Can I ask you to show your math for all this?
The math already exists in general relativity and de Broglie wave mechanics. I have figured out what curved spacetime physically exists as.
‘Comment on higher derivative Lagrangians in relativistic theory’
*“The relativistic theory of an Aether was discussed several time, see for e.g. [8], [9]. In this paper, our hypothesis is different and gives a relativistic theory of the deformation of continuous media (for which the geometry is described by the metric field).” *
The Milky Way’s halo is the deformation of continuous media.
The Milky Way’s halo is the state of displacement of the aether.
What is referred to as the curvature of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.
The pseudo-force associated with curved spacetime is the force associated with the displaced aether.
The following article describes the aether as that which produces resistance to acceleration and is responsible for the increase in mass of an object with velocity and describes the “space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity.”
‘On parallels between electromagnetic and fluidic inertia’
“It is shown that the force exerted on a particle by an ideal fluid produces two effects: i) resistance to acceleration and, ii) an increase of mass with velocity. … The interaction between the particle and the entrained space flow gives rise to the observed properties of inertia and the relativistic increase of mass. … Accordingly, in this framework the non resistance of a particle in uniform motion through an ideal fluid (D’Alembert’s paradox) corresponds to Newton’s first law. The law of inertia suggests that the physical vacuum can be modeled as an ideal fluid, agreeing with the space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity.”
The relativistic mass of an object is the mass of the object and the mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the object which is displaced by the object. The faster an object moves with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists the greater the displacement of the aether by the object the greater the relativistic mass of the object.
The incompressible fluid described in the following article is the gravitational aether which “the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid.”
‘Empty Black Holes, Firewalls, and the Origin of Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy’
*"But why an incompressible fluid? The reason comes from an attempt to solve the (old) cosmological constant problem, which is arguably the most puzzling aspect of coupling gravity to relativistic quantum mechanics [13]. Given that the natural expectation value for the vacuum of the standard model of particle physics is ∼ 60 orders of magnitude heavier than the gravitational measurements of vacuum density, it is reasonable to entertain an alternative theory of gravity where the standard model vacuum decouples from gravity. Such a theory could be realized by coupling gravity to the traceless part of the quantum mechanical energy-momentum tensor. However, the consistency/covariance of gravitational field equations then requires introducing an auxiliary fluid, the so-called gravitational aether [14]. The simplest model for gravitational aether is an incompressible fluid (with vanishing energy density, but non-vanishing pressure), which is currently consistent with all cosmological, astrophysical, and precision tests of gravity [15, 16]:
3
32πGN Gμν = Tμν − Tα gμν + Tμν ,
Tμν = p (uμ uν + gμν ), T μν;ν = 0,
where GN is Newton’s constant, Tμν is the matter energy momentum tensor and Tμν is the incompressible gravitational aether fluid. In vacuum, the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."*
The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid, which is described in the following article as the ‘fluidic’ nature of space itself. The article describes a ‘back reaction’ associated with the ‘fluidic’ nature of space itself. This is the displaced aether ‘displacing back’.
‘An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction’
“We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide further evidence of the “fluidic” nature of space itself. This “back-reaction” is quantified by the tendency of angular momentum flux threading across a surface.”
It does, in fact, that’s the definition of a hidden variable theory: position and velocity (more accurately, momentum) are complementary quantities in quantum theory, that is, there is an uncertainty relation governing the accuracy to which they can be known. Any theory that stipulates that they are more finely determined than the uncertainty relation allows, proposes that there are quantities that are well defined, but inaccessible to experiment; in other words, hidden variables.
There explicitly is in the de Broglie formulation of quantum mechanics. Here is a paper (PDF link) by David Bohm and Basil Hiley (you’ll note, written after the one by de Broglie you keep linking to) that explicitly exhibits the non-local character of the double-solution theory. I quote from the abstract:
[QUOTE=Bohm/Hiley]
We briefly review the history of de Broglie’s notion of the “double solution” and of the ideas which developed from this. We then go on to an extension of these ideas to the many-body system, and bring out the nonloeality implied in such an
extension.
[/QUOTE]
As I said, the formulation in the paper by de Broglie has an apparently local character only because he never considers the many body case; but this case of course must be covered, and as soon as one does so, the non-locality becomes explicit.
So let’s say this is the truth. Then, we can consider the spin measurements by two parties, Alice (A) and Bob (B); each of them receives one of the photons, and each of them has a measurement apparatus that can measure the spin along either of two directions, a[sub]1[/sub] and a[sub]2[/sub] for Alice, and b[sub]1[/sub] and b[sub]2[/sub] for Bob. For each measurement, they note ‘+1’ if the experiment found the spin to be ‘up’ along the direction they were measuring, and ‘-1’ if it found it to be ‘down’. They repeat the experiment many times, meet afterwards, and calculate the quantity:
C = a[sub]1[/sub](b[sub]1[/sub] + b[sub]2[/sub]) + a[sub]2[/sub](b[sub]1[/sub] - b[sub]2[/sub])
This quantity is clearly always smaller than 2: either, the measurement along b[sub]1[/sub] and b[sub]2[/sub] yielded the same result, in which case, if both were ‘up’, the first term yields 2 if a[sub]1[/sub] produced ‘up’ as well, and -2 if a[sub]1[/sub] produced ‘down’, and the second term is zero; or, if both b[sub]1[/sub] and b[sub]2[/sub] yielded ‘down’, the first term yields -2 if a[sub]2[/sub] produced an outcome of ‘up’, and 2 if its outcome was ‘down’, while again the second term (containing in brackets the expression -1 - (-1)) vanishes. If, on the other hand, the measurement of b[sub]1[/sub] and b[sub]2[/sub] disagrees, such that one is +1, and the other -1, then always the first term vanishes, and the second term is either 2 or -2. Thus, if we rewrite C, we get:
C = **a[sub]1[/sub]**b[sub]1[/sub] + **a[sub]1[/sub]**b[sub]2[/sub] + **a[sub]2[/sub]**b[sub]1[/sub] - **a[sub]2[/sub]**b[sub]2[/sub] ≤ 2
Additionally, since this holds for every single performance of the experiment, it also holds for the average over all repetitions (the average of a lot of numbers ≤ 2 will also be ≤ 2). Denoting this averaging by angle brackets <C>, we have:
<C> = <a[sub]1[/sub]****b[sub]1[/sub]> + <a[sub]1[/sub]****b[sub]2[/sub]> + <a[sub]2[/sub]****b[sub]1[/sub]> - <a[sub]2[/sub]****b[sub]2[/sub]> ≤ 2
Note that in this derivation, two assumptions have been made: 1. each photon has a uniquely defined direction of polarization, which is what you have stipulated; and 2. the performance of a measurement on one side does not influence what happens on the other (this is the locality requirement). From these assumption, the above inequality, known as the CHSH inequality, follows necessarily.
Yet, experiment shows that it is not obeyed in reality: values greater than two have been experimentally observed, consistent with the expectation from quantum theory that one can reach a maximum value of <C> = 2*√2. Thus, one of the assumptions going into the derivation—either that of photons having a well-defined polarization at all times, i.e. there being a fixed, predetermined value that the experiments a[sub]1[/sub], a[sub]2[/sub], b[sub]1[/sub] and b[sub]2[/sub] merely uncover, or that of locality, such that measurements on Bob’s side influence those on Alice’s and vice versa—has to be wrong (of course, both can be wrong, too). There’s really no weaseling out of this.
In any case, I realize I’m probably just wasting my time here. But on the off-chance anything of this gets through to you, that maybe you realize that all of this is stuff you hadn’t thought of before and thus, that your conclusions merely follow from your having incomplete information, I just would like you to consider the possibility that the answer to your earlier question about why mainstream physicists don’t ‘understand’/accept your ideas might be that they’re simply wrong. Be scientific here: it’s the minimal hypothesis that explains your observations.
“Later, de Broglie gave up his hidden variables theory and became a defender of the quantum orthodoxy as defined by the Copenhagen-Göttingen camp. Only when David Bohm revived his trajectories in 1952, de Broglie returned to his 1927 ideas, still arguing against Bohmian mechanics, in favor of his “double solution” concept which he never made precise mathematically.”
Which is the reason for de Broglie’s double solution.
Explain what the “new dark force” is in the following. Can’t can you? Doesn’t stop you from thinking you know what your talking about though.
‘Galactic Pile-Up May Point to Mysterious New Dark Force in the Universe - Wired Science’
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...ll-dark-force/
“The reason this is strange is that dark matter is thought to barely interact with itself. The dark matter should just coast through itself and move at the same speed as the hardly interacting galaxies. Instead, it looks like the dark matter is crashing into something — perhaps itself – and slowing down faster than the galaxies are. But this would require the dark matter to be able to interact with itself in a completely new an unexpected way, a “dark force” that affects only dark matter.”
A “new dark force” is unnecessary and more evidence of how screwed up mainstream physics is. The galaxy clusters are moving through and displacing the mass of ‘empty’ space, analogous to the bow waves of two boats which pass by each other very closely.
It is the mass of ‘empty’ space which piles up.
Explain why there is an offset between the light lensing through the mass which does not constitute the particles of matter and the particles of matter themselves. Can’t can you? Doesn’t stop you from thinking you know what your talking about though.
‘Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies’
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...004.1475v1.pdf
“Our data strongly support the idea that the gravitational potential in clusters is mainly due to a non-baryonic fluid, and any exotic field in gravitational theory must resemble that of CDM fields very closely.”
The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether. The analogy is a submarine moving through the water. You are under water. Two miles away from you are many lights. Moving between you and the lights one mile away is a submarine. The submarine displaces the water. The state of displacement of the water causes the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water to be offset from the center of the submarine itself. The offset between the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water displaced by the submarine and the center of the submarine itself is going to remain the same as the submarine moves through the water. The submarine continually displaces different regions of the water. The state of the water connected to and neighboring the submarine remains the same as the submarine moves through the water even though it is not the same water the submarine continually displaces. This is what is occurring physically in nature as the galaxy clusters move through and displace the aether.
You have to be trying to not understand what occurs physically in nature to not understand ‘empty’ space has mass.
All of the nonsense associated with mainstream physics goes away once you understand ‘empty’ space has mass.
In any case, I realize I’m probably just wasting my time here. But on the off-chance anything of this gets through to you, aether has mass.
Q. Does space have mass?
A. Yes.
If you think the answer is no then explain what the “new dark force” is or why there is an offset between the light lensing through the space neighboring the galaxy clusters and the galaxy clusters themselves.
If you can’t answer either then maybe it’s you who doesn’t know what they are talking about.
‘Galactic Pile-Up May Point to Mysterious New Dark Force in the Universe - Wired Science’
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...ll-dark-force/
“The reason this is strange is that dark matter is thought to barely interact with itself. The dark matter should just coast through itself and move at the same speed as the hardly interacting galaxies. Instead, it looks like the dark matter is crashing into something — perhaps itself – and slowing down faster than the galaxies are. But this would require the dark matter to be able to interact with itself in a completely new an unexpected way, a “dark force” that affects only dark matter.”
A “new dark force” is unnecessary and more evidence of how screwed up mainstream physics is. The galaxy clusters are moving through and displacing the mass of ‘empty’ space, analogous to the bow waves of two boats which pass by each other very closely.
It is the mass of ‘empty’ space which piles up.
‘Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies’
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...004.1475v1.pdf
*“Our data strongly support the idea that the gravitational potential in clusters is mainly due to a non-baryonic fluid, and any exotic field in gravitational theory must resemble that of CDM fields very closely.” *
The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether. The analogy is a submarine moving through the water. You are under water. Two miles away from you are many lights. Moving between you and the lights one mile away is a submarine. The submarine displaces the water. The state of displacement of the water causes the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water to be offset from the center of the submarine itself. The offset between the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water displaced by the submarine and the center of the submarine itself is going to remain the same as the submarine moves through the water. The submarine continually displaces different regions of the water. The state of the water connected to and neighboring the submarine remains the same as the submarine moves through the water even though it is not the same water the submarine continually displaces. This is what is occurring physically in nature as the galaxy clusters move through and displace the aether.
You have to be trying to not understand what occurs physically in nature to not understand ‘empty’ space has mass.
All of the nonsense associated with mainstream physics goes away once you understand ‘empty’ space has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by particles of matter.
Maybe I haven’t been reading them closely enough, but mpc755’s responses have yet to pass the Turing test in my opinion.
Q. Does space have mass?
A. Yes.
If you think the answer is no then explain what the “new dark force” is or why there is an offset between the light lensing through the space neighboring the galaxy clusters and the galaxy clusters themselves.
If you can’t answer either then maybe it’s you who doesn’t know what they are talking about.
‘Galactic Pile-Up May Point to Mysterious New Dark Force in the Universe - Wired Science’
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...ll-dark-force/
“The reason this is strange is that dark matter is thought to barely interact with itself. The dark matter should just coast through itself and move at the same speed as the hardly interacting galaxies. Instead, it looks like the dark matter is crashing into something — perhaps itself – and slowing down faster than the galaxies are. But this would require the dark matter to be able to interact with itself in a completely new an unexpected way, a “dark force” that affects only dark matter.”
A “new dark force” is unnecessary and more evidence of how screwed up mainstream physics is. The galaxy clusters are moving through and displacing the mass of ‘empty’ space, analogous to the bow waves of two boats which pass by each other very closely.
It is the mass of ‘empty’ space which piles up.
‘Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies’
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...004.1475v1.pdf
“Our data strongly support the idea that the gravitational potential in clusters is mainly due to a non-baryonic fluid, and any exotic field in gravitational theory must resemble that of CDM fields very closely.”
The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether. The analogy is a submarine moving through the water. You are under water. Two miles away from you are many lights. Moving between you and the lights one mile away is a submarine. The submarine displaces the water. The state of displacement of the water causes the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water to be offset from the center of the submarine itself. The offset between the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water displaced by the submarine and the center of the submarine itself is going to remain the same as the submarine moves through the water. The submarine continually displaces different regions of the water. The state of the water connected to and neighboring the submarine remains the same as the submarine moves through the water even though it is not the same water the submarine continually displaces. This is what is occurring physically in nature as the galaxy clusters move through and displace the aether.
You have to be trying to not understand what occurs physically in nature to not understand ‘empty’ space has mass.
All of the nonsense associated with mainstream physics goes away once you understand ‘empty’ space has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by particles of matter.
And this later return is exactly what the article by Bohm and Hiley adresses; you’ll note it dates from 1982, and considers the developments of the double solution theory in your 1972 reference.
Not according to de Broglie, who introduces the double solution in order to reconcile the subjective and objective aspects of quantum mechanics, the subjective (probabilistic) aspects being given by the usual, normalized wavefunction, and the objective, physical wave being given by his unnormalized v-function. Of course, this doesn’t pose a way out of Bell’s theorem. (If you disagree, you’re free to derive the quantum violation of the CHSH inequality using de Broglie’s theory in such a way as not to make use of the (non-local) quantum potential).
‘Knowing what you’re talking about’ doesn’t entail knowing the answer to every question; in fact, it’s a hallmark of understanding to know the limits of one’s knowledge. To paraphrase one of the greats, we do not feign hypotheses.
You, on the other hand, jump to unsupported conclusions based on ill-digested snippets of physics you don’t have the training to understand, proclaiming grand new insights without so much as producing an intelligible theory going beyond the abuse of technical terms.
I was trying to figure out what “Bohemian Mechanics” was. Then I noticed the spelling.
It’s not my specialty, but I think you’ll find the definitive treatment of that here.
Heh.
You must have missed this part:
“de Broglie returned to his 1927 ideas, still arguing against Bohmian mechanics”
Is it that you don’t understand Bohmian mechanics is the theory by Bohm?
The following from the article you linked to is evidence Bohm is completely missing the point.
“The above relationship suggests that the particle is being “guided” by the background wave, and for this reason, de Broglie called the latter a “pilot wave”. (One may here consider the analogy of an airplane guided by radar waves, which carry information about the whole environment).”
A boat has a bow wave. The bow wave is the boat’s water displacement wave.
An ocean wave displaces the surfer.
In de Broglie wave mechanics the particle moving through the mass of ‘empty’ space is both boat and surfer.
“Let v denote this physical wave, which will be connected with the statistical ψ wave by the relation ψ = Cv, where C is a normalizing factor. The ψ wave has the nature of a subjective
probability representation formulated by means of the objective v wave. This distinction, essential in my opinion, was the reason for my naming the theory “Double solution theory”, for v and ψ are thus the two solutions of the same wave equation.”
Why can’t you understand it is the mass of ‘empty’ space which piles-up?
‘Galactic Pile-Up May Point to Mysterious New Dark Force in the Universe - Wired Science’
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...ll-dark-force/
“The reason this is strange is that dark matter is thought to barely interact with itself. The dark matter should just coast through itself and move at the same speed as the hardly interacting galaxies. Instead, it looks like the dark matter is crashing into something — perhaps itself – and slowing down faster than the galaxies are. But this would require the dark matter to be able to interact with itself in a completely new an unexpected way, a “dark force” that affects only dark matter.”
A “new dark force” is unnecessary and more evidence of how screwed up mainstream physics is. The galaxy clusters are moving through and displacing the mass of ‘empty’ space, analogous to the bow waves of two boats which pass by each other very closely.
It is the mass of ‘empty’ space which piles up.
Why can’t you understand it is the galaxy clusters moving through and displacing the mass of ‘empty’ space which causes the offset.
‘Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies’
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...004.1475v1.pdf
“Our data strongly support the idea that the gravitational potential in clusters is mainly due to a non-baryonic fluid, and any exotic field in gravitational theory must resemble that of CDM fields very closely.”
The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether. The analogy is a submarine moving through the water. You are under water. Two miles away from you are many lights. Moving between you and the lights one mile away is a submarine. The submarine displaces the water. The state of displacement of the water causes the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water to be offset from the center of the submarine itself. The offset between the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water displaced by the submarine and the center of the submarine itself is going to remain the same as the submarine moves through the water. The submarine continually displaces different regions of the water. The state of the water connected to and neighboring the submarine remains the same as the submarine moves through the water even though it is not the same water the submarine continually displaces. This is what is occurring physically in nature as the galaxy clusters move through and displace the aether.
You have to be trying to not understand what occurs physically in nature to not understand ‘empty’ space has mass.
All of the nonsense associated with mainstream physics goes away once you understand ‘empty’ space has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by particles of matter.
Because there’s just nothing there to understand, I’m sorry. There are theories that model the vacuum as a kind of superfluid, or a condensed matter system, a Bose-Einstein condensate, etc., but the difference to yours is that they do so in a quantifiable way, that they can take observations and check them against the properties of their models, and so on. You have none of this but vague handwaving and an assertion that your hypothesis eliminates all the ‘nonsense’ from mainstream physics, but you haven’t shown anything like that. What you’re doing is cargo cult science.
The reason for this is, of course, that your understanding of physics is not nearly on the level needed for the kind of theorizing you wish to engage in. You misunderstand de Broglie’s ideas because you look at the verbiage, ignoring the math (where the non-locality is, again, explicit), and that you don’t understand because you don’t have a grasp of how the terms he uses are understood in a technical context.
Your idea that the de Broglie wave could be a gravitational wave shows your misunderstanding of general relativity alongside your misapprehension of quantum theory: they’re simply two very different objects, defined on different spaces, with different functional form, in generally even being different sorts of mathematical quantities, with gravitational waves being tensorial objects, and de Broglie waves (in the simplest case) being scalar valued. Furthermore, as Asympotically Fat pointed out, in the simplest case of a single particle moving through space, there is no associated gravitational wave, but there is a de Broglie wave.
The way you present your ideas exhausts itself in vague, qualitative analogies regarding submarines and surfers, but this is simply not enough for a physical theory, and won’t convince anybody; it does not offer a proper model, does not provide quantitative explanations, does not make any novel precise predictions. Lots of things sound kinda sorta right qualitatively while being entirely off-base once you work out the details, so in order to even compete, you need to work out the details first. Handwaving simply does not a theory make.
So you’ve got two choices: continue making your unsupported and vague assertions, proclaiming the superiority of your ideas while being very obviously and blatantly wrong about most details in a way immediately obvious to anything with just some mild exposure to the subject, in which case, I’ll promise to let you rant your rants undisturbedly; or, knuckle down and do some work, get yourself some understanding of physics and mathematics, who knows, maybe one day you’ll be able to produce something substantial from your intuitions, in which case I’ll gladly point you into the directions of online learning material, self-study books and the like, and to the best of my ability answer any questions you might pose here. It’s entirely up to you.
I recommend you watch all of the following video. The part having to do with the double slit experiment starts at 2:10.
New ‘Double Slit’ Experiment Skirts Uncertainty Principle
“Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through both slits.”
Team ‘sneaks around’ quantum rule
‘For his part, Professor Steinberg believes that the result reduces a limitation not on quantum physics but on physicists themselves. “I feel like we’re starting to pull back a veil on what nature really is,” he said. “The trouble with quantum mechanics is that while we’ve learned to calculate the outcomes of all sorts of experiments, we’ve lost much of our ability to describe what is really happening in any natural language. I think that this has really hampered our ability to make progress, to come up with new ideas and see intuitively how new systems ought to behave.”’
Watch the following video starting at 0:45.
“Empty space is not empty”
Laurence Krauss says in the video if you removed all of the particles, all of the radiation, absolutely everything from space and all that remained was nothing that nothing would weigh something. That nothing would weigh something because aether has mass.
Empty space has mass; which means aether has mass.
Aether has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by particles of matter.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Strongly detecting the particle causes a loss of coherence between the particle and its associated wave in the aether.
What waves in a double slit experiment is the aether.
‘Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE’
“When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his “Theory of light quanta”. I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles.”
“any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium”
The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether. The “energetic contact” is the state of displacement of the aether.
“For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant, forms on the v wave a small region of high energy concentration, which may be likened in a first approximation, to a moving singularity.”
A particle is a moving singularity which has an associated aether displacement wave.
In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.
“The word ‘ether’ has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. […] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with ‘stuff’ that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.” - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
Matter pervading the universe has mass. A piece of window glass has mass. ‘Stuff’ has mass.
Einstein: Ether and Relativity
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
“Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium.”
if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
“any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium … If a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its nature would seem desirable. It certainly is of quite complex character. It could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be contrary to relativity theory.” - Louis de Broglie, Nobel Laureate in Physics
“According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.” - Albert Einstein, Nobel Laureate in Physics
The relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin is the hidden sub-quantum medium referred to by de Broglie is the ether which propagates light referred to by Einstein.
Aether has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by matter. There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter anchored to matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.
Einstein: Ether and Relativity
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
“the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places”
The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.
Hubble finds ring of dark matter
“During the team’s dark-matter analysis, they noticed a ripple in the mysterious substance, somewhat like the ripples created in a pond from a stone plopping into the water.”
The ‘pond’ consists of aether. The analogy is two boats which pass by each other very closely. Their bow waves slosh back and forth and create a ripple in the water.
What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the aether.
Einstein’s gravitational wave is de Broglie’s pilot-wave. Both are waves in the aether.
It’s clear that our guest has already chosen the first option. He has been cutting-and-pasting these identical screeds across sites for more than a year. (Which also explains why he doesn’t bother to learn how to quote, since he will undoubtedly post these again at other places when our obstinance grows old.) Others have pointed out his errors without making the slightest dent. I can predict with utter confidence that you will have no better luck.
“The word ‘ether’ has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. […] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with ‘stuff’ that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.” - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
“any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium … If a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its nature would seem desirable. It certainly is of quite complex character. It could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be contrary to relativity theory.” - Louis de Broglie, Nobel Laureate in Physics
“According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.” - Albert Einstein, Nobel Laureate in Physics
The relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin is the hidden sub-quantum medium referred to by de Broglie is the ether which propagates light referred to by Einstein.
By relativistic ether Laughlin is saying you can’t know the state of the ether. You can’t know if the ether flows or not. You can’t point to an object and say, “I know that object is at rest with respect to the state of the ether in which it exists”.
Same for de Broglie. de Broglie is saying the hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics can not “serve as a universal reference medium”.
In the following Einstein is saying the ether does not consist of individual particles which can be separately tracked through time. This is Einstein’s way of discussing the relativistic ether. We can’t know if the ether flows or not.
‘Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein’
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
“Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium.”
if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
Please understand that the repeated cutting and pasting of quotes you have already posted is not technically an argument.
An argument consists of saying something new and original and using math to demonstrate the consequences of what you say (referring to other people’s math in a different context doesn’t count).
You have posted links to archiv.org. If you’ve read them past the abstract you know what an actual scientific argument looks like. Use that as your guide.
Here’s a hint for the future. When you cut and paste shortened URLs as in
the links no longer work. You have been sabotaging your own arguments in more ways than one by your cutting and pasting rather than doing original thinking.
Please understand three Nobel Laureates say there is a relativistic aether.
“The word ‘ether’ has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. […] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with ‘stuff’ that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.” - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
“any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium … If a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its nature would seem desirable. It certainly is of quite complex character. It could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be contrary to relativity theory.” - Louis de Broglie, Nobel Laureate in Physics
“According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.” - Albert Einstein, Nobel Laureate in Physics
The relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin is the hidden sub-quantum medium referred to by de Broglie is the ether which propagates light referred to by Einstein.
By relativistic ether Laughlin is saying you can’t know the state of the ether. You can’t know if the ether flows or not. You can’t point to an object and say, “I know that object is at rest with respect to the state of the ether in which it exists”.
Same for de Broglie. de Broglie is saying the hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics can not “serve as a universal reference medium”.
In the following Einstein is saying the ether does not consist of individual particles which can be separately tracked through time. This is Einstein’s way of discussing the relativistic ether. We can’t know if the ether flows or not.
‘Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein’
http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.htmll
“Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium.”
if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
Please understand it is the mass of ‘empty’ space which is piling up in the following.
‘Galactic Pile-Up May Point to Mysterious New Dark Force in the Universe - Wired Science’
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/01/musket-ball-dark-force/
“The reason this is strange is that dark matter is thought to barely interact with itself. The dark matter should just coast through itself and move at the same speed as the hardly interacting galaxies. Instead, it looks like the dark matter is crashing into something — perhaps itself – and slowing down faster than the galaxies are. But this would require the dark matter to be able to interact with itself in a completely new an unexpected way, a “dark force” that affects only dark matter.”
A “new dark force” is unnecessary and more evidence of how screwed up mainstream physics is. The galaxy clusters are moving through and displacing the mass of ‘empty’ space, analogous to the bow waves of two boats which pass by each other very closely.
It is the mass of ‘empty’ space which piles up.
Please understand it is the galaxy clusters moving through and displacing the mass of ‘empty’ space which causes the offset.
‘Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies’
*“Our data strongly support the idea that the gravitational potential in clusters is mainly due to a non-baryonic fluid, and any exotic field in gravitational theory must resemble that of CDM fields very closely.” *
The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether. The analogy is a submarine moving through the water. You are under water. Two miles away from you are many lights. Moving between you and the lights one mile away is a submarine. The submarine displaces the water. The state of displacement of the water causes the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water to be offset from the center of the submarine itself. The offset between the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water displaced by the submarine and the center of the submarine itself is going to remain the same as the submarine moves through the water. The submarine continually displaces different regions of the water. The state of the water connected to and neighboring the submarine remains the same as the submarine moves through the water even though it is not the same water the submarine continually displaces. This is what is occurring physically in nature as the galaxy clusters move through and displace the aether.
You have to be trying to not understand what occurs physically in nature to not understand ‘empty’ space has mass.
Ah, to be in college…
A most informative thread, in a weird way. I’ve seen something like this before here.
Anyway, I have my Google Alert set, and I do bi-weekly Google searches on underwater Gregorian chant because I have some things to say on the matter.
Well that was awesome. I wonder if Brian May has seen it (I would imagine he has.) Having Einstein sing your guitar solo would be amusing. But Brian is rather unique in in the world rock stars, he would understand the video.