Re: A To E must cover the boundary between physics and metaphysics.
- From: mpc755 <mpc755@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 12:41:05 -0700 (PDT)
On Aug 11, 3:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 11, 1:24 pm, Miguel <papa_r...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11 ago, 12:14, mpc755 <mpc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 11, 12:08 pm, Miguel <papa_r...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If you want to attack QM try at least to learn what it says. The
following video explains in 5 minutes about the same Feynman wrote in
12 pages of his book.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
Miguel Rios
In the video it says the electron becomes a 'wave of potentials, goes
through both slits, and interferes with itself'.
For the C-60 molecule, how does the C-60 molecule physically go
through both slits and interfere with itself?
The C-60 molecule is always a particle which enters and exits a single
slit while the displacement wave it creates in the aether enters and
exits both. So, the video is not entirely accurate. It is not the C-60
molecule itself that goes through both slits, but the displacement
wave it creates in the aether which does
What the experimenters, regarding the C-60 molecule wave behavior,
reported is the following:
"Quantum superposition lies at the heart of quantum mechanics and
gives rise to many of its paradoxes. Superposition of de Broglie
matter waves has been observed for massive particles such as
electrons, atoms and dimers, small van der Waals clusters, and
neutrons. 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 lithography. 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 decoherence,
suggesting that interference experiments with large molecules should
facilitate detailed studies of this process."
They also wrote:
"The interference pattern of Fig. 2a clearly exhibits the central
maximum and the first-order diffraction peaks. The minima between
zeroth and first orders are well developed, and are due to destructive
interference of C60 de Broglie waves passing through neighbouring
slits of the grating. For comparison, we show in Fig. 2b the profile
of the undiffracted collimated beam."
Finally, they conclude:
"Observation of quantum interference with fullerenes is interesting
for various reasons. First, the agreement between our measured and
calculated interference contrast suggests that not only the highly
symmetric, isotopically pure 12C60 molecules contribute to the
interference pattern but also the less symmetric isotopomeric variants
12C59-13C and 12C58-13C2 which occur with a total natural abundance of
about 50%. If only the isotopically pure 12C60 molecules contributed
to the interference, we would observe a much larger background.
Second, we emphasize that for calculating the de Broglie wavelength,
lambda= h/Mv, we have to use the complete mass M of the object. Thus,
each C60 molecule acts as a whole undivided particle during its centre-
of-mass propagation.
Last, the rather high temperature of the C60 molecules implies broad
distributions, both of their kinetic energy and of their internal
energies. Our good quantitative agreement between experiment and
theory indicates that the latter do not influence the observed
coherence. All these observations support the view that each C60
molecule interferes with itself only."
In other words, the C-60 molecule shares, with other quantum objects,
the wave-particle duality.
Miguel Rios
Yes, exactly. And did you notice in what you cut-and-paste, it says
this:
"Thus, each C60 molecule acts as a whole undivided particle during its
centre-
of-mass propagation."
Did you also notice that everything is often discussed as 'de Broglie
waves'.
You do know that de Broglie formulated the Pilot Wave Theory (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot-wave):
"In theoretical physics, the Pilot Wave theory was the first known
example of a hidden variable theory, presented by Louis de Broglie in
1927. Its more modern version, the Bohm interpretation, remains a
controversial attempt to interpret quantum mechanics as a
deterministic theory, avoiding troublesome notions such as
instantaneous wavefunction collapse and the paradox of Schrödinger's
cat."
"The Pilot Wave theory is one of several interpretations of Quantum
Mechanics. It uses the same mathematics as other interpretations of
quantum mechanics; consequently, it is also supported by the current
experimental evidence to the same extent as the other
interpretations."
And, yes, if you do not realize the C-60 molecule is creating a
displacement wave in the aether, it is perfectly reasonable to
conclude, "All these observations support the view that each C60
molecule interferes with itself only."
Now, how about answering the thought experiment where the slits are
long enough that detectors can be placed and/or removed from the exits
while the C-60 molecule is in the slits. How is it that the molecule
is always detected exiting a single slit?
"Thus, each C60 molecule acts as a whole undivided particle during its
centre-
of-mass propagation" and creates a wave in the aether.
Just in case our misunderstanding is more generic than I thought, I do
not have a problem with QM.
My 'beef' is with QM without aether.
QM, with aether, is Aether Displacement.
QM, with aether, is my interpretation of de Broglie's pilot-wave
theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
"This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that
any moving particle or object had an associated wave."
.
- References:
- A To E must cover the boundary between physics and metaphysics.
- From: mpc755
- Re: A To E must cover the boundary between physics and metaphysics.
- From: mpc755
- Re: A To E must cover the boundary between physics and metaphysics.
- From: Miguel
- Re: A To E must cover the boundary between physics and metaphysics.
- From: mpc755
- Re: A To E must cover the boundary between physics and metaphysics.
- From: Miguel
- Re: A To E must cover the boundary between physics and metaphysics.
- From: mpc755
- Re: A To E must cover the boundary between physics and metaphysics.
- From: Miguel
- Re: A To E must cover the boundary between physics and metaphysics.
- From: mpc755
- Re: A To E must cover the boundary between physics and metaphysics.
- From: Miguel
- Re: A To E must cover the boundary between physics and metaphysics.
- From: mpc755
- Re: A To E must cover the boundary between physics and metaphysics.
- From: Miguel
- Re: A To E must cover the boundary between physics and metaphysics.
- From: mpc755
- A To E must cover the boundary between physics and metaphysics.
- Prev by Date: Re: Olber's paradox: a poll
- Next by Date: Re: Olber's paradox: a poll
- Previous by thread: Re: A To E must cover the boundary between physics and metaphysics.
- Next by thread: Re: A To E must cover the boundary between physics and metaphysics.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|