When this experiment was used to support SR( having no need for a medium of propagation and interaction) and the concept of an aether was dismissed, there was an overall assumption made by those prominent at the time that the aether must be rigid and at rest.
Now that we know through the implications of General Relativity that even our OWN medium (space-time) has curvature, is capable of expansion and contraction,interacts with light gravitionally, is it not been made slightly redundant to up hold this requirement of rigivity and stationary state for any medium hypothetical or physical?
I'm not trying to be rude i just need the point i dropped the ball in terms of having to expect these conditions of existence of something.
Confused1
From memory, the "rigidity" of the aether was calculated using the known speed of propagation of light. The "lack of motion" was the result of not being able to measure any motion. -C2.
Ed Wood
There is no medium.
waitedavid137
QUOTE (Adam Ledger+May 5 2012, 01:24 AM)
When this experiment was used to support SR( having no need for a medium of propagation and interaction) and the concept of an aether was dismissed, there was an overall assumption made by those prominent at the time that the aether must be rigid and at rest.
Now that we know through the implications of General Relativity that even our OWN medium (space-time) has curvature, is capable of expansion and contraction,interacts with light gravitionally, is it not been made slightly redundant to up hold this requirement of rigivity and stationary state for any medium hypothetical or physical?
I'm not trying to be rude i just need the point i dropped the ball in terms of having to expect these conditions of existence of something.

Ok so lets assume for a moment that we need, for waves of quanta as photons per example, an aether in which to propagate. In that case what do electrons propagate in, electronic aether? What do muons propagate in, muonic aether? What do protons propagate in, protonic aether? Suddenly we sure need a whole lot of aethers. Or wait, perhaps the answer consistent with null results like the MM experiment is simpler, that all these waves don't need aethers in which to propagate.
I'm simply saying not that we require an aether but it was a redundant experiment to test for its experiment given the vague properties of the medium stated before SR
waitedavid137
QUOTE (Adam Ledger+May 5 2012, 09:04 PM)
I'm simply saying not that we require an aether but it was a redundant experiment to test for its experiment given the vague properties of the medium stated before SR

We don't require any aethers, not for all of these things, not for any of these things.
niels
As long as physics choose to explain the magic of physical world via metaphores like FORCES, GAUGE BOSONS (virtual particles) etc, it is correct that a concept like aether is probably not beeing needed.

IMO it would be perhaps a better and more complete theory if the aether was being re/introduced, and developed in the insight that physical world is a perceiving scale, and in the magnitude or SEIZE of about electron/photon as the entity. Einstein wisely (luckily) chose the photon as the entity of explaining cosmos, and this is perhaps why the concept of aether has not been felt appropiate since SR/GR
I see what you are saying but i was reading today that there was some contreversy surrounding his support of morley and michealson's dismissal of the ether experiment as a supporting bench mark for reletivity, i just want to find out if he shared the same view as i do, redundancy in light of what SR & GR are capable of, or if there was something which directly conflicted with his definition of a medium and hence maybe allowing me to illuminate a flaw in my view of what defines a medium.
Hasmukh K. Tank
QUOTE (niels+May 6 2012, 07:51 AM)
As long as physics choose to explain the magic of physical world via metaphores like FORCES, GAUGE BOSONS (virtual particles) etc, it is correct that a concept like aether is probably not beeing needed.

IMO it would be perhaps a better and more complete theory if the aether was being re/introduced, and developed in the insight that physical world is a perceiving scale, and in the magnitude or SEIZE of about electron/photon as the entity. Einstein wisely (luckily) chose the photon as the entity of explaining cosmos, and this is perhaps why the concept of aether has not been felt appropiate since SR/GR

You will find a priliminary attempt to propose Holistic Theory of Everything, based on a postulate that a super-flexible-continuum is present everywhere in space. Interested member of the forum can develop the theory further. The URL is:
Title of the sub-page is: Holistic Theory of Everything
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Hasmukh K. Tank+May 9 2012, 12:07 PM)
You will find a priliminary attempt to propose Holistic Theory of Everything, based on a postulate that a super-flexible-continuum is present everywhere in space. Interested member of the forum can develop the theory further.

Get with the game, man! Everybody and their dog has a Theory of Everything these days. You're not a REAL fake scientist until you tie it all into aether theory or time-is-not-real theory. For extra points, speculate that the Earth is hollow and the moon is made of cheese.
Maxila
QUOTE (Adam Ledger+May 5 2012, 03:24 AM)
When this experiment was used to support SR( having no need for a medium of propagation and interaction) and the concept of an aether was dismissed, there was an overall assumption made by those prominent at the time that the aether must be rigid and at rest.

I'm not trying to be rude i just need the point i dropped the ball in terms of having to expect these conditions of existence of something.

It seems some people who post here are quick to insist that physics requires no aether, when I have seen more qualified, and established physicists say on PBS documentaries and other science media that QM and other physics seems to imply there may be something or some medium to what we consider empty space. They weren’t proposing a theory or a definitive statement just a different opinion then what some have said absolutely isn’t required here; however their opinion comes with better credentials then most posters here.

Consider that in a discussion I started (not a theory) to explore tying times empirical evidence, to relativistic evidence and a fourth dimensional direction of movement that naturally evolves as Euclidean dimensions of movement do, then the Michelson–Morley experiment and one’s like it, would not be able to detect an aether or “medium” that light could propagate in. For that thought it would be because the Earth behaves relative in motion to the aether as any other moving object with relative motion, so just as time and light from within any reference frame never appears to change. In that thought it would take two clocks, one on Earth and one clock at a distance from the Earth that was still or moved little relative to the Earth as it made multiple orbits to detect a possible aether. Even then it would be time and distance that differed slightly outside the bounds of relativistic predictions as light always appears to move at c.

In any event my point is I have heard some very bright people, who hold a PHD and a credit of accomplishments in physics greater than most posters here, who differ in opinion from those who posted there is absolutely no need for an aether.

Maxila
Mekigal
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 9 2012, 04:35 PM)
Get with the game, man! Everybody and their dog has a Theory of Everything these days. You're not a REAL fake scientist until you tie it all into aether theory or time-is-not-real theory. For extra points, speculate that the Earth is hollow and the moon is made of cheese.

thats funny. How do you know when something is not moving . Relative to what ? Lets say something is stationary . It would need force so how do you tell if it is not moving considering it needs force not to be pulled along gravitational fields. Like swimming up stream on a river . Are you moving if you stay steady with the bank ? If there is no point of reference like the bank how do you know ?
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Mekigal+May 9 2012, 03:53 PM)
How do you know when something is not moving . Relative to what ?

niels
QUOTE (Hasmukh K. Tank+May 9 2012, 04:07 PM)
You will find a priliminary attempt to propose Holistic Theory of Everything, based on a postulate that a super-flexible-continuum is present everywhere in space. Interested member of the forum can develop the theory further. The URL is:
Title of the sub-page is: Holistic Theory of Everything

I am much in line with what you are thinking and claiming however

Superflexible continuum is not an easy concept

One could also say that a super rigid near continuum is the equivalent of the aether.

And I say NEAR continuum because the problems involved when we are dealing with what Bohm refers to as a CHANGING WHOLENESS, is that we are dealing with a concept involving deep paradoxes. Paradoxes that we are facing every time we like to define a kind of particle or entity.

My 2 cents is that physical is noninstantaneous and therefore of discrete nature where entity MUST take a dimension. Infinite and zero do not fit into physical, and when they are being used, the consequence is that all physical theories break down.

This is why I like to refer to particle / entity as Object of Sameness, where form and shape is nondefined, and where the paradox about how to deal with the question about infinitesimal is left unanswered and where the question about existence is accepted as being a paradox where finite and infinite is the mother paradox out from which existence is being born.

One can also say that perceiving takes discretion or one can say that existence takes discretion and discretion cannot be defined by any existing metaphor.

It takes a metaphor to get a metapor and it takes a metric to get a metric

The above cannot be circumvent by human mind.

I read the holistic theory of everything seemlessly, but at the same time I do not think that the above is taken into account.

Motion is a paradox when it comes to smallest and I favor to replace the concept of motion with the concept of reconfiguration in situ in a given frame. Defined and explained in the idea of the 3D Pxel Universe. This idea is NOT related to existing and accepted ideas, and therefore requires a paradigmeshift in order to be comme il faut. And as such put in this special section meant among others as a section where new ideas can be aired.
Mazulu
QUOTE (waitedavid137+May 5 2012, 03:40 PM)
Ok so lets assume for a moment that we need, for waves of quanta as photons per example, an aether in which to propagate. In that case what do electrons propagate in, electronic aether? What do muons propagate in, muonic aether? What do protons propagate in, protonic aether? Suddenly we sure need a whole lot of aethers. Or wait, perhaps the answer consistent with null results like the MM experiment is simpler, that all these waves don't need aethers in which to propagate.

Everything propagates in wave-function aether.

A wave function aether has wave-functions of the form exp[i{kx-wt)] that interconnect with every particle, every quantum system in the wave-function aether. Invariance of c (speed of light) is a characteristic of the wave function medium; light waves propagate at the speed of light because the wave functions obey c = wavelength * frequency.

Wave functions are the building blocks of the quantum vacuum. In the classical limit, the quantum vacuum because space-time continuum, space-time geometry.
waitedavid137
QUOTE (Mazulu+May 9 2012, 08:16 PM)
Everything propagates in wave-function aether.

Nope, differing speed characteristics.
Robittybob1
QUOTE (Mazulu+May 10 2012, 03:16 AM)
Everything propagates in wave-function aether.

Is that like a "one aether fits all" type of aether? Is Aether the same as space? if you have space do you have aether which has a common "density" throughout the Universe?
can you have aether without space?
or space without aether?
Are they virtually the same?
Mazulu
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 10 2012, 03:31 AM)
Is that like a "one aether fits all" type of aether?  Is Aether the same as space?  if you have space do you have aether which has a common "density" throughout the Universe?
can you have aether without space?
or space without aether?
Are they virtually the same?

You've got the right idea. Aether is what gives space its characteristics, its constants (h, c, G, etc...). The laws of physics are a byproduct of the quantum aether. Aether is what connects quantum systems together. Particles, atoms, molecules, virtual photons, protons, electrons, neutrinos and the quantum vacuum are all described with wave-functions. When all of these quantum systems are connected together, they become the luminiferous aether. Wave function aether must also provide the framework for the laws of motion. Inertial (and non inertial) reference frames are mathematical descriptions that can be applied to any particle or group of particles. Particles and groups of particles can be described with wave-functions. The wave function aether ties together all of these quantum wave-function systems with the quantum vacuum which is, itself, a quantum system.

The wave-function aether is not rigid. It is not a gas or a liquid. The wave-function aether is something which interconnects all quantum systems, and something which propagates light.
Mazulu
QUOTE (waitedavid137+May 10 2012, 03:30 AM)
Nope, differing speed characteristics.

The Michelson-Morley experiment ruled out a point particle aether. Quantum entanglement suggests that wave-functions can span between two particles in relative motion. If light propagates along the interconnecting wave-function aether, it would be impossible to measure the relative motion through the aether. A wave function aether, as an Occam's razor candidate for "what causes the laws of physics", would have to adopt characteristics of special and general relativity.

Quantum entanglement could account for "action-at-a-distance" forces, such as gravity. But the wave-function is only a conduit for photons & light. Signaling between two transceivers can only occur at the speed of light, not faster. Quantum entanglement can be used to keep the planets in their orbits, but it cannot be used to signal faster than light. Do you understand this distinction between: correlation (quantum entanglement) versus signalling (using photons)?

David,
The inter-connectivity of wave-functions nullifies "different speed characteristics" and leads to the invariance of the speed of light.
AlexG
Mazulu reads an article in wiki and we're treated to another round of nonsense.
waitedavid137
QUOTE (Mazulu+May 9 2012, 09:59 PM)
The Michelson-Morley experiment ruled out a point particle aether. Quantum entanglement suggests that wave-functions can span between two particles in relative motion. If light propagates along the interconnecting wave-function aether, it would be impossible to measure the relative motion through the aether. A wave function aether, as an Occam's razor candidate for "what causes the laws of physics", would have to adopt characteristics of special and general relativity.

Quantum entanglement could account for "action-at-a-distance" forces, such as gravity. But the wave-function is only a conduit for photons & light. Signaling between two transceivers can only occur at the speed of light, not faster. Quantum entanglement can be used to keep the planets in their orbits, but it cannot be used to signal faster than light. Do you understand this distinction between: correlation (quantum entanglement) versus signalling (using photons)?

David,
The inter-connectivity of wave-functions nullifies "different speed characteristics" and leads to the invariance of the speed of light.

Making up your own words and pretending they mean something related to experiment does not mean that you understand what what was ruled out.
Mazulu
QUOTE (waitedavid137+May 10 2012, 05:19 AM)
Making up your own words and pretending they mean something related to experiment does not mean that you understand what what was ruled out.

What words am I making up?
waitedavid137
QUOTE (Mazulu+May 9 2012, 10:22 PM)
What words am I making up?

point particle aether
wave-function aether
using Occam's razor to mean something it doesn't makes it your own new word
"But the wave-function is only a conduit ..." using wave function to mean something it doesn't makes it your own new word
"Quantum entanglement can be used to keep the planets in their orbits..." using quantum entanglement to mean something it doesn't makes it your own new word
Mazulu
QUOTE (waitedavid137+May 10 2012, 05:44 AM)
point particle aether
wave-function aether
using Occam's razor to mean something it doesn't makes it your own new word
"But the wave-function is only a conduit ..." using wave function to mean something it doesn't makes it your own new word
"Quantum entanglement can be used to keep the planets in their orbits..." using quantum entanglement to mean something it doesn't makes it your own new word

An aether is a medium that carries light through space.

A wave-function aether is an aether made out of wave-functions.

Occam's razor refers to the simplest explanation. I am saying that Standard model particles, which are described with wave-functions, are actually made of a naturally occurring phenomena identical to wave function solutions of quantum mechanics. The laws of physics exist because of these naturally occurring wave functions, and nothing else. Everything: gravity, particles, space-time, quantum vacuum are made of wave-functions, and nothing else.

Quantum entanglement is a strange property of wave functions. It tells us there is a correlation between two quantum systems, event if they are separated by a great distance. I suspect that quantum entanglement will also work if the quantum systems are in relative motion.

Gravity is an "action-at-a-distance" force. Quantum entanglement is a property of wave-functions that gives them the ability to exert "action-at-a-distance" forces. How nature using "correlation" to achieve a long range force like gravity is too difficult to prove mathematically. Qualitatively, space-time itself, in the quantum limit, is the quantum vacuum.

You asked how a wave-function can behave as a conduit for light. In the two slit experiment, there is a wave amplitude whose modulus can be used to calculate where probabilities will land. That wave amplitude exists as a real phenomena. When the photons are emitted, they travel, as a wave, through the slits and are detected at one of the possible eigenstates.
Mazulu
Here are two interesting articles that consider whether wave-functions are somehow real phenomena.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3328v2.pdf

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.3575v1.pdf
brucep
QUOTE (Mazulu+May 10 2012, 05:22 AM)
What words am I making up?

So you're going to continue with the same delusional nonsense that you were suspended for? You're just trolling this forum.
Mazulu
QUOTE (brucep+May 10 2012, 07:58 PM)
So you're going to continue with the same delusional nonsense that you were suspended for? You're just trolling this forum.

You are intellectually dishonest! I've been telling you that wave-functions are a real phenomena of nature. Now the physics community is exploring that. I have to articles to support that opinion. Why don't you

Go on! Use your tactics of distraction! That's what you're good at.
niels
QUOTE (Mazulu+May 10 2012, 06:11 AM)
An aether is a medium that carries light through space.

A wave-function aether is an aether made out of wave-functions.

Occam's razor refers to the simplest explanation. I am saying that Standard model particles, which are described with wave-functions, are actually made of a naturally occurring phenomena identical to wave function solutions of quantum mechanics. The laws of physics exist because of these naturally occurring wave functions, and nothing else. Everything: gravity, particles, space-time, quantum vacuum are made of wave-functions, and nothing else.

Quantum entanglement is a strange property of wave functions. It tells us there is a correlation between two quantum systems, event if they are separated by a great distance. I suspect that quantum entanglement will also work if the quantum systems are in relative motion.

Gravity is an "action-at-a-distance" force. Quantum entanglement is a property of wave-functions that gives them the ability to exert "action-at-a-distance" forces. How nature using "correlation" to achieve a long range force like gravity is too difficult to prove mathematically. Qualitatively, space-time itself, in the quantum limit, is the quantum vacuum.

You asked how a wave-function can behave as a conduit for light. In the two slit experiment, there is a wave amplitude whose modulus can be used to calculate where probabilities will land. That wave amplitude exists as a real phenomena. When the photons are emitted, they travel, as a wave, through the slits and are detected at one of the possible eigenstates.

How to imagine a wave function without having particle at hand ?

How to imagine change and motion without having particle (discretion) at hand ?

I am in favor of most of what you are thinking, and it is in line with the 3D pixel universe, but we face deep paradoxes relating to zero and infinite.
brucep
QUOTE (Mazulu+May 10 2012, 08:04 PM)
You are intellectually dishonest! I've been telling you that wave-functions are a real phenomena of nature. Now the physics community is exploring that. I have to articles to support that opinion. Why don't you

Go on! Use your tactics of distraction! That's what you're good at.

Those are interesting papers but it has nothing to do with your delusional ideas. Claims of intellectual dishonesty coming from a delusional miscreant pariah is entertaining.
brucep
QUOTE (niels+May 10 2012, 08:42 PM)
How to imagine a wave function without having particle at hand ?

How to imagine change and motion without having particle (discretion) at hand ?

I am in favor of most of what you are thinking, and it is in line with the 3D pixel universe, but we face deep paradoxes relating to zero and infinite.

You sound just like the banned member bukh. I'm thinking you're the bukh sock puppet.
Mazulu
QUOTE (niels+May 10 2012, 08:42 PM)
How to imagine a wave function without having particle at hand ?

How to imagine change and motion without having particle (discretion) at hand ?

I am in favor of most of what you are thinking, and it is in line with the 3D pixel universe, but we face deep paradoxes relating to zero and infinite.

A pixel universe, like Galilean motion, is logical, intuitive, and unfortunately not the way nature behaves. If we did live in a pixel universe, then the M&M experiment would have determined our motion through the point-like pixel lattice structure.

Instead, we live in a universe in which all motion is relative to the motion of other objects, and also relative to the speed of light, beta = v/c. There are lots of pictures of wave-functions that you can Google; most of them are pictures of waves. As a visual, imagine the ocean and the waves breaking upon the beach. The beach represents the quantum system of the particle. The waves that break upon the beach represent c = wavelength * frequency which is observed as an invariant for all particles. Imagine there are other beaches out there that represent other particles, other quantum systems. Those other beaches can be moving relative to your beach, your particle. Those other beaches may be moving relativistically. The ocean that spans between you and the other beaches is the mysterious aether medium, it is the quantum vacuum of space-time. What happens in this vast ocean will result in time dilation and length contraction between your beach and other beaches. But the exact details of how this ocean of wave-functions upholds c as an invariant remains mysterious.
brucep
QUOTE (Mazulu+May 10 2012, 09:11 PM)
A pixel universe, like Galilean motion, is logical, intuitive, and unfortunately not the way nature behaves.  If we did live in a pixel universe, then the M&M experiment would have determined our motion through the point-like pixel lattice structure.

Instead, we live in a universe in which all motion is relative to the motion of other objects, and also relative to the speed of light, beta = v/c.  There are lots of pictures of wave-functions that you can Google; most of them are pictures of waves.  As a visual, imagine the ocean and the waves breaking upon the beach.  The beach represents the quantum system of the particle.  The waves that break upon the beach represent c = wavelength * frequency which is observed as an invariant for all particles.  Imagine there are other beaches out there that represent other particles, other quantum systems.  Those other beaches can be moving relative to your beach, your particle.  Those other beaches may be moving relativistically.  The ocean that spans between you and the other beaches is the mysterious aether medium, it is the quantum vacuum of space-time.  What happens in this vast ocean  will result in time dilation and length contraction between your beach and other beaches.  But the exact details of how this ocean of wave-functions upholds c as an invariant remains mysterious.

Complete nonsense. Quit trolling the forum pretending you understand physics. You're a card carrying ignoramus. Specifically for disrespecting the literature in the most egregious manner. Over your entire posting history. IE ignoring the literature which conflicts with your world view. You know, all of it.
Mazulu
QUOTE (brucep+May 10 2012, 09:38 PM)
Complete nonsense. Quit trolling the forum pretending you understand physics. You're a card carrying ignoramus. Specifically for disrespecting the literature in the most egregious manner. Over your entire posting history.

I used the ocean as a metaphor to describe the quantum waves that fill the quantum vacuum. When a particle emits a photon, energy E=hf is transmitted as a wave through the "ocean of quantum waves" to wherever it's going. Quantum waves become real waves (real photons or measurable quantum systems) when they are energized.
brucep
QUOTE (Mazulu+May 10 2012, 09:47 PM)
I used the ocean as a metaphor to describe the quantum waves that fill the quantum vacuum. When a particle emits a photon, energy E=hf is transmitted as a wave through the "ocean of quantum waves" to wherever it's going. Quantum waves become real waves (real photons or measurable quantum systems) when they are energized.

You're an idiot way beyond any one analogy. It's your lack of intellectual honesty which allows you to pretend. You've wasted any opportunity to learn based on the need to blow smoke up your own a\$\$. The conversation you had with David on warp physics was pathetic. You're just continuing with the nonsense which got you suspended. In the past doing that gets you banned.
Mazulu
QUOTE (brucep+May 10 2012, 10:00 PM)
You're an idiot way beyond any one analogy. It's your lack of intellectual honesty which allows you to pretend. You've wasted any opportunity to learn based on the need to blow smoke up your own a\$\$. The conversation you had with David on warp physics was pathetic. You're just continuing with the nonsense which got you suspended. In the past doing that gets you banned.

If all you can make are ad hominem personal attacks, then I conclude that you cannot refute my interpretation/metaphor.

I interpret quantum wave functions to be a real manifestation of nature. The quantum vacuum is an ocean of wave functions. When you look at the ocean from far enough away, you no longer see the waves. You begin to see the curvature of the planet. In a similar way, the waves of the quantum vacuum are no longer visible from the classical view point, all you see is the curvature of the space-time continuum.

If wave-functions are a real phenomena of nature, then the next step is to demonstrate that the interval between two events, in a coordinate system, can be described with a wave function. The idea is to identify the wave function that causes a gravity field, and curvature of space-time. If we can copy that wave-function using light emissions, then we are on our way to generating a gravity field.

brucep
QUOTE (Mazulu+May 11 2012, 12:33 AM)
If all you can make are ad hominem personal attacks, then I conclude that you cannot refute my interpretation/metaphor.

I interpret quantum wave functions to be a real manifestation of nature. The quantum vacuum is an ocean of wave functions. When you look at the ocean from far enough away, you no longer see the waves. You begin to see the curvature of the planet. In a similar way, the waves of the quantum vacuum are no longer visible from the classical view point, all you see is the curvature of the space-time continuum.

If wave-functions are a real phenomena of nature, then the next step is to demonstrate that the interval between two events, in a coordinate system, can be described with a wave function. The idea is to identify the wave function that causes a gravity field, and curvature of space-time. If we can copy that wave-function using light emissions, then we are on our way to generating a gravity field.

I'm just hoping you keep up the nonsense. The main nonsense is this delusional need to pretend you're a physicist. And that these 'sandbox' ideas of yours make sense just because you think so. You're a intellectually dishonest, tool less, cheeky punk in need of some 'wood shedding'.
Mazulu
QUOTE (brucep+May 11 2012, 01:05 AM)
I'm just hoping you keep up the nonsense. The main nonsense is this delusional need to pretend you're a physicist. And that these 'sandbox' ideas of yours make sense just because you think so. You're a intellectually dishonest, tool less, cheeky punk in need of some 'wood shedding'.

You don't explain why you think it's nonsense. And then you resort to more personal attacks. How can you call me intellectually dishonest when I cite articles, like this one, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3328v2.pdf
called, Direct Measurement of the Quantum Wavefunction.

They are using a method called
quantum tomography to reconstruct the quantum state (density matrix) for a source of quantum systems by measurements on the systems coming from the source.

It's an interesting way to try to prove the existence of the quantum wave function. But I still don't understand what you're crying about.
brucep
QUOTE (Mazulu+May 11 2012, 01:26 AM)
You don't explain why you think it's nonsense.  And then you resort to more personal attacks.  How can you call me intellectually dishonest when I cite articles, like this one, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3328v2.pdf
called, Direct Measurement of the Quantum Wavefunction.

They are using a method called
quantum tomography to reconstruct the quantum state (density matrix) for a source of quantum systems by measurements on the systems coming from the source.

It's an interesting way to try to prove the existence of the quantum wave function.  But I still don't understand what you're crying about.

The papers you linked are interesting. You wouldn't recognize the physics if it walked up and kicked you in the balls. Citing those experiments doesn't support any of the bullshit you've been spewing. You've had a long opportunity to pull your head out of your a\$\$. You've returned to the forum with it still stuck between your a\$\$cheeks. If you don't understand why I think you're clueless it's probably because you are.
Mazulu
QUOTE (brucep+May 11 2012, 03:26 AM)
The papers you linked are interesting. You wouldn't recognize the physics if it walked up and kicked you in the balls. Citing those experiments doesn't support any of the bullshit you've been spewing. You've had a long opportunity to pull your head out of your a\$\$. You've returned to the forum with it still stuck between your a\$\$cheeks. If you don't understand why I think you're clueless it's probably because you are.

Somewhere amidst that spiteful communication, you used the word: interesting. Let's start there. The article abstract says that they use tomographic methods to estimate the wave-function that is most consistent with a diverse collection of measurements.

QUOTE (Direct Measurement of the Quantum Wavefunction+)
The result is that the real and imaginary components of the wavefunction appear directly on our measurement apparatus.

If one wave-function is proven to be real, then can we say that all wave-functions are real? While we wait for confirmation that the wave-function is real, I need to find you a paper that tells you what the wave-function is for empty space.
Mazulu
I found this article that relates the Lamb effect to quantum fluctuations of the curvature of space-time.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2015v1.pdf

No, I don't understand a word of it, yet. But I know that it connects the Lamb effect to the curvature of space-time. I need to do that to prove that wave-function of the Lamb effect are connected to space-time curvature.
niels
QUOTE (Mazulu+May 10 2012, 09:11 PM)
A pixel universe, like Galilean motion, is logical, intuitive, and unfortunately not the way nature behaves. If we did live in a pixel universe, then the M&M experiment would have determined our motion through the point-like pixel lattice structure.

Instead, we live in a universe in which all motion is relative to the motion of other objects, and also relative to the speed of light, beta = v/c. There are lots of pictures of wave-functions that you can Google; most of them are pictures of waves. As a visual, imagine the ocean and the waves breaking upon the beach. The beach represents the quantum system of the particle. The waves that break upon the beach represent c = wavelength * frequency which is observed as an invariant for all particles. Imagine there are other beaches out there that represent other particles, other quantum systems. Those other beaches can be moving relative to your beach, your particle. Those other beaches may be moving relativistically. The ocean that spans between you and the other beaches is the mysterious aether medium, it is the quantum vacuum of space-time. What happens in this vast ocean will result in time dilation and length contraction between your beach and other beaches. But the exact details of how this ocean of wave-functions upholds c as an invariant remains mysterious.

Physical is about how we humans, perhaps better to say our minds, interfere with cosmos and translate this interference into what we can call a vivid impression of a real physical world.

Observer is made of the same stuff as cosmos, and on the bottom line it is about how part of cosmos (human mind) perceive (interfere with) surrounding cosmos. The 3D pixel universe idea is about how everything best can be seen as information, and how information takes a physical disguise (body and shape) in order for us to define and explain physical. The cornerstone in the idea is how information bit is being seen in the form of a pixel.

Insight and understanding is being founded on metaphores, and physics is no better than the metaphores being used.

One of the greatest challenges in physics is how best to establish the impression of a solid existing physical world that at the same time show change. The ideas of Bohm IMO is important in this context.

The metaphor being used in any and all kind of mainstream physics is entity (particle), and yet it is not possible to define the nature of a particle without not approaching deep philiosophical problems (paradoxes).

The idea behind the 3D pixel universe is that the entity which I call a pixel, is a metaphor that desrcibes something that can be diluted infinitely into smaller and smaller and yet never be translated into zero, implicating that scaling is an infinite process. This at the same time implicate that physical is of discrete nature. I like to say that perceiving requires the existence of discretion.

And Yes, all motion is relative, we are not in a position to define a final rest frame. In order for something to be brought into a physical context, a proper rest frame must be established. And a proper rest frame is being constructed out from a principle of proper accuracy. The accuracy of perceiving into a physical context is being limited by human physical senses. The accuracy threshold for human physical senses is photon/electron (future may reveal other physical qualities that can be used, perhaps in a form of a graviton metaphor). This is why I say that Einstein was wise enough to select photon as the understanding and describing and explaining metaphor of physical world.

IMO it is the behavior of cosmos (quantum aether) that express to our mind senses the impression of existences of socalled particles, and we use both particle and wave as our understanding physical metaphors. One cannot have a particle without a wave metaphor and one cannot have a wave without a particle metaphor. This is just another way of expressing the infinite dilution and embrace the deep paradox of existence. This is why my pixel is being defined as it is.

We will never learn how nature behaves, the best we can aim at is to establish understanding metaphores that give rise to the least paradoxes.

Earth is not drifting through aether and thereby distorting the motion of aether, it is the other way round, aether motion is configuring the earth to our perceiving physical senses. The MM experiment nicely confirm this.

The 3D pixel universe idea desribes how the ocean (the quantum aether) upholds c as a cosmic invariant, where c is the propagational speed of information through the cosmic aether. Speed of light is the reconfiguration time of the information Qbit of photon x the physical size of the reconfiguring repetitive wavestructure of photon. And on the fundamental level there is a 1 to 1 relationship between reconfiguration time and size of repetitive wave structure.
Hasmukh K. Tank
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 9 2012, 04:35 PM)
Get with the game, man! Everybody and their dog has a Theory of Everything these days. You're not a REAL fake scientist until you tie it all into aether theory or time-is-not-real theory. For extra points, speculate that the Earth is hollow and the moon is made of cheese.

Number one, I donot need extra points suggested by others to work on.

Two, there were days when saying that: I understand General Relativity, and agree with it; was believed to be impressive, but the days have changed.

Can you answer this question: When space is a void extension of nothingness, then what does its 'getting curved' or 'bent' mean ? Bending of nothingness? What does 'expansion-of-space' means, 'expansion-of-nothingness'? If the planets are just moving in "straight line" in the "curved space", then, like we in our car running on curved hilly-surface can take a coffee-break , can the planets take a coffee-break? If not, then saying that: planets are moving in "straight" line in "curved" space is nothing less than 'absurd'.

You may be aware that in the recently-published-papers in Physical Review-D, Physical Review Letters, scientists have found that separating "time' from 'space' is more realistic. Four-dimentional 'Space-Time-Continuum' is becoming out of fashion day by day.

I know, there are some members in this forum, who grasp the innovetive ideas and then discourage the originator by humiliating him. Here again, old days are gone, no one can suppress innovative good ideas; because there are many media.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Hasmukh K. Tank+May 11 2012, 07:02 AM)
Can you answer this question: When space is a void extension of nothingness, then what does its 'getting curved' or 'bent' mean ? Bending of nothingness? What does 'expansion-of-space' means, 'expansion-of-nothingness'? If the planets are just moving in "straight line" in the "curved space", then, like we in our car running on curved hilly-surface can take a coffee-break , can the planets take a coffee-break? If not, then saying that: planets are moving in "straight" line in "curved" space is nothing less than 'absurd'.

Your failure of imagination is not a failure of science.
krash661
It makes sense to me..the definition of time is, a measurement of distance of space,so why couldn't it be separated.
Mazulu
QUOTE (krash661+May 11 2012, 05:04 PM)
It makes sense to me..the definition of time is, a measurement of distance of space,so why couldn't it be separated.

How can you separate space from time anymore than you can separate wavelength of light from its frequency?
krash661
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 11 2012, 02:04 PM)
Your failure of imagination is not a failure of science.

IMO, what if space, and planets are nothing more than a nano element ( 10 to the negative10000000000000000000000000000th power or more) and planets are some kind of atom .
krash661
QUOTE (Mazulu+May 11 2012, 05:06 PM)
How can you separate space from time anymore than you can separate wavelength of light from its frequency?

isn't a frequency a wave ?why couldn't you separate a wave ? just because technology is not provided to, does not mean it could not occur.its a matter of discovery.
Mazulu
QUOTE (krash661+May 11 2012, 05:04 PM)
It makes sense to me..the definition of time is, a measurement of distance of space,so why couldn't it be separated.

What does it mean to separate space from time?
krash661
I'm sorry this post was supposed to be in the topic of
Separating Time From Space, makes sense
krash661
QUOTE (Mazulu+May 11 2012, 09:51 AM)
What does it mean to separate space from time?

look, space is an unexplainable existence,we use time(the flow of it in a direction) to measure this existence.if time is just a flow of measurement,why couldn't that flow be separated from a specific direction, whats to say the flow of direction is accurate?if space is bent and the direction is straight,wouldn't that be a separation of some sort?
krash661
is there a way to move my post to the right topic?
Mekigal
QUOTE (krash661+May 11 2012, 05:10 PM)
IMO, what if space, and planets are nothing more than a nano element ( 10 to the negative10000000000000000000000000000th power or more) and planets are some kind of atom .

i'm good with that, or to say the idea of it , not necessarily the numbers you use , but the concept our universe is a segment of something bigger . Probably more of the same or another dimension with different rules do to the more extreme of the forces . Me and my class mates in the third grade proposed this to our 3rd. grade teacher and well we was shot in the back real quick . I have not been able to let it go though and still think it is the case . Mainly because of the cartoons we would watch in the day proposed it that way to us so you know being like Micky Mouse , There you go , can't let it go
krash661
QUOTE (Mekigal+May 11 2012, 11:33 AM)
i'm good with that, or to say the idea of it , not necessarily the numbers you use , but the concept our universe is a segment of something bigger . Probably more of the same or another dimension with different rules do to the more extreme of the forces . Me and my class mates in the third grade proposed this to our 3rd. grade teacher and well we was shot in the back real quick . I have not been able to let it go though and still think it is the case . Mainly because of the cartoons we would watch in the day proposed it that way to us so you know being like Micky Mouse , There you go , can't let it go

yeah, that number was just an example, but you get my thought.cool, I'm new at this stuff, but it interest me to the fullest, i love physics,quantum mechanics,relativity,calculus and such, i have thoughts and such that people around me did not/don't understand,i thought i was weird then i discovered physics and such.to me it seems like our solar system and such are like molecules and maybe their behaviors.
Mazulu
QUOTE (krash661+May 11 2012, 06:04 PM)
look, space is an unexplainable existence,we use time(the flow of it in a direction) to measure this existence.if time is just a flow of measurement,why couldn't that flow be separated from a specific direction, whats to say the flow of direction is accurate?if space is bent and the direction is straight,wouldn't that be a separation of some sort?

I measure time all the time. I have to be at work at 2pm on Mon through Thurs. I have to allocate travel time of 45 minutes each way. The other day I measured my doorway to be 30 inches wide because I had to move a desk through it. So there you go: time measurements separated from space measurements.

But if you are referring to general relativity, then you have an interval between two events in some coordinate system. Each of those events has a definite x,y,z and ct position in the space-time continuum. So if you're doing relativity, then you can't separate space from time.
krash661
QUOTE (Mazulu+May 11 2012, 12:50 PM)
I measure time all the time.  I have to be at work at 2pm on Mon through Thurs.  I have to allocate travel time of 45 minutes each way.  The other day I measured my doorway to be 30 inches wide because I had to move a desk through it.  So there you go:  time measurements separated from space measurements.

But if you are referring to general relativity, then you have an interval between two events in some coordinate system.  Each of those events has a definite x,y,z and ct position in the space-time continuum.  So if you're doing relativity, then you can't separate space from time.

I'm not referring it to any thing, its an open thought as it's own entity, look if " time " (by definition ) only exist because humanity says it does and also as a measurement, we only know of it as a flow,well what kind of flow?try to think about it as a non measurement. then who's to say its accurate and not separated already,a measurement is only as good as the source, surface and tool used.Einstein had written " at some point humanity will exceed to the point of no need for a body , the mind will come to pure energy ". [Moderator: Citation required] think about what space has to do with energy. space is basically in uniform state, time is not, its acted upon by some kind of inertia (the flow/movement of) so is it not already separate?at the same time does time need something like space in order to exist or is it the space that creates the inertia?Also, what is space?, a entity of nothing? or maybe something we can not see as human cause our brains only allow 3rd dimension.space and time are only correlated cause humanity says it is.maybe we just havent discovered the separation of it yet.
Mazulu
QUOTE (krash661+May 11 2012, 09:18 PM)
I'm not referring it to any thing, its an open thought as it's own entity, look if " time "  (by definition ) only exist because humanity says it does and also as a measurement, we only know of it as a flow,well what  kind of flow?try to think about it as a non measurement. then who's to say its accurate and not separated already,a measurement is only as good as the source, surface and tool used.Einstein had written " at some point humanity will exceed to the point of no need for a body , the mind will come to pure energy ". think about what space has to do with energy. space is basically in uniform state, time is not, its acted upon by some kind of inertia (the flow/movement of) so is it not already separate?at the same time does time need something like space in order to exist or is it the space that creates the inertia?Also, what is space?, a entity of nothing? or maybe something we can not see as human cause our brains only allow 3rd dimension.space and time are only correlated cause humanity says it is.maybe we just havent discovered the separation of it yet.

I remember this kind of philosophical thinking with great fondness. But in the battleground of ideas, I got pummeled every time I drifted away from measurable results. As for time, one second is well defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

Likewise, one meter is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1 ⁄ 299,792,458 of a second.

Don't ever let the bad men brainwash you.
krash661
Can someone tell me what this means in my post,

" [Moderator: Citation required] "
rpenner
You have said that Einstein said exactly the words you have quoted. "Citation Required" means that you must demonstrate when and when Einstein wrote/said those words or retract the claim he said anything like that.
krash661
QUOTE (rpenner+May 11 2012, 02:07 PM)
You have said that Einstein said exactly the words you have quoted. "Citation Required" means that you must demonstrate when and when Einstein wrote/said those words or retract the claim he said anything like that.

oh, well those are not his exact words, but it's in all those Albert Einstein books, " Ideas and Opinions " I read it in the one that's called " Introduction by Alan Lightman
rpenner
The Introduction by Alan Lightman in the 1994 edition of "Ideas and Opinions" is only 4 pages long and doesn't begin to express anything like in your purported quote, let alone attribute it to Einstein.

krash661
QUOTE (rpenner+May 11 2012, 02:38 PM)
The Introduction by Alan Lightman in the 1994 edition of "Ideas and Opinions" is only 4 pages long and doesn't begin to express anything like in your purported quote, let alone attribute it to Einstein.

well the one i read is 418 pages.
krash661
QUOTE (rpenner+May 11 2012, 02:38 PM)
The Introduction by Alan Lightman in the 1994 edition of "Ideas and Opinions" is only 4 pages long and doesn't begin to express anything like in your purported quote, let alone attribute it to Einstein.

So how do i edit my post then?
Jan Peter Apel
The Michelson experiment is imperfect. It was measured only horizontally. But the ether flows vertically into the ground. This proves the gravitational time dilation. It has exactly the value of the escape speed of the Earth.
Äther permeating matter. This is the cause of the emergence of time dilation.
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.