Aether model of QM.

[Darkchilde]

ON Rational Skepticism, me and Царь Славян were involved in a physics discussion, where Царь Славян did show that in physics his knowledge is even worse than in biology. The point we arrived was that he made some claims, and because of his being banned, it was ended. I don't think he has read my answers, so I am copying the post I made (with a few additions and changes) here.

I have but it is a notion that is obsolete. There is no aether medium. None has been found ever, in space.

Wow, someone is about to get schooled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casmir_Effect

Dirac sea and quantum foam are model of a medium on a planck level. And teh Casmir effect is an empirical evidence for an existance for a source of energy in the vacuum. And the best explanation is the aether.

Unfortunately, Czar did not even read the wikipedia articles he linked to.

The Dirac sea was formulated in order to explain some anomalies in the Dirac equation for electrons. It sees the vacuum as a sea of particles. It turned out that these anomalies, were nothing else but the positron, which was discovered in 1932. The modern interpretation of the Dirac sea, is used in solid state physics. Nothing in the Dirac sea concept relates to the aether model, because the Dirac sea speaks about particles, like electrons.

Then we have Quantum Foam, where I bolded the important part. Czar did not accept the uncertainty principle, but accepts the quantum foam? And later in the same post he does not accept the theory of relativity...

Quantum foam, also referred to as spacetime foam, is a concept in quantum mechanics, devised by John Wheeler in 1955. The foam is supposedly the foundations of the fabric of the universe, but it can also be used as a qualitative description of subatomic spacetime turbulence at extremely small distances of the order of the Planck length. At such small scales of time and space the uncertainty principle allows particles and energy to briefly come into existence, and then annihilate, without violating conservation laws. As the scale of time and space being discussed shrinks, the energy of the virtual particles increases. Since energy curves spacetime according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, this suggests that at sufficiently small scales the energy of the fluctuations would be large enough to cause significant departures from the smooth spacetime seen at larger scales, giving spacetime a "foamy" character. However, without a theory of quantum gravity it is impossible to be certain what spacetime would look like at these scales, since it is thought that existing theories do not give accurate predictions in this domain. However, observations of radiation from nearby quasars by Floyd Stecker of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., have placed strong limits on the possible violations of Einstein's special theory of relativity implied by the existence of quantum foam

And lastly, there is nothing in the Casimir effect that contradicts the Copenhagen interpretation or the Uncertainty Principle.

Furthermore, aether has been detected. The Michelson Morley experiment did detect the aether. The velocity was 8 km/s. It was interpreted as too low, and therefore it was interpreted as an error in measurement. But the Michelson Gale experiment which took the rotation of the Earth as a measure of velocity. The predicted value was 0.236 +/- 0.002, and the measured value was 0.230 +/- 0.005. Whic is right in the middle. Also implying that the aether was detected.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..140M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

Nothing in the above paper has to do with the aether. It is a different experiment than the one where Michelson and Morley wanted to find the aether medium, but instead disproved it. The above experiment is "The effect of the Earth's rotation on the velocity of light". The observed effect actually agreed within the limits of the experimental errors with the one predicted by the theory of relativity!!!

Not only that but the repeated experiments of the first type of MM experiment gave the same 8 km/s measurements which would imply that the experimental reading was clearly not an error. The experiments that are in question are the original MM experiment, Miller experiment and others conducted in: 1887, 1902, 1904, 1905 and 1925. All showing the same 8 km/s.

http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/yellow08.htm

LOL! Another pseudoscientist. There is no aether, and there is no 8 km/s. I think that speed has been taken out of someone's imagination. Never heard of that speed.

Physicists disagree with you. You may think whatever you like, and you may not like the Copenhagen interpretation, but that does not mean that it is not scientific. All physics textbooks, and QM textbooks include the Copenhagen interpretation, but nothing includes your Ukrainian guy.

Argument from authority won't help you.

A = wave
B = particle
(Wave ≠ Particle) => (A ≠ B)
(QM(A, B) : (A = B)) => QM(A, B) = false

A is a particle, B is a wave. Particle is not a wave, therefore A is not equal B. QM is Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanic. QM(A, B) is a a statement about A and B. QM claims that A and B are equal, and since they are not QM is false.

There, you have a formal logical proof that it's an illogical interpretation. It's not my opinion it's logic.

And here Czar has confused the issues. The Copenhagen interpretation has nothing to do with the wave-particle duality. This has been observed in many subatomic particles from photons to electrons, etc.

From wikipedia:

The idea of duality originated in a debate over the nature of light and matter that dates back to the 17th century, when competing theories of light were proposed by Christiaan Huygens and Isaac Newton: light was thought either to consist of waves (Huygens) or of corpuscles [particles] (Newton). Through the work of Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Louis de Broglie, Arthur Compton, Niels Bohr, and many others, current scientific theory holds that all particles also have a wave nature (and vice versa). This phenomenon has been verified not only for elementary particles, but also for compound particles like atoms and even molecules. In fact, according to traditional formulations of non-relativistic quantum mechanics, wave-particle duality applies to all objects, even macroscopic ones; but because of their small wavelengths, the wave properties of macroscopic objects cannot be detected.

So, the wave-particle duality has nothing to do with the Copenhagen interpretation.

If someone got schooled, that is not me.

And one more thing about the wave/particle duality, for which I wish to thank GenesForLife, for pointing me to the relevant paper from 1999here: http://www.inoa.it/home/azavatta/References/401680.pdf.

Quantum superposition lies at the heart of quantum mechanics and gives rise to many of its paradoxes. Superposition of de Broglie matter waves1 has been observed for massive particles such as electrons2, atoms and dimers3, small van der Waals clusters4, and neutrons5. But matter wave interferometry with larger objects has remained experimentally challenging, despite the development of powerful atom interferometric techniques for experiments in fundamental quantum mechanics, metrology and lithography6. Here we report the observation of de Broglie wave interference of C60 molecules by diffraction at a material absorption grating. This molecule is the most massive and complex object in which wave behaviour has been observed. Of particular interest is the fact that C60 is almost a classical body, because of its many excited internal degrees of freedom and their possible couplings to the environment. Such couplings are essential for the appearance of decoherence7, 8, suggesting that interference experiments with large molecules should facilitate detailed studies of this process.

So, the wave/particle duality has been observed for molecules.

The original post by Czar can be found here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/c...eationists-read-this-t18769-1020.html#p702801

 

[Squawk]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Just a quick note, Darkchilde pm'd me to ask if a discussion from ratskep could be continued here, I agreed.

 

[Pulsar]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Argument from authority won't help you.

[...]

Miller experiment and others conducted in: 1887, 1902, 1904, 1905 and 1925. All showing the same 8 km/s.

Heh, I love irony. As this paper shows, Miller's analysis was flawed, his results are not statistically significant and a proper analysis of his data shows an "aether drift" of zero with an error bar of 6 km/s. The original analysis of MM has the same flaws. That's not the fault of these scientists, it was simply unknown in those days how to do a thorough statistical error analysis.

And why stop in 1925? Modern experiments show a constant speed of light upto 1 part in 10^18.

 

[Darkchilde]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Argument from authority won't help you.

[...]

Miller experiment and others conducted in: 1887, 1902, 1904, 1905 and 1925. All showing the same 8 km/s.

Heh, I love irony. As this paper shows, Miller's analysis was flawed, his results are not statistically significant and a proper analysis of his data shows an "aether drift" of zero with an error bar of 6 km/s. The original analysis of MM has the same flaws. That's not the fault of these scientists, it was simply unknown in those days how to do a thorough statistical error analysis.

And why stop in 1925? Modern experiments show a constant speed of light upto 1 part in 10^18.

Ok, I stand corrected on the speed of the aether medium. I have not read the full story of the aether medium, just the basic history of it and that it was disproved with the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Czar is trying to disprove every scientific theory there is. I did not even read anything on the link for Maurice Allais he provided, except the title "The fundamental and complete collapse of relativity theory". I did not need to read beyond that, because, unfortunately for this Allais guy, relativity theory has withstood every test up to now.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Miller experiment and others conducted in: 1887, 1902, 1904, 1905 and 1925. All showing the same 8 km/s.
Heh, I love irony. As this paper shows, Miller's analysis was flawed, his results are not statistically significant and a proper analysis of his data shows an "aether drift" of zero with an error bar of 6 km/s. The original analysis of MM has the same flaws. That's not the fault of these scientists, it was simply unknown in those days how to do a thorough statistical error analysis.

And why stop in 1925? Modern experiments show a constant speed of light upto 1 part in 10^18.

This particular interpretation of Miller's and other MM-type experiments is still compatible with the aether. Which would imply that the relative velocity between the Earth and the aetehr is 0. There are two possible interpretations. One is that the Earth is motionless, and the other is that there is an aether drag. Which means that the aether is being pulled together with the Earth through the space.

But, what your article does not take into account, is the Michelson-Gale experiment, which did not take into account Earth's velocity around the Sun. But instead was measuring Earth's rotation. And the result was the one that was predicted. The predicted value was 0.236 +/- 0.002 and the measured value was 0.230 +/- 0.005. Which means that the aether was detected. This particular experiment has two interpretations. Either the Earth is rotating once in every 24 h, or the aether is rotating once in every 24 h.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1925ApJ....61..140M

 

[Pulsar]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

This particular interpretation of Miller's and other MM-type experiments is still compatible with the aether. Which would imply that the relative velocity between the Earth and the aetehr is 0. There are two possible interpretations. One is that the Earth is motionless, and the other is that there is an aether drag. Which means that the aether is being pulled together with the Earth through the space.

I hope you're not a geocentrist...
Anyway, both interpretations (a motionless Earth or aether drag) are contradicted by the effect of stellar aberration.

But, what your article does not take into account, is the Michelson-Gale experiment, which did not take into account Earth's velocity around the Sun. But instead was measuring Earth's rotation. And the result was the one that was predicted. The predicted value was 0.236 +/- 0.002 and the measured value was 0.230 +/- 0.005. Which means that the aether was detected.

The Michelson-Gale experiment is in complete agreement with General Relativity. In particular, it confirms the Sagnac effect.
Sure, the MG experiment could also be explained by a stationary aether. But that would contradict the aether drag required by the MM experiment. You would need a rather magical aether to explain both experiments, and stellar aberration...

 

[Darkchilde]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

It seems that Czar has put me on ignore, because he did not comment on anything I have written.

Well done Czar. Just put on ignore everyone who disagrees with you... It's actually why I hate the ignore function, because people like Czar, will put on ignore everyone they disagree with.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

It seems that Czar has put me on ignore, because he did not comment on anything I have written.

Well done Czar. Just put on ignore everyone who disagrees with you... It's actually why I hate the ignore function, because people like Czar, will put on ignore everyone they disagree with.

Indeed. Aside from Pulsar here I'm not even sure who all he can even see anymore, including me. It makes communication very difficult; but then, of course, he didn't come here to communicate.

 

[Squawk]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Try modding a thread where you can't tell who can read what...

 

[Darkchilde]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Try modding a thread where you can't tell who can read what...

This is a bit off-topic, but, why did you implement the ignore function? It creates a lot of problems for both members and moderators. This is exactly why I argued against turning it on another forum.

 

[Squawk]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Try modding a thread where you can't tell who can read what...

This is a bit off-topic, but, why did you implement the ignore function? It creates a lot of problems for both members and moderators. This is exactly why I argued against turning it on another forum.

Nothing to do with me, but for the most part I see it as a decent solution to potential aggravation. It fails in instances such as this of course.

 

[Andiferous]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

The ignore function is very useful at times when things get excessively heated between members, and it's much better than people working themselves up until they both get banned.

Царь Славян was pretty much mobbed on the other thread, and the whole thing ended in badness. If he needs time to cool down with the ignore function, it's probably the right choice and I don't blame him. It does help prevent things spiralling lke they did last time. I hope he does lift it when things have calmed.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

It's actually why I hate the ignore function, because people like Czar, will put on ignore everyone they disagree with.

That's actually one of the reasons I like the ignore function. Oh sure, it prevents person A from responding with a nice thoughtful response as to why B is wrong that B will never read, and that's unfortunate; but it also allows C to not see D's rude remark that would have made C respond even worse, causing escalation and frustration (and making my job harder).

Sometimes a poster is simply irritating to another poster for whatever reason (maybe spelling, grammar, word choice, sentence structure, method of communication, or even viewpoint), and it's good that the "another poster" can ignore the first poster and overall everyone is less angry for it, including me.

Indeed. Aside from Pulsar here I'm not even sure who all he can even see anymore, including me. It makes communication very difficult; but then, of course, he didn't come here to communicate.

He can still see me (sadly we didn't get to finish our conversation). And yes, I think "he didn't come here to communicate" may be the salient point (though I hope I'm wrong, like I said, we did not get to finish our conversation).

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

I hope you're not a geocentrist...

I'm neither a geocentrist nor a heliocentrist since both views are just a model that explain all observations equally well.

Anyway, both interpretations (a motionless Earth or aether drag) are contradicted by the effect of stellar aberration.

Actually the same thing can be explained from the geocentric position.

http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no113/Stellar%20parallax-aberration%20is%20geocentric.pdf

In the geocentric model, it is the light that is being moved, that is rotating, not the Earth itself.

The Michelson-Gale experiment is in complete agreement with General Relativity. In particular, it confirms the Sagnac effect.

Actually no, Sagnac effect contradicts relativity since according to relativity the speed of light is independent of its direction. And the Sagnac experiment has shown that there is a difference in the speed of light depending on its direction.

Sure, the MG experiment could also be explained by a stationary aether. But that would contradict the aether drag required by the MM experiment. You would need a rather magical aether to explain both experiments, and stellar aberration...

But then there would be no aether drag, which is in accordance with a geocentric model, and your interpretation of the MM-type experiments and we would have a rotating aether which is in accordance with the MG experiment.

 

[australopithecus]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

I hope you're not a geocentrist...

I'm neither a geocentrist nor a heliocentrist since both views are just a model that explain all observations equally well.

Geocentrism explains nothing, well or otherwise. Unless of course you've just come from the 13th century.

I predict this is going to turn into another Realisoph trip down fantasy lane, in which case I'm breaking out the popcorn.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

The Michelson-Gale experiment is in complete agreement with General Relativity. In particular, it confirms the Sagnac effect.

Actually no, Sagnac effect contradicts relativity since according to relativity the speed of light is independent of its direction. And the Sagnac experiment has shown that there is a difference in the speed of light depending on its direction.

The speed of light depending on its direction, relative to what?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

I'm not a physicist or anything, but doesn't this pretty much confirm the theory of relativity to the extent that a scientific theory can be proven:

???

 

[Pulsar]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

I'm not a physicist or anything, but doesn't this pretty much confirm the theory of relativity to the extent that a scientific theory can be proven:

Indeed. Gravitational lensing is striking evidence for relativity.

 

[Pulsar]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

I'm neither a geocentrist nor a heliocentrist since both views are just a model that explain all observations equally well.

This is getting ridiculous. First you object to relativity, and now you're questioning heliocentrism? Is there any scientific theory of the past 400 years that you do accept? I'm not in the mood to give a physics course about everything.

]Actually the same thing can be explained from the geocentric position.

http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no113/Stellar%20parallax-aberration%20is%20geocentric.pdf

LOL Biblical Astronomer? Haven't heard of that "peer-reviewed" journal before :lol: . What a lovely piece of gibberish. Ironically, I have to agree with the editor's comments: in Hanson's made-up equation, both parallax and aberration are proportional to the distance of the star. That's completely wrong: in reality, parallax is inversely proportional to distance, and aberration is independent of distance!

I've explained the concept of aberration in a previous topic, which you can read here:
http://forums.leagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=16844#p16844

Actually no, Sagnac effect contradicts relativity since according to relativity the speed of light is independent of its direction. And the Sagnac experiment has shown that there is a difference in the speed of light depending on its direction.

The Sagnac effect is caused by a difference between travel distances of two light beams, and is in complete agreement with relativity. Max von Laue actually predicted the effect on the basis of special relativity, two years before Sagnac's experiment. In fact, when fibre optic Sagnac interferometers are used, there is an additional effect: the Fizeau effect, which can only be explained by the relativistic velocity addition formula.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

The speed of light depending on its direction, relative to what?

Relative to the observer.