That was not what I was saying, so don’t feel too good about your promoting more ignorance.
I merely wished to see whether you could actually provide a clear and coherent explanation for any of the silliness you have been spouting, so I picked the simplest case for you to explain. As usual, you threw out a bunch of malarkey that avoided an actual explanation.
No big deal. Nothing to learn, here.
Your thinking a supersolid means, “It is a solid. The atoms cannot move.” is evidence of how incorrect you were/are.
Until you understand a supersolid is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it any attempt at a ‘conversation’ is pointless.
And…
Not sure you demonstrated that you either understood HMHW’s post or the quote of de Broglie.
The actual mathematical setting of the theory is unimportant, for any given physical theory it’s a general rule that you can change the mathematical setting by applying certain classes of [mathematical] transformations, besides which Bell’s definition of a hidden variables theory is independent of most of the details of the theory.
A hidden variables theory just has to meet the following criteria:
It has suitably well-defined additional parameters to the quantum formalism (in the case of both Bohmian mechanics and double solution theory these are the always well-defined position, etc).
It recreates exactly the statistical predictions of the quantum formalism (which is precisely what de Broglie was seeking to do in his double solution theory)
If it meets those two criteria then it must be possible for changes in the additional parameters must propagate instantaneously, which is the definition of non-local.
Except your initial argument was that spacetime was a fluid with mass but the articles you’ve listed speak of matter not spacetime. They explicitly do not mention spacetime itself as having mass but that mass is present in regions of spacetime we’ve previously thought of as having less mass than galaxies.
As for frame dragging, it’s a change in the spacetime tensor not an indication of spacetime having mass. The honey is an analogy, and not really a very good one.
Which is what I am saying is placing an invalid constraint on de Broglie’s wave mechanics and double solution theory.
What you are saying is that since we can not know the position and momentum of the particle without detecting it then any theory which refers to our inability to determine the position and momentum of the particle is a hidden variable theory. You are saying hidden variable theories are refuted by Bell’s Inequality. Therefore, any theory where the position and momentum of the pair can not be known without detection and where the pair are not physically or superluminally connected is refuted.
I am saying the whole notion of hidden variables was an early attempt to describe entanglement.
“According to EPR there were two possible explanations. Either there was some interaction between the particles, even though they were separated, or the information about the outcome of all possible measurements was already present in both particles.”
I am saying there are more than two possible explanations. In an exposed variable theory the position and momentum of each of the pair of downconverted photons is knowable to the other as, due to conservation of momentum, the photons are propagating with opposite angular momentums.
I am stating all theories where the position and momentum can not be known to us are not all hidden variable theories. The information about the outcome of all possible measurements is not already present in both particles. What is known to each of the pair is a specific position and momentum of the pair at any particular instant.
All possible measurements are not already present in both particles. There are no hidden variables associated with the particles.
The position and momentum of each of the pair is exposed to each other.
de Broglie’s wave mechanics and double solution theory is not a hidden variable theory. It is an exposed variable theory as the pair are created with opposite angular momentums, have a physical wave which guides them, are not physically or superluminally connected and are able to determine the position and momentum of each other.
The first two quotes support very well what I was saying, so thank you for providing them; the third quote doesn’t seem to have any relevance one way or the other, but it’s an interesting bit of history, I guess. If you had any sort of point with these quotes, then I’d suggest trying to make it in your own words; I’ve compiled this nice set of eight questions that you could use to guide your thoughts, maybe clearly lay out your theory and arguments at least in its basic frame, which would be helpful to anyone trying to understand what, exactly, it is you’re trying to say.
[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][li]What is your definition of an ‘exposed variable theory’?[/li][/ol]
What he’s describing is the so-called frame dragging effect of general relativity, notably a theory that lacks any ether; you can formulate equivalent theories that do have something that might be considered an ether in some sense, but that just shows that the effect does not decide the issue one way or the other.
And besides, the reasoning by analogy you’re using just does not work: even if it swirls like honey, it doesn’t mean that it also has mass like honey; one property does not entail the other. Or else, are we supposed to infer that the ether tastes sweet, and is produced by bees?
Not to mention that in order to get the bowling ball to move if he only did so by being able to compress (I assume that’s the word mpc775 intended to use), you’d need a much greater force to get it going; worse, you’d need to continually apply force in order to keep it going, which also disqualifies these things right off the bat.
The third quote is stating the wave function wave is of statistical nature only and it does not physically determine the path the particle travels. The associated physical wave guides the particle.
“According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable” - Albert Einstein
It is now known that dark matter fills ‘empty’ space. Meaning it is the mass which fills ‘empty’ space which swirls. Better described as the state of displacement of the mass which fills ‘empty’ space.
The articles listed here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17331101&postcount=197 refer to the gravitational aether as an incompressible fluid or an ideal fluid.
There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter anchored to matter. Matter moves through and displaces the mass associated with ‘empty’ space.
The Milky Way’s halo is the state of displacement of the mass associated with ‘empty’ space.
The Milky Way’s halo is curved spacetime.
What is referred to as the curvature of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the mass associated with ‘empty’ space.
‘Empty’ space having mass means spacetime has mass. It is the mass which fills ‘empty’ space which is the physical existence of spacetime.
Those are all very unimpressive assertions.
And your refusal (or inability) to bother actually explaining what you meant is the point that I demonstrated.
You can think that if you want.
Or, you can understand the state of displacement of the mass which fills ‘empty’ space is gravity.
You can understand what ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the mass which fills ‘empty’ space.
You can understand Einstein’s gravitational wave is de Broglie’s wave of wave-particle duality; both are displacement waves in the mass which fills ‘empty’ space.
You can understand what relates general relativity and quantum mechanics is the mass which fills ‘empty’ space and its displacement by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
Howt about I understand that you are wrong in most of your unfounded assertions and unexplained definitions?
Either you still incorrectly think a supersolid is incapable of being displaced or you now correctly understand a supersolid can be displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
There’s really no reason for me to try and explain anything if you still insist a supersolid is incapable of being displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
Are you now able to understand a supersolid is capable of being displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it?
Enjoy your ignorance.
I understand the issue quite well. However, aside from the physics geeks, other readers of this thread may find your claims odd or outlandish. I provided a question from which you could describe some basic descriptions upon which further explanations could be based.
You chose to respond with a non-answer and a sneer. That is your choice. As I noted, (referring to any poster who is not a physics geek), nothing to learn here.
I’m simply asking you if you know understand a supersolid can be displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
A simply yes/no is all that is required. If the answer is yes then you should be able to understand as the bowling ball is accelerated through the supersolid the supersolid offers up resistance to the bowling ball. This is what the following article refers to as the ‘back reaction’ associated with the supersolid.
‘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.”
As you push the bowling ball in order to accelerate it and the supersolid offers up resistance to that push the bowling ball is condensed somewhat. This allows the supersolid to fill-in where the bowling ball had been. This allows the supersolid in front of the bowling ball to be displaced.
You release the bowling ball.
As the supersolid continually fills-in where the bowling ball had been the supersolid displaces the bowling ball. This causes the bowling ball to continually displace the supersolid in its path.
The force associated with the supersolid displacing the bowling ball and the force associated with the bowling ball displacing the supersolid are equal and the bowling ball rolls on forever through the supersolid.
For the people who know physics - it’s clear that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
For the people who don’t know physics - it’s clear that you’re being a dishonest debater.
The next time you add value to this debate will be the first time you add value to this debate.
The same goes for you, unfortunately.
Thanks for not adding any value to the ‘conversation’.