Your insisting on not understanding if there were scientific studies that concluded the aether is a supersolid then we wouldn’t be in a debate crap is very insulting, because it implies that the aether as a supersolid has to be accepted in mainstream physics prior to it being debated which is missing the whole point.
Are you at least able to comprehend the gravitational aether referred to in the following articles as an incompressible fluid and an ideal fluid means there is mass associated with ‘empty’ space?
I’m not asking for you to show that it is accepted by the entire scientific community that aether is a supersolid-I am asking you to provide even one scientific study that directly makes this conclusion.
I am admitting that if you are unwilling or unable to answer if the following means ‘empty’ space has mass then any attempt at having a ‘conversation’ with you is pointless.
The really cool aspect of the article is it means ‘empty’ space has mass.
The really, really cool aspect is that means it is the mass which fills ‘empty’ space which waves in a double slit experiment.
It also means the notion of non-baryonic dark matter anchored to matter is refuted. Matter moves through and displaces the mass which fills ‘empty’ space.
The Milky Way’s halo is the state of displacement of the mass which fills ‘empty’ space.
The Milky Way’s halo is curved spacetime.
What is referred to geometrically as the curvature of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the mass which fills ‘empty’ space.
Gravity is the state of displacement of the mass which fills ‘empty’ space.
No it doesn’t. It means the voids between galaxies - which are basically brightly glowing accumulations of mass - contain things.
It’s similar to saying on a partially cloudy day there’s some water vapour in the clear voids in the sky but not as much as all that accumulated water vapour in those fluffy clouds.
The article is not referring to just the particles of matter which exist in interstellar space in quantities less than in any vacuum artificially created on Earth. The article is also referring to the mass associated with the dark matter which permeates the void.
The title of the second article referred to in the OP says it all. ‘“No Empty Space in the Universe” --Dark Matter Discovered to Fill Intergalactic Space’
Meaning, ‘empty’ space has mass. Meaning, particles of matter move through and displace the mass which fills ‘empty’ space.
I’m trying to be as amazed as you are but nothing here is really new. The dark regions between galaxies have stuff in them and dark matter is detected in those same dark regions by how they gravitationally interact with light paths.
Are you confusing the idea of empty space (nothing luminous so we can’t see it) with empty space (there’s nothing there)? Because that’s how your posts are reading.
What the articles in the OP are stating is that ‘empty’ space has mass. And not just particles of matter which exist in quantities less than in any vacuum artificially created on Earth.
‘Empty’ space is filled with dark matter. ‘Empty’ space has mass. Mass fills ‘empty’ space.
No, it’s saying dark matter is found in the regions between galaxies. Much like an empty patch of sky isn’t empty it’s just empty compared to a cloud. You are conflating empty space with “nothing there at all” space.
This gets it the wrong way round. Pilot wave theory is a hidden variable theory because position and momentum are always definite; this is the defining property that makes a theory a hidden variable theory. It’s why such a theory is called a hidden variable theory: because it has definite properties that the quantum state does not account for, i.e. which are ‘hidden’ when all you know is the quantum state.
This is just a definition for the term of art ‘hidden variable theory’; your attempt at debating it is like trying to debate that a tomato is a roughly spherical and typically red vegetable: this is not a proposition open to revision. That something is a roughly spherical and typically red vegetable is what makes it a tomato; likewise, that a theory contains definite parameters not fixed by the quantum state is what makes it a hidden variable theory. It’s not like somebody came up with a cool name, ‘hidden variable theory’, and attached it to some theories, in some of which position and momentum are definite; ‘hidden variable’ simply means that those or similar quantities are definite.
There is thus no sense in saying that while Bohmian mechanics is a hidden variable theory, the double solution theory isn’t, even though in both, position and momentum have always definite values; the fact that in both, position and momentum do always have definite values is what makes them hidden variable theories. This just follows from the definition and concept of ‘hidden variable’, which I presented numerous times now, and even quoted from wikipedia.
Alternatively, I invited you to give me your definition of ‘hidden variable’, but once more, you do not seem interested in providing any clarification about what it is you are actually talking about.
Is there anybody but you who calls this an ‘exposed variable theory’? The only time I’ve seen that term crop up* is in regards to the liquid drop model in the video you posted, and there, it doesn’t mean anything of the sort you’re using the term for—it simply means that the usually hidden variables, e.g. the particle’s position, are ‘exposed’, as they are readily discernible from observation; which naturally implies that such a model can’t reproduce Bell inequality violations, so if that’s the basket you want to put your eggs in, they’re already broken.
And of course, this ‘third solution’ is not different from the one proposed by EPR, i.e. the adjoining of ‘elements of reality’ to the quantum state—i.e. the addition of hidden variables.
If you mean the same thing as in the liquid drop model, then that would mean that those theories are experimentally false, as such models can’t violate Bell inequalities (I’ve given the proof above, if you recall). Otherwise, please clarify your notion of ‘exposed variables’.
Both of your claims are false. If you look at de Broglie’s paper I linked to above, he clearly derives the quantum potential—identical to the one used in Bohm theory—from the polar representation of the Schrödinger equation, and from there, the guidance equation for the motion of the particle, in which its velocity is determined by the quantum potential. This is simply what’s written in the actual article, very clearly.
Furthermore, the probabilistic results of experiments are not determined by the statistical wave function; if they were, then you could simply do away with all the other objects of the theory, since the results of experiments are all we have access to, and thus, the v-wave and particle position would then be inert. No, the statistical wave function is a summary of our knowledge about the underlying physical state, which is necessarily incomplete, as the influences transmitted by the quantum potential entail a change in the underlying properties of the particle, i.e. its position and momentum, upon the act of measurement. So the statistical wave function summarizes, but does not cause our probabilistic knowledge (it can’t—it’s nonphysical after all); rather, that is caused by the ineluctable influence of the act of measurement on the underlying parameters.
In any case, since we’ve turned a new page, I’ve decided it’s appropriate to re-state my earlier questions, in case you’ve forgotten about them; furthermore, I’ll just append the list, for your convenience, with the other questions you have so far not answered, but whose answers are critical for any meaningful communication to take place (though I’m not claiming the list will be exhaustive). So here goes:
[ol]
[li]In your theory, does each particle always have a definite position x = (some value) and a definite momentum p = (some value)?[/li][li]In your theory, does the position and/or momentum of one particle depend instantaneously on that of any other?[/li][li]Do you believe that in de Broglie’s double solution theory, every particle always has a definite position/momentum?[/li][li]Do you believe that in de Broglie’s souble solution theory, the position/momentum of a particle can be instantaneously influenced (via the nonlocal quantum potential) by those of other particles?[/li][li]Do you understand that Bell inequalities apply to every theory in which observable quantities have a definite value even if the quantum state (ψ-wave function) does not determine that value, and there are no nonlocal influences?[/li][li]What is your definition of hidden variables?[/li][li]Do you understand that the definition of ‘hidden variable theory’ (as it is usually used in the literature) is a theory in which there are definite values attributed to observable quantities to which the quantum state does not assign definite values?[/li][/ol]
*Actually, I’ve now seen it another time: in the wikipedia discussion page on the double-slit experiment, it was brought up by a user called ‘Mpc755’. What a coincidence!
No, that’s not what the articles are saying. From the second article:
“New research concludes that instead of “edges,” galaxies have long outskirts of dark matter that extend to nearby galaxies and that the intergalactic space is not empty but filled with dark matter.”
“A long standing mystery on where the missing dark matter is has been solved by the research. There is no empty space in the universe. The intergalactic space is filled with dark matter.”
Meaning, mass fills what would otherwise be referred to as ‘empty’ space.
‘Non-Linear Wave mechanics. A Casual Approach’ - Louis de Broglie 1960
“Hoever, as the work of other scientists lead to further progress in Wave Mechanics, it became daily more evidence that the [wave function] wave with its continuous aplitude could be used only in statistical predictions”
“The conclusions just presented permit us to state precisely the significance of the [wave function] wave. It does not constitute a physical quantity in the classical sense; it is only an instrument for predicting probability.”
“Schrodinger’s idea of identifying the [wave function] wave of a system in configuration space at first shocked me very greatly, because configuration space being a pure fiction, this conception deprives the [wave function] wave of all physical reality. For me the wave of Wave Mechanics should have evolved in three-dimensional physical space. The numerous and brilliant successes that resulted from adopting Schrodinger’s point of view obligated me to recognize its value; but for a long time I remained convinced that the propagation of the [wave function] wave in configuration space was a purely imaginary way of representing wave phenomena which, in point of fact, take place in physical space. We will see in the second part of the present work (Chapter XII) how, from 1927 on, I had sought to develop this approach within the framework of the theory of the Double Solution”
So the solid bowling ball “condenses” (even though it cannot condense to the point where equal non-condensing mass could pass by it) and the supersolid “flows around” this object that is passing through it?
As I thought, you are just making up words as you need to in order to hang onto your odd beliefs.
Which means particles of matter are moving through it and displacing it.
The particles of matter the Earth consists of are moving through and displacing the mass which fills ‘empty’ space.
This is what is referred to as honey in the following video.
“Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey,” says Francis Everitt of Stanford University in California, the mission’s chief scientist. “As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it’s the same with space and time.”
Honey has mass and so does the mass which fills ‘empty’ space. The ‘swirl’ is more correctly described as the state of displacement of the mass which fills ‘empty’ space.
It looks like you at least now understand your saying, “It is a solid. The atoms cannot move.” was a bunch of crap and it appears you are now less ignorant than you were before.