Re: Vote for the generally accepted what is physically going through both slits in the Double Slit Experiment when the particle is a carbon-60 molecule

On Apr 22, 5:54 am, mpc755 <mpc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 21, 11:39 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Apr 21, 11:30 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 21, 8:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 21, 5:26 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 21, 12:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

em fields is not a good enough answer to describe accurately what is
going on in the Double Slit Experiment and what is the cause of
gravity.

If you are willing to assert that the em field "is" the aether, then
let's figure out how it is this aether works.

The aether is something.
No two somethings can exist in the same point in three dimensional
space simultaneously.
Therefore, the aether is displaced by the objects that exist in it.
When the aether is displaced it gains energy.
It returns this energy as it returns to a less-displaced state.
Therefore, objects interaction with the aether does not affect the
objects momentum.
If the object has enough momentum, then this displaced aether takes
the form of a wave.
It is this displaced aether wave created by the C-60 molecule that
goes through both slits in the Double Slit Experiment.
The aether wave exits both slits and creates interference.
The direction the C-60 molecule travels is altered by this
interference.
The displaced aether of the sun and earth allows the earth to be
neutrally buoyant relative to the sun.

You're making unfounded assumptions in your argument.  The
experimental evidence is overwhelmingly that em fields superpose in
space.  They certainly can occupy the same space, and in doing so add
together vectorally.  This is exactly what interference is about.
Without this propety there would be no interference patterns to
discuss.

There is a huge difference between water displaced by a boat hull and
space being displaced by an electron.  FWIW water and salt can occupy
the same space, in the loose sense that you're speaking of. But the
reality is that most of the space within the volume containing the
salt water is empty. When a jar of the water is tossed across a room,
does the space between it's particles move with it? According to your
theory it would. According to reality that isn't possible.  Einstein
worked out a thought experiment involving a box within a box to
illustrate this point.  If a smaller box is located within the space
contained by a larger box, and if the smaller box is set into motion
within the larger box, then the space within the smaller box is also
space within the larger box. Does this volume of space move with the
smaller box, or does it remain stationary wrt the larger box, while
the smaller box takes on a different space as it moves?  To complicate
the issue, note that the smaller box has ever right to regard itself
as at rest and the larger box as in motion.  Upon consideration it is
impossible to assign any particular state of motion to the space
within either of the boxes.  That being said, it is impossible for
your form of aether to exert forces upon either of these boxes without
violating the PoR, and thus impossible for it to account for the
deflection of the C60 molecule in the double slit experiment.   It is
only wrt other particles that a given particle has motion.

The discussion of em fields doesn't encounter these difficulties.  I
will agree with you that QM texts include a tremendous amount of
unfounded conjecture (fantasy).  The QM explanation is borderline
schizophrenia. On second thought, make that full fledged
schizophrenia.

As you walk across the room, does the aether that exists between the
electrons and nucleus of the atoms that exists in your body travel
with you, or is it stationary?

I say it moves with you.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I removed my previous reply because it was a bit sloppy, and probably
would generate more questions than answers. So to answer your
speculation above, I can only return it with anther question, "WHAT
will move with you?"

Whatever it is we are made of.

My cell phone contains aether.

If I throw my cell phone across the room, the aether it contains will
be travel across the room with it.

The following might be too much of a turn in the conversation, but I
think it is important...

So, the next question would be, if the aether is moving within the
object, then if we go back to Einstein's train thought experiment, the
lightning flash in the train should be traveling a c+v (where "v" is
the speed of the train).

The problem with this logic is it ties the lightning strike to a
particular point in three dimensional space.

If you watch the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk

You will notice that the light from the lightning strike at A' reaches
M earlier than the light from A reaches M.

This is because the light from A' travels from where A' is at the
moment the light reaches M, not from some arbitrary point in three
dimensional space.

All of the light is traveling at 'c'.

All of the light is emitted from their relative points of origin.

The light emits from A' out at 'c' and the light emits from A out at
'c'.

As far as the light from A' is "concerned", A' is stationary.

As far as the light from A is "concerned", A is stationary.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here are the questions you need to answer. If the C60 molecule is
producing the equivalent of bow waves, then the molecule would have
to
be in motion relative to whatever it is those waves are waving in,
would it not?. So how do those waves occur when the frame of
reference
of the molecule is taken as the rest frame? In this case, it is the
slit apparatus that is in motion. How are the same results obtained
in
this case as in the former? Do you agree that the same interference
pattern will be obtained in the two cases, or would you instead
expect
that the emergence and exact nature of the interference pattern
depends upon the states of motion of both the molecule and the slit
apparatus wrt the aether? Ponder that awhile before continuing.

I'll note that classical electromagnetic theory is also at a loss to
answer these questions, because according to classical theory, em
radiation requires acceleration of the source charges. This is
incorrect. Acceleration wrt what? Here the commonly taught precepts
incorrectly assume a fixed medium, i.e. something in empty space to
accelerate relative to. However, by symmetry and the PoR, the charge
need not
accelerate in order to produce em waves. The detector (the absorbing
charges) can accelerate instead relative to the fixed charge, and
identically the same interactions will occur between them in both
cases. IOW, there need only be relative acceleration between the
source and detector. Moreover, because of this the concept of em
waves is reduced to the same fate as the aether, being similarly
redundant. Em waves don't require a medium because they don't
actually exist. This also plays havoc on photon theory, or better,
on
the notion that photons are actual particles. In the latter case,
where the detector is accelerated, how does the acceleration of the
detector prompt the source charge, which remains perfectly at rest,
to
emit a photon? Nonsense isn't it?

There is a better solution. The interaction between electrons occurs
directly between the two. We observe a delay in that interaction,
but
this is because we perceive the universe as 3 dimensions of space,
full of particles whose positions change relative to each other over
a
4th dimension time. We regard what "is" to be all that exists in a
given instant as reflected on our timepiece. The past and the future
don't exist. This is an incorrect PoV, and is based upon pure
assumption. It depends somewhat on the way we define what "is".
There
exists an alternate perspective, in which all that "is" is the set of
events lying on the light cone extending from some given event. In
other words, an electron experiences another electron not as it is at
some time t_o, but as it was at a time t_o - r/c.

Thus the distant electron exists for us at a moment in time that we
regard as having already passed and gone out of existence. In
addition, at
time t_o, the distant electron is not interacting with us, so for all
practical purposes it doesn’t exist at that moment in time wrt us.
Because of the nature of the electron/electron “connection”, from
a purely physical standpoint, reality cannot be defined as those
events
occurring at t_o everywhere. This common perception of reality must
be discarded.

Electrons interact directly with each other not just over some
distance, but also directly through time. Another way of saying this
is that electrons influence each other through space-time. This is
an
entity that is very different than our concept of 3D extension, thus
the question of how electrons influence each other over a distance,
without some sort of mediator, aether, or exchange of particles,
becomes a moot question. It is an invalid question. There is in
reality no "space" over which to act, there is only space-time, a
completely different entity, where lengths are indeterminate and vary
from infinity to zero depending only upon ones state of motion wrt
the
two events marking its endpoints. For any two lightlike events, there
exists
an FoR where the spatial displacement between them is exactly zero.
Thus no space to act through, and no question remaining as to how
action at a distance occurs. So it turns out that the very question
about action at a distance was wrong.

There is nothing really new in what I've stated here, and
FWIW, it is strictly special relativity by the book. Those who
followed bastardized the theory. Einstein had already fumbled by
introducing the photon, and FWIW I don’t believe he ever fully
understood his own relativity theory. Forget Einstein and his
followers, look instead to Minkowski.

Going back to the double slit experiments, it would seem then that as
I stated earlier, the pattern is as much or more due to the slit
apparatus as to the particles passing through the slits. The
interactions are reciprocal, and it is in the end the geometry of the
slit apparatus that is responsible for the interference pattern.


.

Quantcast