Please … it’s spelted “æther” … using the ash glyph …
Yes. It’s the wave exiting both slits which creates the 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.
‘We’ have.
You are correct. However, for convenience I’m still going with ‘ae’
I’m asking about a particle not traveling through a slit at all. It gets blocked, but according to your explanation the wave should be able to continue through a nearby slit, or even more than one. That would be just like a boat running headlong into a piling but it’s bow wave would continue moving forward on either side of the piling.
Sorry, you confused me again (forgive this ignorant layperson). To whom are you referring?
Yes. If you detect the particle as it enters the slits and block it from continuing the associated wave in the aether continues.
I’ve wondered if you could fire photons across the front of the slits after blocking the particle and alter the behavior of the photon.
You said, “I didn’t know that we’d nailed that particular problem down.”
As far as I am aware, you and I are the only people to understand gravity as the medium which fills space pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the Earth.
Gotcha. I thought you were referring to an external group of which I was not aware.
It’s pretty cool to be part of an exclusive club!
I have another question for you:
When you go to other Web sites with your scientific ideas, do you type it all out fresh or do you have a master document somewhere that you copy/paste from?
This is a post from from the orginal thread that I had started to reply to. It seems to me there is a bit of a misunderstanding going on:
You posted that quote earlier, but as I pointed out he must’ve changed his mind and posted a paper to show that point.
The wavefunction is not a physical wave in any interpretation that I am aware of and certainly not in Bohmian mechanics. The problem with interpreting it as a wave is that the function in a classical wave equation describing a physical wave would be a real-valued function u(x,y,z,t), whereas the wavefunction of a two-particle system (for example) in position space is a complex-valued function Ψ(x[sub]1[/sub],x[sub]2[/sub],y[sub]1[/sub],y[sub]2[/sub],z[sub]1[/sub],z[sub]2[/sub],t), which looks nothing like something that could describe a physical wave.
The physical wave in Bohmian mechanics is the pilot-wave, which is precisely the same wave that de Broglie talks about in his paper on double-solution. Note he describes the same Hamilton-Jacobi equation and continuity equation as described here. Similiarly the wavefunction can be derived from Bohmian mechanics, but importantly it is statistical in nature.
I.e. “Double solution theory” is just de Broglie’s own term for de Broglie-Bohm theory.
I have a general idea of what I like to post and customize it depending on the forum I’m posting to.
No one is discussing Bohmian mecahnics.
I am discussing de Broglie’s double solution theory.
Incorrect. In de Broglie’s double solution theory the wave-function wave is statistical, non-physical and is used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments. There is also a physical wave in a hidden medium.
Bohmian mechanics: pilot-wave is wave-function wave.
de Broglie double solution theoy: guiding wave is not wave-function wave.
Incorrect. de Broglie said it is impossible to adopt pilot-wave theory.
“to render impossible the adoption of the pilot-wave theory.” - Louis de Broglie
Aether (if it exists) exists in 3 dimensional space; the quantum wave function in 3n dimensional configuration space (where n is the number of particles). Hence, the two can’t be identified.
In order to explain the gravitational force, a tensorial (spin-two) field is needed, while the field in ordinary quantum field theory can be scalar (spinless), spinorial (spin-1/2), or vectorial (spin-one). Nobody knows how to write down a consistent spin-two quantum theory—that’s in fact the problem of finding a quantum theory of gravity. Hence, again, ‘that which waves in the double slit experiment’ is not that which gives rise to gravity.
Push-force theories of gravity lead to inconsistencies, since they imply you can use masses to shield gravitational effects, which means that addition of matter does not proportionally increase gravitational mass, leading to a violation of the equivalence principle, contrary to the observed null results in experiments testing for such violations.
Additionally, there should be drag effects that aren’t observed.
Well I’m discussing it, and as I’ve pointed out, you’re discussing it too, but don’t realize it.
Saying “incorrect”, doesn’t actually make it incorrect. I’ve posted cites that clearly demonstrate what I have said. The pilot wave is very closely related to the wavefunction, but is different as the latter doesn’t describe a physical wave. There is no distinction between what de Broglie says and Bohmian mechanics says in this respect.
de Broglie said configuration space is fictitious. Meaning, it doesn’t physically exist. It is a mathematical construct only.
NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS
A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION
by
LOUIS DE BROGLIE
“In addition, we will see that, for particle systems, the [wave-function] wave is propagated in a configuration space, which is an abstract and fictitious space.”
Wave-particle duality and gravity existed prior to the mathematics used to try and represent them mathematically.
Just because you can’t figure out the math does not mean wave-particle duality and gravity are not associated with the same underlying medium which fills ‘empty’ space.
Of course addition of particles of matter within a volume increase gravity. You have a lead Jupiter and our Jupiter. The lead Jupiter displaces more aether. This additional aether exerts more pressure toward the lead Jupiter than the aether displaced by our gaseous Jupiter.
Frame Dragging effect:
EPIC: Einstein’s 4-D Time Theory Confirmed by NASA
‘NASA’s Gravity Probe B Confirms Two Einstein Space-Time Theories’
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html
“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.
Frame dragging is the state of displacement of the aether.
The pilot-wave in Bohmian mechanics physically exist in configuration space.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
“That the guiding wave, in the general case, propagates not in ordinary three-space but in a multidimensional-configuration space is the origin of the notorious ‘nonlocality’ of quantum mechanics. It is a merit of the de Broglie-Bohm version to bring this out so explicitly that it cannot be ignored.”
de Broglie states configuration space is fictitious. Meaning, it doesn’t physically exist and has nothing to do with the guiding wave.
NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS
A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION
by
LOUIS DE BROGLIE
“In addition, we will see that, for particle systems, the [wave-function] wave is propagated in a configuration space, which is an abstract and fictitious space.”
Bohmian mechanics: configuration space is real and is what waves in terms of the pilot-wave.
de Broglie’s double solution theory: configuration space is fictitious. It is a mathematical construct. It doesn’t physically exist. The guiding wave exists in a physically real hidden medium.
Well, that lasted all of…one post.
Which is a problem, since the wave function you’re wanting to use to guide the particle is defined on this configuration space.
Yes, but nevertheless, any purported theory explaining them must at least be mathematically consistent.
Well, the problem is, I can figure out the math, which shows your purely qualitative assertions to be completely baseless.
Is something entirely different than what I was talking about.
Anyway, in sum, your theory is conceptually and mathematically incoherent, and in conflict with experimental data. You can accept that, and move on to try and learn something new, for instance the actual mathematical foundation of modern physics. Or you can continue to post lengthy screeds on the internet.
Go ahead, surprise me.
If you want to be hung up on what we call the mass which fills the space unoccupied by the particles of matter then that is your choice.
I don’t care what you label it. ‘It’ has mass and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in ‘it’ and move through ‘it’ and is what waves in a double slit experiment.