Non-locality has nothing to do with de Broglie’s wave mechanics and double solution theory
I am not a physicist, and my understanding of physics is very limited. Therefore whatever I say on this subject is at best extremely simple, and at worst completely wrong.
If aether exists, and if aether has mass, and if it exerts pressure as it is displaced or condensed, then why doesn’t it cause drag? You answered this question previously by saying aether is a “supersolid,” but I don’t understand the term. Does this mean aether doesn’t cause friction?
Even if the aether is frictionless, wouldn’t an object in motion cause the aether in front of it to compress, or displace? This displaced aether would create gravity pushing opposite the direction of motion, wouldn’t it? If not, why? It would also cause the object to have higher gravity on the “leading” side, due to aether being compressed on one side more than the other.
I request you don’t repeat anything you said previously in response to the above. I didn’t understand it the first time.
That certainly is an interesting video, but I dont see how it answers the question about the apparently intermittent interaction between matter and aether.
I see **Mosier ** has asked a similar question in post #142, so I’ll wait and see what you answer to that.
The aether is incompressible. Water is incompressible.
A boat has a bow wave.
A surfer rides the ocean wave.
An object moving through the aether is both boat and surfer simultaneously.
In the following video the droplet is guided by its own displacement wave. The droplet is both boat and surfer simultaneously. At the 0:45 mark in the following video the droplets are locked in orbit. They are locked in orbit due to the state of displacement of the fluid they exist in. Think of the fluid which exists between the droplets as being more at rest then the fluid which encompasses the droplets which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the droplets. This pressure differential in the fluid keeps the droplets in orbit about each other.
‘Walking Droplets’
The interaction of an object and the aether is frictionless. Frictionless does not imply no interaction. An object requires energy to displace the aether. The aether returns to the object the same amount of energy as the object ‘displaces back’. The ‘displacing back’ is analogous to the ocean wave propelling the surfer.
Q. Is the object displacing the aether or is the aether displacing the object?
A. Both occur simultaneously with equal force and the object moves forever through the aether.
“a “field” in physics may be envisioned as if space were filled with interconnected vibrating balls and springs, and the strength of the field can be visualized as the displacement of a ball from its rest position”
A ‘field’ in physics is space filled with aether and the strength of the field is the displacement of the aether from its relativistic rest position.
Each of the plates in the Casimir effect displace the aether. The displaced aether which exists between the plates is pushing back toward each of the plates which causes the force associated with the aether displaced by each of the plates which exists between the plates to offset. This aether is more at relative rest than the aether which is displaced by the plates which encompasses the plates. The reduced force associated with the aether which exists between the plates along with the displaced aether which encompasses the plates which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the plates causes the plates to be forced together.
What occurs physically in nature in the Casimir effect is the same phenomenon as gravity.
There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter anchored to matter. Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter.
Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.
The aether which exists between the Earth and the Moon is displaced by both the Earth and the Moon and is pushing back toward the Earth and toward the Moon. This displaced aether offsets and cancels each other out to some degree. This aether is more at relativistic rest than the displaced aether which encompasses the Earth and the Moon.
The aether which encompasses the Earth and the Moon is able to exert more pressure on the solid matter Earth than it can the liquid oceans. This, along with the molecular bonds associated with the solid matter the Earth consists of, causes the solid matter Earth to be pushed closer to the Moon than the ocean water opposite the Moon. This causes the ocean to ‘rise’ opposite the Moon. The aether between the Earth and Moon exerts less pressure on the ocean water than it can the solid matter Earth. This, along with the the molecular bonds associated with the solid matter the Earth consists of, causes the ocean to rise between the Earth and Moon.
Correction:
The aether returns to the object the same amount of energy as the [aether] ‘displaces back’.
So then you’re saying we know it’s wrong by experiment, because we know that every realist theory able to replicate the confirmed predictions of quantum mechanics must be nonlocal.
I’m saying you don’t understand de Broglie’s wave mechanics and double solution theory.
I do, but I wouldn’t have to: Bell’s inequalities and their observed violation are completely independent of the theory, and they establish unequivocally that if a theory is both realistic (as de Broglie’s undoubtedly is) and local (as you claim it to be), then it can’t account for those experimentally observed violations.
This is untrue. Water is not very compressible, but the reason I mention that is because you also said:
Do you mean absolutely incompressible, or just not very compressible?
Because it make a big difference. An incompressible fluid can’t be displaced at all if there’s nowhere for it to go.
Water, despite being quite nearly incompressible, can be displaced because it does not fill the whole universe - so it is displaced ultimately into positions where there wasn’t any water previously.
If aether is incompressible, where does it go when it is displaced? Also, how does that displacement wave travel at all?
An absolutely incompressible fluid would not be able to exhibit compression waves - pressure would be transmitted instantaneously across any amount of it (and if it had mass, that would make it impossible to do, because accelerating a finite mass of something from zero to any velocity **instantaneously[/b would require infinite effort.
There are two wave phenomena in water - compression waves (sound) and surface waves (displacement) - which of these is analogous to waves in aether (and if necessary, where does that analogy break down)?
If wave phenomena in aether are analogous to sound waves in a medium, then aether must be compressible. If they are analogous to surface waves, describe the surface between aether and whatever else.
Please answer in your own words, or not at all.
Bell’s inequality applies to hidden variable theories. de Broglie’s pilot wave theory is a hidden variable theory. That is not the theory being discussed. I am discussing de Broglie’s wave mechanics and double solution.theory which is not a hidden variable theory.
A supersolid is considered to be incompressible. The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid.
You are in a bowling alley filled with a supersolid. You roll the bowling ball. The bowling ball displaces the supersolid. The supersolid displaces the bowling ball as it fills in where the bowling ball had been. By definition, there is no loss of energy in the interaction of the bowling ball and the supersolid. This does not mean no interaction.
Q. Is the bowling ball displacing the supersolid or is the supersolid displacing the bowling ball?
A. Both occur simultaneously with equal force and the bowling ball rolls on forever through the supersolid.
The supersolid in the bowling alley doesn’t go anywhere. The supersolid doesn’t require any additional volume as you roll the bowling ball; it just changes shape.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
“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 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.”
Stop with the commentary telling me what I can and cannot post. I already stopped responding to your posts once as it is obvious you have no interest in understanding my responses in addition to your making demands of how I can respond.
Either just ask your questions, or not at all.
Nicely ironic, thanks. You’re clearly happy enough to tell me how to conduct myself.
I just happen to think (and I don’t think I’m alone in this) that argument by tenuously-relevant YouTube link or repetitive, uncommented quotation is not a productive mode of discourse.
You are wrong, and a terrible judge of motive, but I will waste no more of your time.
If you wanted to understand what occurs physically in nature you could have read and understood the following.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
“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 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.”
According to de Broglie, it is (PDF link):
[QUOTE=de Broglie]
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.
[/QUOTE]
(De Broglie, Louis. “Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory.” Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie. Vol. 12. No. 4. Paris, France: Fondation Louis de Broglie, 1987. Emphasis mine.)
The precise position is a hidden variable, since according to ordinary quantum mechanics, particles do not have a precise position at every instant; furthermore, it is only observable up to the limits dictated by the uncertainty principle.
Incorrect. de Broglie went back to his original thinking which was wave mechanics and the double solution theory. de Broglie says of his own pilot-wave theory, “to render impossible the adoption of the pilot-wave theory”.
Non-linear Wave Mechanics: A Causal Interpretation by Louis de Broglie (English translation) Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1960.
*"But, as I have said, since 1951 I have once again been wondering if, after all, my first idea was not the right one. Further reflections on this very difficult problem have led me to refine certain points of the original double-solution theory.[Preface VI]
I have once more taken up the study of my former and earliest conceptions of Wave Mechanics without preconceived ideas of any sort and without any personal axe to grind. I may be wrong in wishing to go back to concepts that are clearer than those prevailing in theortetical physics at the present time. But I should like this line of thought, abandoned for some twenty-five years now and believed to lead to an impasse, to be carefully re-examined to see whether, on the contrary, it may not be the pathway that might lead to the true Microphysics of the Future.[Preface VII]
Unfortunately the development of the theory of the Double Solution presented great mathematical difficulties. For that reason, when I was requested to present a paper on Wave Mechanics at the Solvay Physical Congress held in Brussels in October 1927, I contented myself with a presentation of my ideas in an incomplete and diluted form which I called the “pilot-wave theory”. … And I used the term “pilot-wave theory” for the theory limited to the postulation of the existence of the particle and the [wave function] wave, with no futher reference to a wave containing a singularity. … But the [wave function] wave usually employed in Wave Mechanics cannot be a physical reality; its normalization is arbitrary; its propagation, in the general case, is supposed to take place in an obviously fictitious configuration space, and the success of its probabilistic interpretation shows clearly that it is merely a representation of probabilities dependent upon the state of our knowledge and suddenly modified by every new piece of information. So I saw clearly that the pilot-wave theory could not supply the interpretation I sought; it did not achieve the clearcut separation of the objective and subjective, which had been give up by Bohr and his disciples, but which it was necessary to maintain if I was to arrive at a concrete and causal interpretation of Wave Mechanics.
On the other hand, my original theory of the Double Solution, by distinguishing the [wave function] wave, with its probabilistic and subjective character, from the singularity-wave ( wave), which was to be a description of objective reality, might possibly supply the more classical type of interpretation I was after. But I knew only too well that the theory of the double solution likewise involved numerous difficulties, especially when it came to the existence and form of singularity-waves and to their relation to the [wave function] waves, or when one had to interpret in terms of singularity-waves interference experiments of the Young-slit type, etc.[page ref]
During the summer of 1951, there came to my attention, much to my surprise, a paper by David Bohm which appeard subsequently in The Physical Review. In this paper Bohm went back to my theory of pilot-wave, considering the [wave function] wave as physical reality. He made a certain number of interesting remarks on the subject, and in particular, he indicated the broad outline of a theory of measurement that seemed to answer the objections Pauli had made to my approach in 1927. My first reaction on reading Bohm’s work was to reiterate, in a communication to the Comptes rendus de l’ Academie des Sciences, the objects, insurmountable in my opinion, that seemed to render impossible any attribution of physical reality to the [wave function] wave, and consequently, to render impossible the adoption of the pilot-wave theory.[1]"*
I can’t find any conclusive evidence that supersolids even exist.
Err, nothing in that block of text contradicts what I posted above. I’m not saying that the double solution is the pilot wave theory, I’m not saying it’s Bohm theory, I’m merely quoting de Broglie’s own statement that in the double solution theory that he revisited late in his life, the particle (‘singularity’) always has a definite position—which makes it a hidden variable theory. I mean, these are the theory’s originators own words, plain as day stating that the particle is always precisely localized in his double solution theory. This is the same as saying ‘the double solution is a hidden variable theory’. I don’t see how this could be any clearer.
(Besides, he uses the same quantum potential as Bohm, which is of course known to transmit nonlocal influences; and of course, those trajectories you posted earlier—Bohmian trajectories, natch—would be impossible without them. But that just in passing: the simple fact is that de Broglie considered the particle in his double solution theory to always have a definite position. We know that because he said so.)
If you read de Broglie’s paper it’s quite clear that he is describing a hidden variables theory and less explicit, but still fairly obvious is that it is non-local. He uses a quantum potential, which is the same quantum potential seen in Bohmian mechanics and is non-local.
Edited to add: looks like HMHW beat me to the punch, but it demonstrates his (and my) point about the non-local hidden variable nature of the double solution theory being obvious.
There are no such things as hidden variables. In order for there to be conservation of momentum downconverted photon pairs are created with opposite angular momentum. Entanglement is one dowconverted photon being able to determine the position and momentum of its pair. Entanglement is one dowconverted photon being able to determine the state of its pair.
So, you’re just going to flat-out deny what de Broglie says about his own theory? Not to mention what the equations defining it straightforwardly say. The quantum potential for any system of more than one particle is a function of the position of each of these particles; thus, in general, any change of any of these particle’s positions will have an instantaneous influence on all other particles, no matter their location. The only exception is if the wavefunction factorizes, i.e. if there’s no entanglement present (and in general, there will be entanglement between any two particles that have interacted in the past). That’s the nonlocality inherent in the theory.