Those are all things you claim without support. That’s not the same as things you know. And, since the evidence is that none of the things you posted are true we’re left in a bit of a impasse, aren’t we?
Then explain why there is an offset between the light lensing through the space neighboring galaxy clusters and the galaxy clusters themselves or why the Milky Way’s halo is lopsided is caused by unicorn breath.
To not understand both are evidence of the supersolid nature of the aether is to choose to remain ignorant of understanding what occurs physically in nature.
‘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 as the galaxy clusters move through and displace the aether.
‘The Milky Way’s dark matter halo appears to be lopsided’
“The emerging picture of the asymmetric dark matter halo is supported by the \Lambda CDM halos formed in the cosmological N-body simulation.”
The Milky Way’s ‘dark matter halo’ is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the aether.
The only impasse we are at is your insistence of remaining ignorant of understanding what occurs physically in nature.
You can’t explain why there is an offset between the light lensing through the space neighboring galaxy clusters and the galaxy clusters themselves. You can’t explain why the Milky Way’s halo is lopsided. You can’t explain the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment or what physically causes gravity beyond the geometrical representation of curved spacetime.
All of which are correctly explained by understanding aether has mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
No. You show me studies that prove the existence of supersolids. Respond directly to this link, which discusses the efforts to show the existence of supersolids and concludes with this:
Can you show me any studies done after this point that show the existence of supersolids? Your suppositions that this effect or that effect could only be true if supersolids exist are totally worthless without scientific studies that say it directly.
If there were already scientific studies that say it directly we wouldn’t be having this conversation, would we? We aren’t debating the Earth rotating on its axis and orbiting the Sun, are we? No, we aren’t because there is nothing to debate. You do realize we are in the ‘Great Debates’ forum, correct?
You can’t explain why there is an offset between the light lensing through the space neighboring galaxy clusters and the galaxy clusters themselves. The article itself refers to, “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.”.
That non-baryonic fluid is the supersolid.
The Milky Way is moving through and displacing the ‘non-baryonic fluid’ which causes there to be an offset between the matter the Milky Way consists of and the ‘non-baryonic dark matter’. The ‘non-baryonic dark matter’ is not anchored to the Milky Way. The Milky Way is moving through and displacing the mass associated with the ‘non-baryonic dark matter’.
It is the ‘non-baryonic dark matter’ which is the supersolid.
Mainstream physics thinks non-baryonic dark matter is anchored to matter. That is incorrect. Particles of matter move through and displace the non-baryonic dark matter.
That is what we are debating.
Once mainstream physics understands there is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter anchored to matter, that matter moves through and displaces the non-baryonic dark matter then there won’t be any reason for this debate.
Got it. I’ll assume anyone posting has read the thread.
So well, now you’re saying that the position and momentum are definite at all times, but not known to us. That’s the definition of a hidden variable theory…
And of course, that means the theory is nonlocal, too; otherwise, with the positions/momenta of a pair of entangled particles (not necessarily created by downconversion, but if you insist) being definite, you can’t explain Bell inequality violations. But of course, the nonlocality is already explicit in the mathematics.
I guess that means you’re now retracting your claim that de Broglie waves are gravitational waves, seeing as how the latter only can transmit influences with a maximum velocity of c?
Not to overuse the pithy quotes, but:
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
– Inigo Montoya
People keep pointing out that you are making assumptions, not providing data or evidence, and refusing to answer the most basic of questions. You are not debating; you are preaching.
Very brief highjack: some people have suggested that radioactive atoms have timing mechanisms of some sort, to tell them when to decay, and that they do not decay “randomly.” They propose some unknown deterministic means.
I have heard this idea called a “hidden variable” schema. Would that be a valid use of the term?
(It isn’t so much a mathematical variable that would be hidden, but a hidden structure or process, as if there were some kind of sand-timer slowly running out.)
It doesn’t matter what is known to us. We are discussing entanglement.
Entanglement is the definition of an ‘exposed variable theory’. Meaning, the position and momentum of each of the downconverted pair is known to each other.
There are no such things as hidden variables as to what is important when discussing entanglement. What matters when discussing entanglement is how the photons are entangled. The photons are not physically or superluminally entangled. They are entangled as they know each other’s state.
You are referring to two completely different concepts in terms of the non-baryonic dark matter. One is its state as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the non-baryonic dark matter in neighboring places and the second being its not emitting nor absorbing light.
Since we are discussing the mass which fills ‘empty’ space in the following I am going to refer to it by its correct name which is the aether.
Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level. It is otherwise hypothesized to simply be matter that is not reactant to light.
That doesn’t mean light waves do not propagate through it. It means the mass which fills ‘empty’ space does not emit nor absorb light. It means the light waves are capable of propagating through the ‘dark matter’.
The mistake being made by mainstream physics is thinking non-baryonic dark matter is anchored to matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.
The following were posted before as parts of more detailed posts. I am repeating them here in context of your question.
‘Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein’
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
“According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable”
“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.
‘Alert Einstein’s ‘First Paper’’
“The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces.”
Einstein is referring to the state of displacement of the aether.
The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause its propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether displaced by these forces.
The following post is my interpretation of the aether.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17323723&postcount=106
The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is a physical process determined by the physical state of the space in which it exists. When you take an atomic clock to the top of a mountain it ticks faster due to the change in the state of the aether in which it exists.
This is absolutely irrelevant in every conceivable way from what I asked. Are you even bothering to read before you post?
You said, “Very brief highjack:” which means you knew you were hijacking this thread instead of starting your own. You then went on to mention “and that they do not decay “randomly.” They propose some unknown deterministic means”.
The answer to your question/statement/hijacking of a thread is yes, time is deterministic. The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the state of the aether in which it exists.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Relativ/airtim.htmll
“Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations.”
Flying with the Earth’s rotation, eastward, is flying against the ‘flow’ of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, causing a greater aether force on the atomic clock causing the atomic clock to tick slower. Flying against the Earth’s rotation, westward, is flying with the ‘flow’ of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, causing a lower aether force on the atomic clock causing the atomic clock to tick faster.
The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the force of the aether in which it exists.
If you think this response has nothing to do with your original post about radioactive decay then that is further evidence you are hijacking this thread and should start your own.
From your earlier posts, I gather the following:
The aether is everywhere
The aether can not be compressed
The aether can be (and always IS) displaced by matter
How can all 3 of the above statements be true? Aether being displaced by matter would mean there’s a higher density of aether in one place than another, which directly contradicts the “can not be compressed” quality.
Most, if not all, of the following articles refer to the gravitational aether as 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.”
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.”
‘Fluidic Electrodynamics: 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.
‘Comment on the higher derivative Lagrangians in relativistic theory’
“Einstein theory of gravitational fields and this gives a new perspective on the Mach principle revisiting the “absolute” acceleration concept as a natural motion in space-time deformed by the matter-energy contained therein. We refer the reader to the paper of Einstein on a related topic [9]. 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.
The Milky Way’s halo is curved spacetime.
What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether.
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 following article describes the aether as an incompressible fluid resulting in what the article refers to as gravitational aether caused by pressure (or vorticity).
‘Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old Cosmological Constant Problem’
“One proposal to address this puzzle at the semi-classical level is to decouple quantum vacuum from space-time geometry via a modification of gravity that includes an incompressible fluid, known as Gravitational Aether. In this paper, we discuss classical predictions of this theory along with its compatibility with cosmological and experimental tests of gravity. We argue that deviations from General Relativity (GR) in this theory are sourced by pressure or vorticity.”
The following article describes gravity as a pressure exerted by aether toward matter.
‘The aether-modified gravity and the G ̈del metric’
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.5654v2
“As for the pressure, it is equal to p = 53−αg,6a2 so, it is positive if αg < 3 which is the weaker condition than the previous one. One notes that the results corresponding to the usual gravity are easily recovered. Also, it is easy to see that the interval αg < 15 corresponds to the usual matter.”
The following article describes a gravitating vacuum where aether is the quantum vacuum of the 21-st century.
‘From Analogue Models to Gravitating Vacuum’
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.1155
“The aether of the 21-st century is the quantum vacuum, which is a new form of matter. This is the real substance”
The following articles describe what is presently postulated as dark matter is aether.
‘Quantum aether and an invariant Planck scale’
“this version of aether may have some bearing on the abundance of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in our universe.”
“mass of the aether”
‘Scalars, Vectors and Tensors from Metric-Affine Gravity’
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.5168
“the model obtained here gets closer to the aether theory of , which is shown therein to be an alternative to the cold dark matter.”
‘Unified model for dark matter and quintessence’
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0610135
“Superfluid dark matter is reminiscent of the aether and modeling the universe using superfluid aether is compatible.”
‘Vainshtein mechanism in Gauss-Bonnet gravity and Galileon aether’
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.1892
“the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of ”aether” because of the presence of the background field”
‘On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum medium and the inertial motion of particles’
“In this paper we shall show that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as a ubiquitous back ground field is a super fluid medium.”
That has nothing whatever to do with my question, which is whether the term “hidden variables” can properly be applied to the notion, espoused by some, that atoms have some internal “timing mechanism” that tell them when to decay, rather than decaying randomly.
At present, the best evidence is that atoms decay randomly. There is no internal fuse that burns down. It is impossible, even in theory, to look at an atom and say, “Oh, it’s just about to decay” or “This one has lots of time left.”
Some people, however, hold that there is such a “fuse” and that atoms do not decay randomly.
I wondered if “hidden variables” is valid to use in connection with this idea.
Your notes about the rate of time itself are completely divorced from this question.
You did not explain how aether is everywhere, cannot be compressed, but can be displaced. You just copy/pasted a hundred things you posted earlier, none of which explains where displaced aether goes.
If aether is displaced, the displaced aether must go somewhere (or the term “displaced” just becomes literally meaningless). Except everywhere else already has aether in it, and you can’t compress it, so it can’t go anywhere.
Displaced aether must go somewhere.
Displaced aether cannot go anywhere.
Please reconcile the above two statements. Also note that I have used extremely simple terms to state my argument. I would appreciate the same in response.
And if you were reading this thread you would realize I said there are no such things as hidden variables. What matters in terms of entanglement is what is knowable to each of the pair of downconverted photon pairs and what is knowable to each of the pair is their position and momentum due to conservation of momentum causing them to propagate with opposite angular momentums.
The rate at which a muon decays is determined by the state of the aether in which it exists. The rate at which a muon decays has nothing to do with ‘hidden variables’ as there are no such things as hidden variables.
You should stop hijacking this thread and start your own if you want to continue to discuss hidden variables which do not exist.