Re: The origin of gravity

On Aug 31, 9:15 am, mpc755 <mpc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 31, 8:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Aug 30, 8:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 30, 6:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 30, 9:59 am, mpc755 <mpc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 30, 10:18 am, PD <thedraperfam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 28, 6:09 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 28, 6:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 28, 2:40 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 28, 3:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 28, 2:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 28, 2:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Compare with other material media, which are also closed systems and
which do not leave a void behind objects, and where energy is
dissipated, the absence of which dissipation in your material medium
you've not accounted for except by -- hey, look at that -- an
additional assumption. Magic. Religious miracle.

A boat with momentum interacting with two slits where the bow wave
enters and exits both slits ahead of the boat and the boat will create
an interference pattern on the screen.

Analogous to particles creating waves in the aether.

Gee, that has nothing to do with your miraculous lack of energy
dissipation and your miraculous assumed elasticity.

Even though there is energy dissipation in the boat's interaction with
the water, the boat is still able to create an interference pattern on
the shore.

If there weren't water molecules in the medium, then there would be
even less, if any energy dissipation in the interaction between the
particle and the aether.

Not only is this magic, but it is completely unverifiable magic.
Kind of like intelligent design.
Oh wait, that's religious hoo-ha.

Of course it's completely verifiable. It's verified every time the
double slit experiment is performed with C-60 molecule and it's
verified every time the 'Experimental realization of Wheeler's delayed-
choice GedankenExperiment' experiment is executed.

You see, there is a wave in the aether that travels both paths in any
double slit experiment.

I know, repeat your mantra, there is no aether, there is not aether,
there is no aether.

Sorry, you have not provided a way to determine that your model is
correct and that QM is not correct, other than you like your model
better. That's not scientific.

Sorry, but the fact that double slit experiments can be performed with
other objects in other mediums is evidence of the C-60 molecule
behaving the same in the aether.

Sorry, but the behavior of other objects in other media is
QUANTITATIVELY DIFFERENT than it is in quantum mechanics. This is the
part you do not get. Different models produce DIFFERENT quantitative
predictions. Similarity is NOT enough to say, "Well, they must be the
same kind of thing."

Note that QM mechanics makes the accurate quantitative predictions
that your material medium model does NOT.

Therefore you have not provided a way to determine that your model is
correct and that QM is not correct, other than you like your model
better. That's not scientific. And that's just what I told you
earlier.

"Experimental realization of Wheeler’s delayed-choice
GedankenExperiment"http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0610/0610241v1.pdf

"Any description in which light is treated as a classical wave, like
the semi-classical theory with quantized photodetectors (24), predicts
that these numbers of counts should obey the inequality a ≥ 1..
Violation of this inequality thus gives a quantitative criterion which
characterizes nonclassical behaviour. For a single-photon wavepacket,
Quantum Optics predicts perfect anticorrelation i.e. a  = 0 in
agreement with the intuitive image that a single particle cannot be
detected simultaneously in the two paths of the interferometer"

What the experiment is saying is a classical wave will be detected
along both paths and QM agrees with the intuitive image that a single
particle cannot be detected simultaneously in the two paths.

The experiment has used a false assumption about what a photon
actually is (i.e. a classical wave) in order to prove the experiment
does not behave if treated not as QM predicts.

So, let's not treat it like a classical wave, because a photon isn't a
classical wave. Let's treat it like it actually exists in nature. Like
a photon, because that is what it is.

The photon wave IS traveling along both paths, but the photon particle
is traveling along a single path. If you ran this experiment with a
C-60 molecule, then the wave the C-60 molecule is creating in the
aether would travel along both paths and the C-60 molecule would
travel along a single path.

If you use what is actually occurring in nature, then using a
'classical wave' in order to undermine non-QM theories, when no
one says a photon is simply a classical wave, is pure bull ***.

QM does not make the correct determinations. QM says a 'delayed
choice' is occurring in experiment.

What you call "determinations" should be called "quantitative
predictions of measured results" and this is exactly what QM gets
correct, and this is what science asks for.

What you called a "determination" is something different and has
nothing to do with science.

That is not what is occurring in the experiment. The photon wave is
traveling both paths and the photon particle is traveling a single
path.

The quantitative predictions of measured results is finding a false
result based upon a false prediction. There is no 'delayed choice'.

Sorry, what is false? The predicted values of the measurements turn
out to be identical to the measured values. The only falsification in
science is when those turn out to disagree.



You do believe in wave-particle duality correct?

Then what is happening in classical mechanics is the wave is traveling
both paths and the particle is traveling a single path.

That's what waves do.

When a wave interacts with BSinput the wave goes through and is
reflected by BSinput. To think a wave would do otherwise is to believe
in nonsense.

Then what is happening in classical mechanics is the particle is
traveling a single path because that is what particles do. A particle
is reflected or travels through BSinput. To think a particle would do
otherwise is to believe in nonsense.

With the wave traveling both paths and the particle traveling a single
path, the photon, which is detected by detecting the photon particle,
will always be detected along a single path. No one believes otherwise
and to make any predictions about what would happen in non-QM theories
based upon a photon being a 'classical wave' that can be detected
traveling along both paths is pure bull***.

So, we have a wave traveling both paths and a particle traveling a
single path, exactly like a wave and a particle would be expected to
do in nature.

If BSoutput is introduced there is interference. If BSoutput is
removed no interference.

Nothing to do with anything being a 'delayed choice'. To believe in a
'delayed choice' is to require something other than the above
explanations of how a wave and a particle behave in the experiment and
in nature and requires one to believe in nonsense.

.

Quantcast