motion of particles, just the more dense place ("additional density of vacuum", "gravity lens") is created at the place of particle. Did you catch my explanations at all? It's incredibly simple.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Feb 5 2006, 08:05 AM)
...I haven't heard any scientific argument against my interpretation yet...
What interpretation do you exactly mean, please?
What interpretation do you exactly mean, please?
QUOTE (Confused2+Feb 5 2006, 09:48 AM)
Hopefully Good_Elf will 'finger' the mechanism that supports the planetary view of the atom.
The same... I didn't catch any interpretation of quantum effects, which supports such view. Can you quote it?
The same... I didn't catch any interpretation of quantum effects, which supports such view. Can you quote it?
QUOTE (Good Elf+Feb 5 2006, 05:05 AM)
you need a reason for why your observation is going to be valid. Guessing does not count.
Good Elf,
Don't you think this explains the kinetic energy, mass energy ratio variance, a totally interconnected multiverse with seemingly isolated planes of existance, the possibilities of mass-energy interconversion, hyperspacial communication, other hyperspacial technologies....just the tip of the iceburg "reason enough".
As you have done, I've worked down with my modelling. However, for me there were never ever any preconceived ideas. I based my original concepts on trying to explain the supposedly mystical qualities of quantum effects, now I'm faffing around with zero dimensional space.....it was never a case of trying to "see" by standing on the shoulders of giants...as I'd perceived they'd all been looking over the wrong fence.
Good Elf,
Don't you think this explains the kinetic energy, mass energy ratio variance, a totally interconnected multiverse with seemingly isolated planes of existance, the possibilities of mass-energy interconversion, hyperspacial communication, other hyperspacial technologies....just the tip of the iceburg "reason enough".
As you have done, I've worked down with my modelling. However, for me there were never ever any preconceived ideas. I based my original concepts on trying to explain the supposedly mystical qualities of quantum effects, now I'm faffing around with zero dimensional space.....it was never a case of trying to "see" by standing on the shoulders of giants...as I'd perceived they'd all been looking over the wrong fence.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Feb 5 2006, 08:05 AM)
perhaps we should start this again and try and decide the real basis of "many worlds"
It's evident, you didn't catch my explanation at all - the particle can really pass through both the holes at the same time. It's divided to the multiple parts by the vacuum fluctuations and restored again from it at the different place.
Such process appears again and again repeatedly in time, the moment of passing through some holes isn't exception.
It's evident, you didn't catch my explanation at all - the particle can really pass through both the holes at the same time. It's divided to the multiple parts by the vacuum fluctuations and restored again from it at the different place.
Such process appears again and again repeatedly in time, the moment of passing through some holes isn't exception.
Hi fivedoughnut,
You are entitled to speculate... just trying to get you on the course of being a Scientist rather than the Politician.
Cheers
You are entitled to speculate... just trying to get you on the course of being a Scientist rather than the Politician.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Feb 5 2006, 08:24 AM)
Hi fivedoughnut,
You are entitled to speculate... just trying to get you on the course of being a Scientist rather than the Politician.
Cheers
Politician.....Ouch! that hurt...now cease that dunny talk
You are entitled to speculate... just trying to get you on the course of being a Scientist rather than the Politician.
Cheers
Politician.....Ouch! that hurt...now cease that dunny talk
Hi Zephir,
I doubt very much that photons split up and rejoin again as you have shown there. That would involve dynamic processes that are not part of our physics. Half a photon would have half the energy and since the velocity remains C this would mean half the frequency. Then the interference pattern would not be as indicated. You then have to join them back up again... don't think so.
If you look at the geometry of this EM radiator you will see that if the wavelength is equal to the distance between successive in-phase crests of this ensemble of photons being emitted you will also notice a spreading in the direction perpendicular to the direction of propagation (sort of "pancakeification"). One single photon has the same geometry as a million photons, they all occupy the same space. In this diagram it occupies approximately about pi radians nearly for a fundamental dipole radiator. In a real radiator it might be a lot smaller than this angle but you can gather that any spreading of this magnitude a relatively small distance from the source will encompass quite a large target zone some short distance away... easily "covering " both interference slits of the Young's Experiment. Imagine how big this effective "shadow" would be cast if a photon was traveling from a neighboring Galaxy yet in the end only one tiny flash somewhere will be the end result. All the while the wavelength remains constant only the size of the "pancake" varies.
The sneaky bit is that an infinite number of photons can occupy the same volume in space (unlike fermions) so the power output is perfectly scalable in radio transmitters or other radiators of EM radiation, it is just the total number of photons emitted that is varied. The end result will be when the single light quantum is "precipitated" from the "Uberspace" by an interaction it can happen anywhere along that backplane. It is then easy to see why a large number of singly emitted photons will build up the pattern in time since each one "senses" all the surrounding space and that includes both slits. Speaking in Bohmian terms only the photons that actually have a trajectory through one or other of the slits will actually form the interference pattern. If the "barriers" are thick enough they can stop the tunneling process for photons that are traveling in any other direction ... illuminating the outside of the apparatus.
The soliton "wave-particle" is tunneling or refracting through all those fermion barriers and other local "matter waves" in a higher space. It is all part of that description above. As you see this "wave pattern" is not actual waves in 3D + T but the "projection" of these higher dimensional patterns into our "flat space-time". What we see is similar to the shadows cast by a single "point source" streetlight on the pavement by a pedestrian strolling away from the source. There is an inverse square "distortion" applied. This is actually not seen for any individual photon by any observer since only "interactions" can be seen. Yet a pattern can be captured with the right technology... you are looking at it here in the animated gif image.
Cheers
I doubt very much that photons split up and rejoin again as you have shown there. That would involve dynamic processes that are not part of our physics. Half a photon would have half the energy and since the velocity remains C this would mean half the frequency. Then the interference pattern would not be as indicated. You then have to join them back up again... don't think so.
If you look at the geometry of this EM radiator you will see that if the wavelength is equal to the distance between successive in-phase crests of this ensemble of photons being emitted you will also notice a spreading in the direction perpendicular to the direction of propagation (sort of "pancakeification"). One single photon has the same geometry as a million photons, they all occupy the same space. In this diagram it occupies approximately about pi radians nearly for a fundamental dipole radiator. In a real radiator it might be a lot smaller than this angle but you can gather that any spreading of this magnitude a relatively small distance from the source will encompass quite a large target zone some short distance away... easily "covering " both interference slits of the Young's Experiment. Imagine how big this effective "shadow" would be cast if a photon was traveling from a neighboring Galaxy yet in the end only one tiny flash somewhere will be the end result. All the while the wavelength remains constant only the size of the "pancake" varies.
The sneaky bit is that an infinite number of photons can occupy the same volume in space (unlike fermions) so the power output is perfectly scalable in radio transmitters or other radiators of EM radiation, it is just the total number of photons emitted that is varied. The end result will be when the single light quantum is "precipitated" from the "Uberspace" by an interaction it can happen anywhere along that backplane. It is then easy to see why a large number of singly emitted photons will build up the pattern in time since each one "senses" all the surrounding space and that includes both slits. Speaking in Bohmian terms only the photons that actually have a trajectory through one or other of the slits will actually form the interference pattern. If the "barriers" are thick enough they can stop the tunneling process for photons that are traveling in any other direction ... illuminating the outside of the apparatus.
The soliton "wave-particle" is tunneling or refracting through all those fermion barriers and other local "matter waves" in a higher space. It is all part of that description above. As you see this "wave pattern" is not actual waves in 3D + T but the "projection" of these higher dimensional patterns into our "flat space-time". What we see is similar to the shadows cast by a single "point source" streetlight on the pavement by a pedestrian strolling away from the source. There is an inverse square "distortion" applied. This is actually not seen for any individual photon by any observer since only "interactions" can be seen. Yet a pattern can be captured with the right technology... you are looking at it here in the animated gif image.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Feb 5 2006, 12:02 PM)
...I doubt very much that photons split up and rejoin again as you have shown there...
I'm afraid, the real situation can much more worse, than you can even imagine, Good Elf. Not just only the photons, but both the gluons, both the gauge bosons and even the Higgs/Goldstein's bosons are separated as well. And not only the bosons, the fermions are slitted as well. The vacuum is very dynamic, the particles are formed a annihilated all the time, so they can appear at the different places, they're literally spreaded through some area of vacuum, having no certain place. This is how such particle can appear in vacuum.
I believe, the whole particle has no exact shape, it's widespread through the torsion deformation of vacuum across a large amount of density fluctuation - just the internal topology of it's deformation remains...
I'm afraid, the real situation can much more worse, than you can even imagine, Good Elf. Not just only the photons, but both the gluons, both the gauge bosons and even the Higgs/Goldstein's bosons are separated as well. And not only the bosons, the fermions are slitted as well. The vacuum is very dynamic, the particles are formed a annihilated all the time, so they can appear at the different places, they're literally spreaded through some area of vacuum, having no certain place. This is how such particle can appear in vacuum.
I believe, the whole particle has no exact shape, it's widespread through the torsion deformation of vacuum across a large amount of density fluctuation - just the internal topology of it's deformation remains...
Does anyone take seriously the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics anymore? According to this interpretation, each time a measurement is made, a universe is generated for each possible outcome state, with the observer in each universe only observing that outcome, and obviously unaware of the other universes.
This seems like a mechanism of generating multiple universes right then and there, but I don't know if it is taken seriously anymore.
Amrit: science fiction
This seems like a mechanism of generating multiple universes right then and there, but I don't know if it is taken seriously anymore.
Amrit: science fiction
QUOTE (Confused2+Feb 5 2006, 06:48 AM)
5dn's suggestion seems to be that the universe keeps discarded results in a pocket somewhere else.. does it play them later, play them somewhere else, or just keep them as a souvenir of all the places it didn't go?
I'll drink to that.
-C2.
.....discarded, nah still interconnected in a wonderful multi-dimensional tapestry.
Although, we're sadly only privy to a mere few layers of it stitches.....bummer!
As for beer....Sunday lunchtime soon.....whoopie!
QUOTE
(5dn)
What religion is, science is rapidly becoming....please let's put a stop to this and work together with tolerance wisdom and beer
What religion is, science is rapidly becoming....please let's put a stop to this and work together with tolerance wisdom and beer
I'll drink to that.
-C2.
.....discarded, nah still interconnected in a wonderful multi-dimensional tapestry.
Although, we're sadly only privy to a mere few layers of it stitches.....bummer!
As for beer....Sunday lunchtime soon.....whoopie!
Zephir, Good Elf et. al.,
I may not have completely comprehended all your explanations yet. I don't think I have the same theoretical background. The posted images are pretty neat.
But I do wonder about the double-slit experiment on a single photon basis. Under low intensity, the detector will register photon 'hits' at random places, but after accumulation the interference pattern is seen. It is the macroscopic average pattern.
MWI doesn't seem to help here.
From what I've heard the two main interpretations of QM are Copenhagen (wave-function collapsing) and MWI (universe collapsing). In the end, both are just tools to help understand events with probabilities.
I may not have completely comprehended all your explanations yet. I don't think I have the same theoretical background. The posted images are pretty neat.
But I do wonder about the double-slit experiment on a single photon basis. Under low intensity, the detector will register photon 'hits' at random places, but after accumulation the interference pattern is seen. It is the macroscopic average pattern.
MWI doesn't seem to help here.
From what I've heard the two main interpretations of QM are Copenhagen (wave-function collapsing) and MWI (universe collapsing). In the end, both are just tools to help understand events with probabilities.
QUOTE (simulus+Feb 6 2006, 03:59 AM)
both are just tools to help understand events with probabilities
I agree. But you can bring up the probability world as the massive environment full of density waves, like tha water full of Brownian motion. You're formed by such environment by the same way, like me and the other world. Such inhomogeneities are transparent for the light, being a quite subtle. But they're behaving like lens fluctuations, changing the path f the light and the other interactions randomly.
As the result, out world isn't solely deterministic at low scales by the same way, as the water surface isn't very deterministic with respect of the surface wave spreading, because it contains the Brownian motion density micro-fluctuations.
This isn't some "tool for understanding", but the most fundamental explanation of the quantum world effects.
I agree. But you can bring up the probability world as the massive environment full of density waves, like tha water full of Brownian motion. You're formed by such environment by the same way, like me and the other world. Such inhomogeneities are transparent for the light, being a quite subtle. But they're behaving like lens fluctuations, changing the path f the light and the other interactions randomly.
As the result, out world isn't solely deterministic at low scales by the same way, as the water surface isn't very deterministic with respect of the surface wave spreading, because it contains the Brownian motion density micro-fluctuations.
This isn't some "tool for understanding", but the most fundamental explanation of the quantum world effects.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.