# Richard Dawkins says American religion holds back science **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 5, 2015, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595 "2015-10-05T10:03:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2015, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/161 "2015-10-11T17:13:07Z")
> [@mpc755](#): > > Watch the following video starting at 0:45 to see the state of the aether connected to and neighboring the Earth. What is referred to as frame-dragging is the state of displacement of the aether. > > [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE) > > ‘NASA’s Gravity Probe B Confirms Two Einstein Space-Time Theories’ > [http://www.nasa.gov/mission\_pages/gpb/gpb\_results.html](http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html) > > _“Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey. As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it’s the same with space and time,” said Francis Everitt, GP-B principal investigator at Stanford University._ > > Honey has mass and so does the aether. The swirl is the state of displacement of the aether. So you are citing an experiment to test the frame-dragging effect as predicted by general relativity as evidence to impugn “mainstream physics” and (somehow) expose the “religious dogma of quantum mechanics”? Your logic is more tortured than a Monty Python skit. The Lense-Thirring phenomenon, i.e. the distortion of spacetime i. the presence of a large rotating mass, has been accepted theoretically since nearly the beginning of Einstein gravity but is so slight that is has taken delicate astronomical measurements to observe (and while measurements of Gravity Probe B fell within the predicted range the precision left something to be desired). It is not, however, in any way related to the electromagnetic “luminiferous aether” of classical electrodynamics, and it explicity does not have mass. You seem to be conflating completely difference concepts and nomenclature in order to somehow invalidate the existing models of quantum mechanics and general relativity (to what end I don’t understand) but the result is just a confused hash of garbled terminology, misapplied analogoes, and verbiage cited out of context. You haven’t demonstrated or proven any of your claims. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![mpc755](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mpc755/32/7307_2.png) [@mpc755](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mpc755)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2015, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/162 "2015-10-11T17:30:10Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > So you are citing an experiment to test the frame-dragging effect as predicted by general relativity as evidence to impugn “mainstream physics” and (somehow) expose the “religious dogma of quantum mechanics”? Your logic is more tortured than a Monty Python skit. > > The Lense-Thirring phenomenon, i.e. the distortion of spacetime i. the presence of a large rotating mass, has been accepted theoretically since nearly the beginning of Einstein gravity but is so slight that is has taken delicate astronomical measurements to observe (and while measurements of Gravity Probe B fell within the predicted range the precision left something to be desired). It is not, however, in any way related to the electromagnetic “luminiferous aether” of classical electrodynamics, and it explicity does not have mass. You seem to be conflating completely difference concepts and nomenclature in order to somehow invalidate the existing models of quantum mechanics and general relativity (to what end I don’t understand) but the result is just a confused hash of garbled terminology, misapplied analogoes, and verbiage cited out of context. You haven’t demonstrated or proven any of your claims. > > Stranger What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether. You’re brainwashed by the religious dogma of quantum mechanics. It’s like you need an intervention. You can’t even understand the particle always detected traveling through a single slit is evidence the particle _always_ travels through a single slit. You can’t even realize you’re making my point. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2015, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/163 "2015-10-11T17:37:50Z")
> [@mpc755](#): > > ‘NASA’s Gravity Probe B Confirms Two Einstein Space-Time Theories’ > [http://www.nasa.gov/mission\_pages/gpb/gpb\_results.html](http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html) > > _“Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey. As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it’s the same with space and time,” said Francis Everitt, GP-B principal investigator at Stanford University._ > > Honey has mass and so does the aether. The swirl is the state of displacement of the aether. Just because somebody had to say it: this is total nonsense, on a par with the claims of flat-earthers. It’s taking a rough and flawed analogy and interpreting it literally, like some have done with the equally flawed “viscous medium” attempt to try to provide an intuitive concept of the Higgs field. General relativity says nothing about an “aether”. The phenomenon of frame-dragging around a massive spinning object is more like a gravitational analog of electromagnetism arising from the relativistic effects of gravity on spacetime, and has been called gravitomagnetism or sometimes [gravitoelectromagnetism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism). ETA: Posted before I saw **Stranger On A Train** had already commented on this. > [@BrightSunshine](#): > > I am a scientist in a physical (not biological) science and I see the effects of deficiencies\* in US K-12 education in the extremely limited pool of PhD-holders who are actually US citizens or permanent residents. Foreign visa holders outnumber those 10 to 1 in our applicant pool. > > And the last sentence underscore the reason US is (barely, and not in some fields) leading in the scientific arena. Immigrants make up the vast majority of active and accomplished scientific researchers. > > - Which are not all attributable to religion I admit. I also blame sports which is almost like a religion. Which confirms what **Voyager** said earlier. A lot of the influx of research talent is from other first-world nations and occurs when big money is thrown at them by US institutions, not so much salaries as research facilities. They train 'em, you get the benefits, while religion and far-right paranoia (can’t have all those “liberal” academics around!) both wreak destructive effects on the US educational system. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2015, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/164 "2015-10-11T17:39:59Z")
> [@BrightSunshine](#): > > I am a scientist in a physical (not biological) science and I see the effects of deficiencies\* in US K-12 education in the extremely limited pool of PhD-holders who are actually US citizens or permanent residents. Foreign visa holders outnumber those 10 to 1 in our applicant pool. > > And the last sentence underscore the reason US is (barely, and not in some fields) leading in the scientific arena. Immigrants make up the vast majority of active and accomplished scientific researchers. > > - Which are not all attributable to religion I admit. I also blame sports which is almost like a religion. The US has many of the best universities in the world, and offers an enticing opportunity to the best and the brightest in most of the not-so-great-to-live-in countries. We are going to attract students from pretty much every country in the world, so I’m not sure that ratio says as much about US schools as you seem to think it does. ---
**Author:** ![mpc755](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mpc755/32/7307_2.png) [@mpc755](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mpc755)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2015, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/165 "2015-10-11T17:55:46Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > General relativity says nothing about an “aether”. More of the religious dogma of mainstream physics. _“According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable”_ - Albert Einstein The brainwashing is an epidemic. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2015, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/166 "2015-10-11T18:02:51Z")
> [@mpc755](#): > > What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether. > > You’re brainwashed by the religious dogma of quantum mechanics. > > It’s like you need an intervention. > > You can’t even understand the particle always detected traveling through a single slit is evidence the particle _always_ travels through a single slit. > > You can’t even realize you’re making my point. Oh please, your arguments are coming from creationists, (and rude lines towards the other poster too) so much about telling others that they are the ones using religion. [https://books.google.com/books?id=bjYPs9siZzgC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=The+“subquantic+medium”+is+the+aether.&source=bl&ots=lVHjo0CMbB&sig=2Eoc2sm\_c9OJJ6trqT-dL7ugcAY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBmoVChMIo6Xmiua5yAIVyNWACh1j3wMS#v=onepage&q=The%20“subquantic%20medium”%20is%20the%20aether.&f=false](https://books.google.com/books?id=bjYPs9siZzgC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=The+%E2%80%9Csubquantic+medium%E2%80%9D+is+the+aether.&source=bl&ots=lVHjo0CMbB&sig=2Eoc2sm_c9OJJ6trqT-dL7ugcAY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBmoVChMIo6Xmiua5yAIVyNWACh1j3wMS#v=onepage&q=The%20%E2%80%9Csubquantic%20medium%E2%80%9D%20is%20the%20aether.&f=false) > [@](#): > > Dudley states that he rejects the modern physical theories that have “won almost unquestioning acceptance by the scientific community” and that he sees a need “to construct more complete conceptual mechanistic models of both the macrocosmos and the microcosmos, a la Rutherford and Michelson” (1976, p. 4). In particular he rejects Einstein’s theory of relativity and wants to revive the classical “ether” under the modern-sounding name “neutrino sea.” He also identifies this ether with the “subquantic medium” of L. de Broglie and J. P. Vigicr (1963). Such a medium would allow one to reduce the apparent randomness of quantum effects such as radioactive decay to a determinism on the level of “hidden variables” As Dudley recognizes (1976, p. 24), if this subquantic ether really docs exist, both relativity theory and quantum mechanics are wrong. > > It is completely consistent with the philosophy of creationism to reject the randomness of natural processes (Morris 1974, pp. 15, 16, 22, 33, 59). But neither Slusher nor Morris informs the reader that his critique of radioactive dating methods involves the rejection of the two most spectacularly successful theories of modern physics — relativity and quantum mechanics. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2015, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/167 "2015-10-11T18:09:04Z")
> [@mpc755](#): > > _“According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable”_ - Albert Einstein That quote out of context and without understanding is just playing with semantics. One may as well argue that the Higgs field or the vacuum energy is “aether”. So the only similarity of this relativistic aether concept with the classical aether models lies in the presence of physical properties in space. Therefore, as historians such as John Stachel argue, Einstein’s views on the “new aether” are not in conflict with his abandonment of the aether in 1905. For, as Einstein himself pointed out, no “substance” and no state of motion can be attributed to that new aether. In addition, Einstein’s use of the word “aether” found little support in the scientific community, and played no role in the continuing development of modern physics. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous\_aether#Einstein.27s\_views\_on\_the\_aether](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether#Einstein.27s_views_on_the_aether) What you’re trying to describe is complete nonsense exactly on a par with flat-earth claims or “the moon landing hoax”. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2015, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/168 "2015-10-11T18:16:05Z")
> [@mpc755](#): > > Every time a double slit experiment is performed the particle is always detected traveling through a single slit. This is evidence the particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both. > > You are able to understand in a boat double slit experiment the boat travels through a single slit even when you close your eyes. > > It’s no different for the particle in a double slit experiment. > > It’s the religious dogma of quantum mechanics which doesn’t allow this to be accepted, even though it is correct. Since my PhD is in a different field, and since quantum mechanics is far from a simple or obvious area, I tend to let the trained physicists discuss advanced physics. You might try the same strategy. What I do know is devices based on quantum mechanics work. ---
**Author:** ![mpc755](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mpc755/32/7307_2.png) [@mpc755](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mpc755)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2015, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/169 "2015-10-11T18:18:18Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Oh please, your arguments are coming from creationists, (and rude lines towards the other poster too) so much about telling others that they are the ones using religion. > > [Scientists Confront Creationism - Google Books](https://books.google.com/books?id=bjYPs9siZzgC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=The+%E2%80%9Csubquantic+medium%E2%80%9D+is+the+aether.&source=bl&ots=lVHjo0CMbB&sig=2Eoc2sm_c9OJJ6trqT-dL7ugcAY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBmoVChMIo6Xmiua5yAIVyNWACh1j3wMS#v=onepage&q=The%20%E2%80%9Csubquantic%20medium%E2%80%9D%20is%20the%20aether.&f=false) Oh please, stop with the brainwashed logic. I am referring to de Broglie’s double solution theory. \*“While the founding fathers agonized over the question ‘particle’ or ‘wave’, de Broglie in 1925 proposed the obvious answer ‘particle’ and ‘wave’. Is it not clear from the smallness of the scintillation on the screen that we have to do with a particle? And is it not clear, from the diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the particle is directed by a wave? De Broglie showed in detail how the motion of a particle, passing through just one of two holes in screen, could be influenced by waves propagating through both holes. And so influenced that the particle does not go where the waves cancel out, but is attracted to where they cooperate. This idea seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored.” \*- John Bell ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2015, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/170 "2015-10-11T18:23:21Z")
> [@mpc755](#): > > More of the religious dogma of mainstream physics. > > _“According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable”_ - Albert Einstein > > The brainwashing is an epidemic. :rolleyes: As the Physics forum puts it: > **[Did Einstein Believe in the Aether? Deciphering the Controversial Claims](https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/did-einstein-believe-in-the-aether-deciphering-the-controversial-claims.4021/page-2)** > > Fvck you Fvck you Fvck you Fvck you Fvck you Fvck you + \[oo\] > [@](#): > > So, personalities aside, let’s review the bidding on Einstein and the ether. > > Einstein has definitely written that the ether he talks about is not the ether that was part of physics before relativity. Einstein says he believes that ether was undone by special relativity. > > Einstein has also defined the ether he talks about in terms that make it clearly the spacetime/gravity field of his General Relativity. Not a mechanical or kinematical thing itself, but codetermining mechanical effects. > > Mr. Robin Parsons is of course free to disregard this or to put some special private meaning upon what seem to me to be Einstein’s plain words. but for me it seems that the canard that Einstein accepted the ether after 1919 has definitely been shown to be false. ---
**Author:** ![mpc755](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mpc755/32/7307_2.png) [@mpc755](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mpc755)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2015, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/171 "2015-10-11T18:23:49Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > That quote out of context and without understanding is just playing with semantics. One may as well argue that the Higgs field or the vacuum energy is “aether”. > So the only similarity of this relativistic aether concept with the classical aether models lies in the presence of physical properties in space. Therefore, as historians such as John Stachel argue, Einstein’s views on the “new aether” are not in conflict with his abandonment of the aether in 1905. For, as Einstein himself pointed out, no “substance” and no state of motion can be attributed to that new aether. In addition, Einstein’s use of the word “aether” found little support in the scientific community, and played no role in the continuing development of modern physics. > [Luminiferous aether - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether#Einstein.27s_views_on_the_aether) > What you’re trying to describe is complete nonsense exactly on a par with flat-earth claims or “the moon landing hoax”. You’ve been brainwashed into thinking I am taking it out of context, which I am not. Einstein defined motion in terms of the aether as the aether does not consist of individual particles which can be separately tracked through time. ‘Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein’ [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac](http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac)… _“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. _“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 its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2015, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/172 "2015-10-11T18:25:36Z")
> [@mpc755](#): > > Oh please, stop with the brainwashed logic. I am referring to de Broglie’s double solution theory. > > \*“While the founding fathers agonized over the question ‘particle’ or ‘wave’, de Broglie in 1925 proposed the obvious answer ‘particle’ and ‘wave’. Is it not clear from the smallness of the scintillation on the screen that we have to do with a particle? And is it not clear, from the diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the particle is directed by a wave? De Broglie showed in detail how the motion of a particle, passing through just one of two holes in screen, could be influenced by waves propagating through both holes. And so influenced that the particle does not go where the waves cancel out, but is attracted to where they cooperate. This idea seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored.” \*- John Bell Funny, me too, in reality I did check, De Broglie did not claim that was the old ether. The point stands, you got your sorry points from creationist sources. ---
**Author:** ![mpc755](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mpc755/32/7307_2.png) [@mpc755](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mpc755)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2015, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/173 "2015-10-11T18:25:54Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Since my PhD is in a different field, and since quantum mechanics is far from a simple or obvious area, I tend to let the trained physicists discuss advanced physics. > > You might try the same strategy. What I do know is devices based on quantum mechanics work. You mean the trained physicists who are incapable of understanding the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment is evidence the particle always travels through a single slit? You might want to try thinking for yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2015, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/174 "2015-10-11T18:28:22Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The US has many of the best universities in the world, and offers an enticing opportunity to the best and the brightest in most of the not-so-great-to-live-in countries. We are going to attract students from pretty much every country in the world, so I’m not sure that ratio says as much about US schools as you seem to think it does. That was true 35 years ago also. But back then the majority of grad students in CS and EE were born in the US - at least in the schools I went to and students at professors at conferences I attended. Now the percentage is very small. I’m not sure it is true for law schools. There were plenty of Indian students attending back then, though none from Mainland China of course. That is also true for most (80% or so, easily) young professors I know. Look, if I tossed out all the resumes of people who were born and went to undergrad schools abroad, I wouldn’t be able to fill our openings with anyone remotely close to the skill set we need, and never mind their GPAs and research ability. An alternative explanation might be that US born people are too smart to get into engineering - but that’s another debate. ---
**Author:** ![mpc755](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mpc755/32/7307_2.png) [@mpc755](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mpc755)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2015, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/175 "2015-10-11T18:29:34Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > :rolleyes: > > As the Physics forum puts it: > > [Did Einstein Believe in the Aether? Deciphering the Controversial Claims | Page 2](https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/did-einstein-accept-the-ether.4021/page-2) Einstein said the aether is not an absolutely stationary space. Einstein defined ‘mechanical’ in terms of the aether as the aether does not consist of individual particles which can be separately tracked through time. What Einstein referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether. The religious dogma of mainstream physics has raised its ugly brainwashed head here in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2015, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/176 "2015-10-11T18:31:10Z")
> [@mpc755](#): > > You mean the trained physicists who are incapable of understanding the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment is evidence the particle always travels through a single slit? > > You might want to try thinking for yourself. You might try not putting your faith in crackpots. Have any of these clowns suggested an experiment that could be done to demonstrate that their hypothesis is more correct than the standard one? Have they done any? Published it? ---
**Author:** ![mpc755](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mpc755/32/7307_2.png) [@mpc755](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mpc755)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2015, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/177 "2015-10-11T18:33:36Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Funny, me too, in reality I did check, De Broglie did not claim that was the old ether. > > The point stands, you got your sorry points from creationist sources. de Broglie used the terms “hidden medium” and “hidden subquantic medium” to describe the medium which waves in terms of wave particle duality. de Broglie understood wave-particle duality is a moving particle \*and \*it’s associated wave. Just like the brainwashed. Focusing on the term used to describe the “hidden subquantic medium” instead of allowing themselves to understand what occurs physically in nature. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2015, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/178 "2015-10-11T18:35:29Z")
> [@mpc755](#): > > The state of the aether at every place determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether. [http://www.researchgate.net/publication/265157944\_ALBERT\_EINSTEIN’S\_NEW\_ETHER\_AND\_HIS\_GENERAL\_RELATIVITY](http://www.researchgate.net/publication/265157944_ALBERT_EINSTEIN'S_NEW_ETHER_AND_HIS_GENERAL_RELATIVITY) > [@](#): > > A controversy between Einstein and Lenard provoked the first > appearance of the new view in print. In a lecture in 1917 and the next year in a > published paper [6] , Lenard raised the objection against Einstein’s general theory of > relativity that in this theory the disqualified ether came back under the new name > ,space.” In reply, Einstein wrote an assay [7] in which he published for the first time > his new conception. > > "Whereas according to the special theory of relativity a part of space without matter > and without electromagnetic field seems to be completely empty, that is to say not > characterised by any physical properties, according to the general theory of relativity > even space that is empty in this sence has physical properties. These are characterised > mathematically by the components of the gravitational potential [gµν tensor - L.K.], > which describe the metric behaviour of this part of space, as well as its gravitational > field. This state of things can be easly understood by speaking about an ether, whose > state varies continuously from point to point. One must only be careful not to attribute > to this ,ether” the properties of ordinary material bodies (e.g., a well defined velocity > at every point).” [7] > > **At the same time, Einstein proclaimed once again that the "ether in the old sense > does not exist”**[7]. Therefore, we can say following John Stachel reviewing my book: > **"The ether he reintroduced differed fundamentally from the ether he had banished.”** [8] > An interesting Einstein’s statement on the new ether can be find in the so-called "Morgan Manuscript” from 1920. In the section 22 entitled General relativity and > ether we read: > > “It is not difficult to incorporate the laws of nature, already known from special > relativity, into the broader framework of general relativity. The mathematical meth- > ods were readily available in the absolute differential calculus,” based on the work of > Gauss and Riemann and further developed by Ricci and Levi-Civita in particular. It > represents a rather simple way of generalising the equations from the special case of > the constant gmn to the case of the spatio-temporary varing gmn. In all laws gen- > eralised in this way, a role is played by the gravitational potentials gmn which, in a > word, express the physical properties of empty space.” ---
**Author:** ![mpc755](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mpc755/32/7307_2.png) [@mpc755](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mpc755)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2015, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/179 "2015-10-11T18:36:15Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > You might try not putting your faith in crackpots. > Have any of these clowns suggested an experiment that could be done to demonstrate that their hypothesis is more correct than the standard one? Have they done any? Published it? Your saying de Broglie was a crackpot. Do you need published papers to understand in a boat double slit experiment the boat travels through a single slit even when you close your eyes? It’s no different for the particle in a double slit experiment. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the "hidden subquantic medium " (aka aether) that waves. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2015, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/180 "2015-10-11T18:36:44Z")
> [@mpc755](#): > > de Broglie used the terms “hidden medium” and “hidden subquantic medium” to describe the medium which waves in terms of wave particle duality. > > de Broglie understood wave-particle duality is a moving particle \*and \*it’s associated wave. > > Just like the brainwashed. Focusing on the term used to describe the “hidden subquantic medium” instead of allowing themselves to understand what occurs physically in nature. Nope, you are wrong, not he nor Einstein were talking about the same ether (and it is not likely to be like the one the creationists think of) that was disposed of more than 100 years ago. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595.md?page=10)