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 23, 1:28 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 23, 2:02 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Apr 23, 8:05 am, mpc755 <mpc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 22, 10:52 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

The interference pattern depends upon the states of motion of the
molecule, the slit apparatus, and the aether.

In you box within a box analogy, the aether is moving within the inner
box.

In Einstein's train thought experiment, the aether is moving in the
train.

But from the perspective of the train, the aether is stationary.

People immediately have an issue with the aether moving with the train
because they immediately conclude that this means light travels at c+v
and c-v (where v is the speed of the train).

This is incorrect.

The mistake people make is to tie the emission point of the light to
three dimensional space.

The emission point (event) occurs at some specific position in space
and time.  It is tied to that space-time coordinate because that is
where it occured.  That point differs for different observers.

Yes, and those points are A on the embankment and A' on the train.

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

The light travels two different distances to the observer at M.



This is incorrect.

Only because it's actually tied to 4 dimensional space-time.  An event
not only has a location in space, but also in time.

No.

The events occur at the same time, but they travel different
distances, and they both travel at 'c' to the observer at M.



The light that is emitted on the train is tied to the points on the
train it emanated from.

Tied in what way?  The emission "event" occured at a specific time and
place wrt the frame of reference of the train.

Yes. The lightning strike occurred at A' in the frame reference of the
train.

The lightning strike occurred at A in the frame reference of the
embankment.

The distance the light travels to the Observer at M is different
because the Observer at M is moving towards the light coming from A'.







That is why the light travels two different distances to the observers
at M and M'.

The discrepancy over distances is not unique to special relativity.
The ancient greeks were well aware of it.  It has to do with the
motion of the reference frames relative to each other.  You're driving
down the road at 50mph. You pass two mile markers on the side of the
road.  As you pass each you mark the passage of the marker as an
"event".  Relative to your comoving coordinate system these events
occur in precisely the same position in space.  Their spatial
displacement is zero. Relative to a bystander at rest on the side of
the road, these events occur exactly 1 mile distant from each other.
This is ordinary Galilean relativity.  In special relativity these
values are adjusted somewhat so as to not be noticable at low
velocities, whereas at relativistic speeds the results will differ
from the Galilean predictions.  Since the light signal propagates at c
in the "3D space plus time" perspective,  it is definitely a
relativistic speed, and moreover is constant wrt to both frames of
reference.  Both the spatial and temporal displacements differ for the
two observers. It is only the latter part that isn't shared in common
with Galilean relativity.

The light propages at 'c' in the frame of reference not in 3D.

Saying the light travels at 'c' in 3D is making a universal reference
frame.







If we take the lightning strike at A and A', the light travels from A
to M and from A' to M.

This is two different distances.

Yes, regardless of which form of relativity you apply.

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

look instead to Minkowski.

I will. And I will have to re-read your post several more times.

But I think time is constant. Or, to put it in better terms, time is a
concept.
Just because the atoms in the clocks in the GPS satellites oscillate
slower, doesn't mean time has changed.

It just means the atoms oscillate slower.

And, from the standpoint of physics, time is what a clock measures.
Thus you've only restated the same thing claimed by special
relativity.  Clocks (processes) slowing, time changing rate, same
thing.

No. Clocks processing slower, means a slower clock. Nothing to do with
time.







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.

Aether Displacement is much more simpler and still explains the
observed behaviors in the Double Slit Experiment and also explains
gravity.

"Aether Displacement" is just a couple of words. You've provided no
details, no math, and no reasonable arguments in its favor.  I've
fairly shown how your theory is lacking.  In the case where the slit
apparatus is moving toward a C60 molecule that is at rest, explain how
the same pattern will emerge as in the case where the apparatus is at
rest while the C60 molecule is in motion.  I assure you, the same
pattern will emerge in the two cases.

I assure you that is not the case.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is an akward situation for me. Typically, in the past, I was the
one arguing against the points that I just made. It wasn't until I
actually learned the theory that I understood my misconceptions. It
doesn't help when you have people professing to understand the theory,
or even be experts in it, that make incorrect references and
statements on its behalf. Photons force fitted into spacetime, which
I've explained can be easily left with no space to exist in, along
with a less than fundamental approach to em theory, doesn't help much
either. Modern theory is several theories, and some of those are
incompatable with each other.

So good luck in your studies. Keep in mind that any theory that is
going to have a chance at acceptance has to make testable predictions,
has to do so more accurately than existing theories, and/or must be a
more general theory. If it isn't testable its philosophy.














.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast