Oh boy, not this again.
Link to the thread that shows how an opinion is not science, even if it is coming from a physicist.
Of particular importance are these posts:
No, whats interesting is that you are using a theory that has been discredited for over 200 years (philigston) to try and “discredit” science.
That’s a bullshit comparison on concept versus nomenclature. The ‘luminferous aether’ of Fresnel (and Newton’s ‘Aetherous Medium’ before it), which gave a fixed framework against which light propagated, was demonstrated experiementally to not exist by Michaelson, Moreley, Lodge, Trouton, Noble, et cetera, and fundamentally to be incorrect by Einstein’s theory of special relativity. Lorentz and Poincaré also demonstrated that the aether, if it exists, does not behave with the properties predicted as necessary by previous models, suggesting a fundamental flaw in the concept, but they did not fully grasp the invariance of the speed of light as being irrespective of reference frame. A complete reading of Maxwell’s original equations also suggests an invariant nature to the speed of propagation of electromagnetic fields (albeit not called as such), but the simplified vector version formulated by Heaviside for practical application loses this nuance.
That there is a fundamental plenum on which particles interact in quantum mechanics is a basic underpinning of quantum field theory, i.e. that the vacuum is not empty but instead is full of interacting fields, with even a baseline energy level at the zero potential resulting in pairs or clusters of virtual particles spontaneously existing and disappearing, but this isn’t the aether of classical electrodynamics. The nomenclature of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory does pose some difficulties in conveying the theory as we understand it to everyday language, because words like “particles” and “waves” are used in a manner that are not like everyday bits of stuff and waves in water, but physicists largely understand this distinction and it has not held back physicts nearly as much as the lack of funding for basic research and the basic unintuitiveness of quantum mechanics.
Stranger
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
Suuure, but since everyone else says Newton is the father of the Modern Scientific method, you’re pretty much doing a Humpty Dumpty here. If you’re going to make phrases, words, etc mean what you define them to be, there’s no use “debating” with you.
I am in no way trying to discredit Science, I was replying to this:Originally Posted by **Mikeisskeptical **
Nonsense is perhaps an overly emotive term, but I am unaware of any religion which does not require it’s adherents to believe some things which are, at the very least, not justified by the evidence. .
I simply pointed out that for many years and even decades Scientists believed things that were “not justified by the evidence”. There was *no evidence *for the Pleistocene overkill hypothesis, phlogiston or luminiferous aether, etc. Yes, those were all found to be false hypothesis, but scientists believed in them despite the absence of evidence. I can add the Steady State hypothesis, too.
People do this. Eventually Science does come around, while Religion doesnt tend to , but still Scientists *believed *in these things that not justified by the evidence.
Huh? I took the question to be independent of them being Christian. All of those people probably are Christian. And I of course wouldn’t know, since that is not a question I’m allowed to or would want to ask.
Pretty much everyone I read says it was Francis Bacon, long before Newton. Which does not discount Newton’s (or Galileo’s) importance in the development of the scientific method.
Do you know of better explanations for fire than phlogiston before oxygen was discovered? The evidence was how fire operated, the hypothesis was phlogiston and people looked for better evidence. As is so often the case, the evidence found contradicted the phlogiston hypothesis and it was dropped like a hot ember.
Hypotheses happen before there is adequate evidence, which is their point. The alternative is to not have any hypotheses at all until there is evidence, but since they drive the search for evidence, we probably wouldn’t make too much progress.
That is a reasonable theory, I’ll grant that, my readings show him as the #2 favorite. If you like, I’ll accept him for the sake of this debate. Both were great men and scientists.
Sure. But still Scientists believed things that were “not justified by the evidence”. You seem to get the idea i am attacking Science. I am not. I am attacking this post::Originally Posted by **Mikeisskeptical **
Nonsense is perhaps an overly emotive term, but I am unaware of any religion which does not require it’s adherents to believe some things which are, at the very least, not justified by the evidence. .
You’re not allowed to correctly understand wave-particle duality is a moving particle and its associated wave in mainstream physics as that goes against the religious dogma.
Religion isn’t holding back physics. Mainstream physics is the religion.
Wave-particle duality is a moving particle and it’s associated wave.
*“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
In the following two articles the aether is what waves in a double slit experiment. In the first article the aether has mass.
‘From the Newton’s laws to motions of the fluid and superfluid vacuum: vortex tubes, rings, and others’
*“This medium, called also the aether, has mass and is populated by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it” *…
… and displace it.
‘EPR program: a local interpretation of QM’
“Wave particle duality is described as the compound system of point particle plus accompanying wave (in the æther).”
In the following articles Louis de Broglie describes wave-particle duality as a moving particle and it’s associated wave in a hidden subquantic medium.
‘Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE’
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classi…
*“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.
“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 may be likened in a first approximation to a moving singularity which has an associated aether displacement wave.
“the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave”
The particle occupies a very small region of the associated aether wave.
NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION by LOUIS DE BROGLIE
“Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of [the wave-function wave], arise from the interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium” which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty space”.”
The “subquantic medium” is the aether.
Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment?
A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.
The wave of wave-particle duality is a wave in the aether.
In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path which takes it through one slit. The associated wave in the aether passes through both. As the 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 guiding the particle. Detecting the particle strongly exiting a single slit destroys the cohesion between the particle and its associated wave in the aether, the particle continues on the trajectory it was traveling and does not form an interference pattern.
I’m no doubt going to regret asking this but…how does “Detecting the particle strongly exiting a single slit [destroy] the cohesion between the particle and its associated wave in the aether”?
The rest of your post appears to consist of quoting the cited, non-peer reviewed papers out of context to search for language that would support your claims, such as they are. You still seem to be missing the fundamental point that the luminiferous aether which was concocted to explain the transmission of classical electromagnetic fields has been thoroughly disproven, and any sort of plenum or underlying medium (which you may refer to as an ‘aether’ if you like) is not the same thing as this classical medium.
Stranger
[snip]
Full stop, that is like a Godwin, the moment pseudo scientists reach for the “your science is a religion” point they only show that they have no good ideas left.
It is a common boiler plate talking point from woo woo proponents.
The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moves through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. The aether is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
Most of my quotes are from de Broglie himself. I have discussed wave-particle duality with the author of the first article and we are in agreement. The wave of wave-particle duality is a wave in the aether.
If you place pilings at the exits to the slits in a boat double slit experiment in order to detect the boat the boat gets knocked around by the pilings and won’t be in sync with its bow wave.
All mainstream physics has to do is understood there is no such thing as dark matter which travels with the matter.
All mainstream physics has to do to correctly understand what occurs physically in nature is to understand ‘empty’ space has mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it and many of the outstanding questions facing physics are answered.
Mainstream physics can’t bring itself to correctly understand what occurs physically in nature because it goes against its own religious dogma.
Mainstream physics is more of a religious cult than a science.
That some scientists believe things not justified by evidence is a far cry from science requiring anyone to believe in things not so justified. Of course some scientists do, and they, for example Fred Hoyle, are laughed at or pitied.
The religious so believing are said to have faith and are admired. Plus, some religions ignore or actively dispute any evidence that comes up against their beliefs. Not all, but many.
I challenge you to imagine any branch of science ignoring the evidence the way Fundamentalist Baptists do.
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.
The Michaelson-Morley and Trouton-Noble experiements, among others, have looked for all manner of net movement of the Earth against some kind of aether, including dragging effects. The results were entirely inconsistent with any kind of physical medium, whereas the explanation of special relativity, with its invariance of the speed of electromagnetic waves (as already indicated by Maxwell’s formulation) has been remarkably precise in predicting observed phenomenon.
Trying to argue by making an analogy to the motion of ships through pilings suffers from the inevitable fallacy of assuming that unlike phenomenon act in similar ways. Particles are not ships and the fields that they consist of are not water. There is no “religious dogma of quantum mechanics”, and in fact nearly anyone who has formally studied quantum field theory will agree that our understanding of the fundamentals of the phenomena is at best incomplete and perhaps even trivial. What they can agree upon, however, is that the so-called particles–which are “not made of stuff”, to quote Raymond Hall–are actually fields, and it is those fields themselves which are the medium for interactions. No separate medium, fluid or otherwise, is indicated or required.
Stranger
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.
‘NASA’s Gravity Probe B Confirms Two Einstein Space-Time Theories’
“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.
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.