# Thread: How to debunk new age Quantum physics crankery

1. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by forrest noble
...
I don't really know why you bother as you have made it quite plain you don't actually have the slightest understanding of any of that.
I think quantum entanglement is a joke based upon the misunderstanding of how simple reality really is and how it works. First Bell's theorem has a number of unspoken assumptions. One of which is that it assumes there is no aether. Here is the logic which accordingly explains what I think is the folly with quantum theory.

Take two particles such as electrons. Bring them very close together and they will become entangled. This is straight forward and simply based upon the meaning of the word entanglement. In this case we can talk about the simplest entangled characteristic such as spin up and spin down. So all might agree that the two electrons have become entangled. Why this entanglement takes place is a mystery is quantum theory. In aether theory it's elementary. Each particle produces a surrounding vortex which influences the other particle causing it to take a complementary characteristic to enable their coexistence at such close quarters, such as one having spin up and the other spin down.

Next QM makes another assumption. It assumes that in this entangled state, or any state for that matter, that these particles have no definite state unless they are observed. This is based upon the Copenhagen interpretation, having no observational basis that I know of. This was the basis for the joke/ ridicule by Shroedinger concerning his half alive and half dead cat.

If instead the states are always in a determined state then again the entanglement idea is a joke. Again take two electrons bring them close together and they will accordingly become entangled, necessarily according to aether theory. According to the theory of determinacy their states are generally determined and definite, therefore one electron has spin up and the other spin down immediately upon entanglement. Send them off in two different directions and after a hundred miles all are amazed that if one is detected to have spin up, the other will have spin down, just like QM predicts. I don't think it even would make a good magic trick since most of the observers would not be so gullible concerning the idea of so-called communications between the electrons. Amazing, or not? To me "or not" is logical and simple for almost anyone to understand, but the "amazing" explanation totally lacks any possible logic.

Second example: Double slit experiment.

Have two slits very close together. Send an electron toward the middle point of the two slits in a metallic medium; sometimes a photon will be absorbed by the medium, sometimes it will go through one slit and sometimes the other slit but we cannot without observation know which slit it went through. OK, so far so good

Now we are going to place a photon detection screen at a distance of roughly 3 feet from the slits. This screen will detect the exact position where the photon hits the screen. OK, still no problems. Now with continued events we begin to notice the classical Young interference pattern on the screen. So we ask why. So far still no problem.

Quantum mechanics says that electrons and photons can either be a particle or a wave, but not at the same time. Aether theory says that everything is simple and definite. A photon or electron is physical and via its spin produces a surrounding vortex and waves of aether relating to its spin within the aether.

In Quantum mechanics a photon (a particle) can go through both slits at once and interfere with itself on the other side. Certainly not conventional logic.

In aether theory an electron is a spinning particle that pushes out aether waves via its spin. The waves go through both slits but the particle just goes through one. The waves going through the second slit interferes with the particle producing the familiar interference wave pattern. The same thing with light and photons. In aether theory the aether waves go through both slits but the photon goes through only one. The waves from the other slit interfere with the photon during transit from the slits to the detector. The answer seems so simple that maybe a third grader could understand it. All of quantum theory can be very simply explained by aether theory and be totally compatible with Newtonian physics and even many of Einstein's ideas. Bring in an aether maybe like dark matter or particulates/ strings greatly smaller, and quantum theory, the theories relativity and maybe every other "complicated" theory would greatly change or be replaced.

All of reality may be eventually understood as being very simple with no mysteries. There is no so-called mystery in physics that I know of that I cannot explain by simple logic involving alternative theory. I think the key to understanding reality involves looking for and considering the simplest possible answers and explanations while continuing the quest to find missing ingredients such as the aether -- like we have been looking for dark matter.

2. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Sealeaf
But we determined that the machine correctly predicted human Free will behavior.
Sounds more like the machine gave a reasonably accurate (how accurate? I guess we don't know) simulation of the statistical behaviour of large numbers of people. I don't see where free will comes into this. (Mind you, I don't think the term "free will" has much meaning; unless you define it.)

Electrons behave like humans making free choices.
Sounds more like an analog computer can be programmed to simulate the behaviour of crowds under certain circumstances. Not too surprising. Electrons are irrelevant. You could do the same with water or gas or a digital computer or a Turing machine or ...
Is it so hard to accept that the human brain has quantum effects in it that generate randomness? I mean, we already know for a fact it does. The only question is how much does it rely on them?

Now can observing a quantum event change it? That depends. Is your brain doing the observing? Does your brain have photons in it? I'd have to say there is a non-zero, perhaps very small chance, that some of the photons in your brain will interfere with photons from the observed event, in which case the result would be just like any other situation where two photons interfere. The photons' paths change slightly.

Does that give us telekinesis? Probably not. It probably doesn't give us very much control over anything at all.

Originally Posted by forrest noble
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by forrest noble
I have never taken classes in QM even though I have the background math, primarily because I have no respect for QM as a science. I have no respect for QM as a science. I have, however, designed experiments to accordingly disprove "all" of the underlying principles of it.
Hang on a minute! If you can define experiments to disprove it then: it is science. Duh.
There is an underlying science to QM. It is the science of the quantum world. My thinking has kinship with opinions expressed by Eistein, Shroedinger, De Broglie, concerning its assertions, tenets, and Principles. QM's interpretation of Entanglement, for instance, I think is almost laughable.
QM becomes a lot less silly, if you simply abandon from the outset the assumption that time has to have a direction.

3. Originally Posted by forrest noble
First Bell's theorem has a number of unspoken assumptions. One of which is that it assumes there is no aether.
It makes no such assumption.

Take two particles such as electrons. Bring them very close together and they will become entangled.
I stopped there as, once again, you have demonstrated that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

4. All of quantum theory can be very simply explained by aether theory and be totally compatible with Newtonian physics and even many of Einstein's ideas. Bring in an aether maybe like dark matter or particulates/ strings greatly smaller, and quantum theory, the theories relativity and maybe every other "complicated" theory would greatly change or be replaced.
do you know of any modern books promoting the aether theory? would be interesting to see any.

5. kojax,

Is it so hard to accept that the human brain has quantum effects in it that generate randomness? I mean, we already know for a fact it does. The only question is how much does it rely on them?
This is certainly a logically debatable question

Now can observing a quantum event change it? That depends. Is your brain doing the observing? Does your brain have photons in it? I'd have to say there is a non-zero, perhaps very small chance, that some of the photons in your brain will interfere with photons from the observed event, in which case the result would be just like any other situation where two photons interfere. The photons' paths change slightly.
You are approaching this from a logical basis which I think is great. On this I think it seems highly unlikely that one's brain could have effect on external photons

Does that give us telekinesis? Probably not. It probably doesn't give us very much control over anything at all.
This appears to be by far the simplest logical explanation.

QM becomes a lot less silly, if you simply abandon from the outset the assumption that time has to have a direction.
I don't think there is any possible way to help quantum theory from appearing silly. That time has a single direction to it has a logical basis. That it can be reversed is theoretical and I think confounding to logic. I believe the ultimate axiom should be that: if an idea or theory is not simple logically, it must be suspect as to its validity. This is why many theorists have thought that Quantum Theory is/was based upon much hokum.

6.

7. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by forrest noble
First Bell's theorem has a number of unspoken assumptions. One of which is that it assumes there is no aether.
I stopped there as, once again, you have demonstrated that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Yours is not an acceptable forum comment, nor will it ever be. I could say that you don't have a clue of what you're talking about. This is against forum rules and protocol without providing examples and necessary supporting links. Such comments have an ad hominem basis.

I said that Bell's theorem has a number of unspoken (implied) assumptions. One was that there is no aether.

....Bell's theorem only shows that quantum mechanics differs from certain local hidden variable theories. It says nothing about local deterministic processes (such as possible aether influences).
(bold, parenthesis, underline added above and below)

.....That is what Bell and those Wolf Prize winners discovered. But they did not (relate to or) discover any experiments that cannot be explained by local deterministic processes.
Dark Buzz: Explained by local deterministic processes

Deterministic processes within a deterministic system:

In mathematics and physics, a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system......

Deterministic system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

8. Originally Posted by forrest noble
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by forrest noble
First Bell's theorem has a number of unspoken assumptions. One of which is that it assumes there is no aether.
I stopped there as, once again, you have demonstrated that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Yours is not an acceptable forum comment, nor will it ever be.
You have changed the context of my comment which is grossly dishonest. I am genuinely shocked.

You said, "Take two particles such as electrons. Bring them very close together and they will become entangled."

Which is just not true. Two electrons do not magically become entangled simply by being in proximity to one another. That is why I said you do not know what you are talking about.

I said that Bell's theorem has a number of unspoken (implied) assumptions. One was that there is no aether.

....Bell's theorem only shows that quantum mechanics differs from certain local hidden variable theories. It says nothing about local deterministic processes (such as aether influences).
(bold, parenthesis, underline added above and below)
YOU added the comment about the aether. It is not in the original. What is going on here?

9. Seems like maybe an interesting read excepting for the "Consciousness" part of it. In my opinion Consciousness is unrelated to physics, and should have no place in quantum physics either

10. Strange,

You have changed the context of my comment which is grossly dishonest. I am genuinely shocked.
You said, "Take two particles such as electrons. Bring them very close together and they will become entangled."
Which is just not true. Two electrons do not magically become entangled simply by being in proximity to one another. That is why I said you do not know what you are talking about.
Sorry if I misunderstood your quote and meaning. If this was your meaning then you should have provided an explanation and link why you thought my statement was incomplete or wrong. not just to say that it isn't true. The rules of debate go like this. If someone makes a statement you disagree with you can, 1) ask for evidince to support the statement 2) If the other person provides a link, show how his interpretation of the link may be wrong 3) Make your own statement to the contrary while providing evidence to support your statement, or justification of some kind for your own statement to the contrary, or 4) provide evidence that might be in deference to the other person's statement or interpretation. One should never contradict another's statement by one's own statement also without evidentiary support.

11. Originally Posted by Strange
Isn't that only in 3 or more dimensions?
Yes. And we aren't flatlanders.

Originally Posted by Strange
It's not clear to me why commutation would be relevant to the calculation of the probabilities anyway; they are calculated as if they are independent (hidden) variables. Could you expand on that?
Electromagnetism is all about geometry, read The role of the potentials in electromagnetism. Maxwell originally talked of quaternions before Heaviside turned everything into vector fields, curl is also known as rot which is short for rotor. Look at Joy Christian's papers on arXiv. He's come in for some stick for it and been called some awful names, and ended up getting fired from the Perimeter Institute. The defenders of mysticism can be vicious.

12. Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Strange
Isn't that only in 3 or more dimensions?
Yes. And we aren't flatlanders.
But the rotation of the polarization, as described in that page, is only in a plane, 2 dimensions so it still isn't clear why you think that is relevant...

13. Originally Posted by forrest noble
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by forrest noble
First Bell's theorem has a number of unspoken assumptions. One of which is that it assumes there is no aether.
I stopped there as, once again, you have demonstrated that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Yours is not an acceptable forum comment, nor will it ever be.
forrest, it has to be said that you are talking such complete nonsense that the rest of that particular post is effectively useless. Just go and learn the science before you comment on it.

14. Originally Posted by forrest noble
If this was your meaning then you should have provided an explanation ...
What is the point. As you have said, you are not interested in learning about quantum physics, you are happy with your made up version that you can make strawman against.

And it provides an endless source of amusement for us, "what's he going to say this time..."

15. Originally Posted by Strange
But the rotation of the polarization, as described in that page, is only in a plane, 2 dimensions so it still isn't clear why you think that is relevant...
Here's the text of an easy-reading article from New Scientist in 2007. See this bit:

"Bell assumed the hidden variables in his argument would be familiar numbers, akin to the value of a velocity or a mass. Such numbers obey the ordinary rules of algebra, including a law that says that the order of multiplication doesn't matter - so that, for example, 2 × 5 equals 5 × 2. This property of multiplication is called commutation. The idea that hidden variables are commuting numbers might seem so basic as to be beyond question, but Christian argues it is important to question this point because mathematicians know that different kinds of variables needn't obey commutative algebra. Take rotations in space, for example. They differ fundamentally from ordinary numbers in one important respect: the order of rotations matters (see Diagram). Rotations do not commute."

Remember Feynman's little rotating arrows?

16. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by forrest noble
If this was your meaning then you should have provided an explanation ...
What is the point. As you have said, you are not interested in learning about quantum physics, you are happy with your made up version that you can make strawman against.
The beliefs proposed in QM may be the most contentious in all of science.

...And it provides an endless source of amusement for us, "what's he going to say this time..."
Hey, what are buddies for if not to provide some amusement, intended or not

17. Originally Posted by Farsight
I agree that consciousness has nothing to do with it. But I don't think it's all down to probability either. If wavefunction is real and photodetectors employ electrons that could have been created from photons in pair production, you've got two extended-entity wavefunctions interacting. It feels like the act of detection is something like performing an optical Fourier transform (see this) on the photon wavefunction, collapsing it to a point so that it then goes through one slit rather than both. In similar vein it ends up as a dot on the screen.
So how do we deal with the implications of the delayed choice quantum eraser, where we erase the which path information from the system after the signal photons have been detected, and are then able to recover an interference pattern from the signal data, when the timing of the hits of the entangled partner photons is later correlated with the positions of the hits on the signal detector?

If the "which path" information is contained in the system (using entangled partner photons known as "idler" photons) and then the signal photons are detected, and then the idler photons are detected, there is no interference pattern when you correlate their hits.

But if, after detecting the signal photons, we erase the "which path" information from the "idlers", by combining the two "which path" streams so we lose the information of which path they took, when we correlate their hits with their signal partners we find they form an interference pattern.

Are we making a choice when we choose to erase them, or not?

18. Originally Posted by PhysBang
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by forrest noble
First Bell's theorem has a number of unspoken assumptions. One of which is that it assumes there is no aether.
forrest, it has to be said that you are talking such complete nonsense that the rest of that particular post is effectively useless. Just go and learn the science before you comment on it.
PhysBang,

This is a thread about some of the interpretations of QM that do not seem to have a logical basis. The brunt of it is directed toward what the OP calls new-age physics crankery. This probably means the more extreme ideas asserted by some QM advocates. The problem, I think, is that Warner Heisenberg himself, and others, said many things that at the time were considered by many to be a kind of "crankery." As an alternative theorist I believe, like Einstein, Shroedenger, De Broglie, etc. that much of QM was conceptually wrong from its onset.

It is my opinion that quantum reality has no chance of being described correctly without the recognition of the probability of a particulate background field, maybe best described as an aether. I believe such particulates/strings seem to best explain what we observe as the Zero Point Field and parallels such ideas as dark matter, gravitons, the Higgs field, quantum foam, etc. It is my opinion that this field is made up of particulates much smaller than what has been proposed for these other particulate fields. Since we believe that some of the other theoretical particles exist, it seems to me that such a yet undiscovered field of a particular type could instead explain EM radiation, gravity, and what I consider to be the misinterpretations of Quantum Theory.

19. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
So how do we deal with the implications of the delayed choice quantum eraser...
You look at it from scratch and you challenge the assertions. See the wikipedia article:

The experimental setup, described in detail in the original paper,[1] is as follows. First, a photon is generated and passes through a double slit apparatus (vertical black line in the upper left hand corner of the diagram).

OK, no problem. The photon is not detected at either slit, so it is not subjected to a Fourier transform. It goes through both slits.

The photon goes through one (or both) of the two slits, whose paths are shown as red or light blue lines, indicating which slit the photon came through (red indicates slit A, light blue indicates slit B).

What's this red or blue business? The photon went through both slits. And it's still one photon.

So far, the experiment is like a conventional two-slit experiment. However, after the slits a beta barium borate crystal (labeled as BBO) causes spontaneous parametric down conversion (SPDC), converting the photon (from either slit) into two identical entangled photons with 1/2 the frequency of the original photon. These photons are caused to diverge and follow two paths by the Glan-Thompson Prism.

Where did "from either slit" come from? And who says we've now got two separate photons? The photon went through both slits. It isn't some billiard-ball point-particle thing, it's a wave, something like a seismic wave. Why can't we say the BBO converts it into a Y-like wave now going in two directions instead of one?

One of these photons, referred to as the "signal" photon (look at the red and light-blue lines going upwards from the Glan-Thompson prism), continues to the target detector called D0. The positions where these "signal" photons detected by D0 occur can later be examined to discover if collectively those positions form an interference pattern.

One of these photons? Where did that come from? A photon doesn't split into two photons when it goes through two slits, why should it split into two photons when it goes through a BBO or a prism?

The other entangled photon, referred to as the "idler" photon (look at the red and light-blue lines going downwards from the Glan-Thompson prism), is deflected by a prism that sends it along divergent paths depending on whether it came from slit A or slit B.

Huh? Are you taking the piss? It went through both slits.

Somewhat beyond the path split, beam splitters (green blocks) are encountered that each have a 50% chance of allowing the idler to pass through and a 50% chance of causing it to be reflected. The gray blocks in the diagram are mirrors. Because of the way the beam splitters are arranged, the idler can be detected by detectors labeled D1, D2, D3 and D4. Note that:
If it is recorded at detector D3, then it can only have come from slit B.
If it is recorded at detector D4 it can only have come from slit A.
If the idler is detected at detector D1 or D2, it might have come from either slit (A or B).

Er, no. Detection is like sucking up jelly on a plate. You can't use line-of-sight to infer something that didn't happen. How many times do I have to say that that photon went through both slits?

Thus, which detector receives the idler photon either reveals information, or specifically does not reveal information, about the path of the signal photon with which it is entangled.
If the idler is detected at either D1 or D2, the which-path information has been "erased", so there is no way of knowing whether it (and its entangled signal photon) came from slit A or slit B. Whereas, if the idler is detected at D3 or D4, it is known that it (and its entangled signal photon) came from slit B or slit A, respectively.

Bollocks does it. Geddoutofit, woomongers.

20. Originally Posted by Farsight
The photon goes through one (or both) of the two slits, whose paths are shown as red or light blue lines, indicating which slit the photon came through (red indicates slit A, light blue indicates slit B).

What's this red or blue business? The photon went through both slits. And it's still one photon.
The light went through two slits which have a specific distance between them. This allows us to separate the light that came through one slit from the light that came from the other and send it down different paths in the apparatus.

Originally Posted by Farsight
So far, the experiment is like a conventional two-slit experiment. However, after the slits a beta barium borate crystal (labeled as BBO) causes spontaneous parametric down conversion (SPDC), converting the photon (from either slit) into two identical entangled photons with 1/2 the frequency of the original photon. These photons are caused to diverge and follow two paths by the Glan-Thompson Prism.

Where did "from either slit" come from? And who says we've now got two separate photons? The photon went through both slits. It isn't some billiard-ball point-particle thing, it's a wave, something like a seismic wave. Why can't we say the BBO converts it into a Y-like wave now going in two directions instead of one?
We end up with four paths of light coming from the BBO, two from one slit and two from the other. The BBO takes the photons and creates two entangled photons with half the energy, and sends them in different directions.

Originally Posted by Farsight
One of these photons, referred to as the "signal" photon (look at the red and light-blue lines going upwards from the Glan-Thompson prism), continues to the target detector called D0. The positions where these "signal" photons detected by D0 occur can later be examined to discover if collectively those positions form an interference pattern.

One of these photons? Where did that come from? A photon doesn't split into two photons when it goes through two slits, why should it split into two photons when it goes through a BBO or a prism?
Spontaneous parametric down-conversion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

21. Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Strange
But the rotation of the polarization, as described in that page, is only in a plane, 2 dimensions so it still isn't clear why you think that is relevant...
Here's the text of an easy-reading article from New Scientist in 2007. See this bit:

"Bell assumed the hidden variables in his argument would be familiar numbers, akin to the value of a velocity or a mass. Such numbers obey the ordinary rules of algebra, including a law that says that the order of multiplication doesn't matter - so that, for example, 2 × 5 equals 5 × 2. This property of multiplication is called commutation. The idea that hidden variables are commuting numbers might seem so basic as to be beyond question, but Christian argues it is important to question this point because mathematicians know that different kinds of variables needn't obey commutative algebra. Take rotations in space, for example. They differ fundamentally from ordinary numbers in one important respect: the order of rotations matters (see Diagram). Rotations do not commute."

Remember Feynman's little rotating arrows?
That is quite an interesting article (1) but I (still) fail to see the relevance to an argument based on a plane rotation.

Christian says there could be hidden variables based on non-commutative algebra. Has he presented any experimental evidence to support this idea? Or has he suggested any experiment that would demonstrate he is correct? (I guess I should do a search but you appear to be familiar with his work already.)

(1) I'm going to ignore the IP theft as New Scientist is such a shoddy rag so I can't be bothered to rat on these vile scumbags. They can just rot in hell instead.

22. SpeedFreek/Strange: I'll get back to you. Meanwhile, who said this?

“I would say that the cheapest resolution is something like going back to relativity as it was before Einstein, when people like Lorentz and Poincare thought that there was an aether – a preferred frame of reference – but that our measuring instruments were distorted by motion in such a way that we could not detect motion through the aether."

You ain't gonna like it!

23. Originally Posted by Farsight
SpeedFreek/Strange: I'll get back to you. Meanwhile, who said this?

“I would say that the cheapest resolution is something like going back to relativity as it was before Einstein, when people like Lorentz and Poincare thought that there was an aether – a preferred frame of reference – but that our measuring instruments were distorted by motion in such a way that we could not detect motion through the aether."

You ain't gonna like it!

Yup, Bell's quote

24. Originally Posted by Farsight
Meanwhile, who said this?
I don't really get your fascination with quoting other people's random opinions on things.

I know why Forrest and other cranks do it: to cover up their complete lack of knowledge.

You ain't gonna like it!
Why?

It would have been vaguely interesting to know what he was taking about. That's the trouble with taking quotes out of context and with no citation, it just leaves people thinking, "what was that bout?"

25. Aw forrest, I was going to have some fun with that.

Originally Posted by Strange
That is quite an interesting article (1) but I (still) fail to see the relevance to an argument based on a plane rotation.
We know that Maxwell talked about quaternions, that there's a rotation associated with ocean waves, and we understand that a sine wave can be associated with a point going round a circle. We also understand that circularly-polarized light with a 90-degree phase difference features a rotation of the electric vector, see hyperphysics. We also know that Feynman talked about rotating arrows see this:

"The rule of the Feynman "path integral" is that each of the paths from S to P contributes an amplitude of constant magnitude but varying phase, and the phase varies with the total time along the path. It's as if the photon is a tiny spinning clock—the hand of the clock stays the same length, but it turns around at a constant rate for each unit of time.

So if the phase changes across the many-paths, we can deduce that the electric vector for a plane-polarized photon isn't "straight up" across all of space. In addition, a polarizer rotates the photon. See your link, and note the bit that says this:

"Importantly, Bell also noticed that QM predicts that the actual value will be .250, which is LESS than the "Hidden Variables" predicted value of at least .333. It doesn't really matter where the QM predicted value of .250 comes from, but I'll tell you anyway: it is the square of the cosine of the angle between the 2 polarizer settings, which is 120 degrees"

Now look at polarizers on hyperphysics and follow the link to the Law ofMalus which is applied twice:

"When a second polarizer is rotated, the vector component perpendicular to its transmission plane is absorbed, reducing its amplitude to E= Eo cos θ"

There's plenty to support Joy Christian's assertion that we're dealing with non-commutative rotation here, and should look carefully at what we're dealing with before assuming that we have spooky instantaneous action at a distance.

Originally Posted by Strange
Christian says there could be hidden variables based on non-commutative algebra. Has he presented any experimental evidence to support this idea? Or has he suggested any experiment that would demonstrate he is correct? (I guess I should do a search but you appear to be familiar with his work already.
I don't think so. As far as I know the experiments are what they are, he's been trying to say it ain't magic, guys, and he's been panned for it.

Originally Posted by Strange
(1) I'm going to ignore the IP theft as New Scientist is such a shoddy rag so I can't be bothered to rat on these vile scumbags. They can just rot in hell instead.
It's not as if somebody is putting New Scientist online as soon as it hits the shelves. Anyway, in that article you can read Twenty years ago, it was heretical even to raise such an idea. If you were to speak to Joy Christian, maybe you'd come away thinking it still is.

26. Farsight, show us the math to the example in question. Don't just cut-and-paste things that vaguely bear on the topic.

27. Strange,

I know why Forrest and other cranks do it: to cover up their complete lack of knowledge.
Common Strange, you're better than calling anyone in particular a crank, having "complete lack of knowledge." I could call you one of those insulting die-hard defenders of the faith, having a complete lack of knowledge. My statement would then be totally inaccruate and insulting as was yours. Both are directed Ad Hominems specifically forbidden by the rules of this and probably all other science forums.

28. Originally Posted by forrest noble
Strange,

I know why Forrest and other cranks do it: to cover up their complete lack of knowledge.
Common Strange, you're smarter than calling anyone in particular a crank. This is a directed Ad Hominem specifically forbidden by the rules.
OK. I'll remove the word "other" if you like.

On the other hand:
Originally Posted by WP: Crank
1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
...
1. seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
2. stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades
...
1. exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
2. misunderstand or fail to use standard notation and terminology,
3.ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.
So maybe I'll leave it.

29. Originally Posted by Farsight
Aw forrest, I was going to have some fun with that.
Weird idea of fun.

As far as I know the experiments are what they are, he's been trying to say it ain't magic, guys, and he's been panned for it.
If anyone wants some background on Joy Christian, there are a range of pro and con comments (including Christian himself) on this blog: Shtetl-Optimized » Blog Archive » I was wrong about Joy Christian

30. I think the point is that the delayed-choice quantum-eraser experiment and all other such QM experiments can be readily understood and logically explained in full detail now by assuming the existence of an aether and thereby realizing a different understanding of EM radiation. I think Quantum Theory never could be complete or "correct" if a background field such as dark matter, Higgs field, or some other particulate aether-like field exists which could explain some presently unknown influences in the quantum world, or all such influences.

31. Originally Posted by forrest noble
I think the point is that the delayed-choice quantum-eraser experiment and all other such QM experiments can be readily understood and logically explained in full detail now by assuming the existence of an aether and thereby realizing a different understanding of EM radiation. Quantum Theory never could be complete or "correct" if a background field such as dark matter, Higgs field, or some other particulate aether-like field exists which could explain some presently unknown influences in the quantum world, or all such influences.
Great. Just show us in appropriate detail how that works and that this theory matches the results of experiments. Maybe Farsight can help you with the math.

32. Strange,

So here might be definitions for "Mainstream Cranks"

1. Mainstream Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate the knowledge of those proposing alternative models and views.
3. Mainstream Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any or their own errors, no matter how trivial.
...
1. Mainstream Cranks seriously misunderstand alternative theories and related opinions, to which they believe they are objecting,
2. Mainstream Cranks stress that they have been educated and are knowledgeable of mainstream views which have never been disproved or discredited in any way.
...
1. Mainstream Cranks exhibit a marked lack of technical ability in the subjects they are discussing,
2. Mainstream Cranks misunderstand or fail to use standard notations and terminology, or use such terminology incorrectly involving misunderstandings.
3. Mainstream Cranks ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understanding mainstream beliefs, or those distinctions involving criticisms of such models.

So maybe I'll leave it at that, No pissing contests allowed

33. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by forrest noble
I think the point is that the delayed-choice quantum-eraser experiment and all other such QM experiments can be readily understood and logically explained in full detail now by assuming the existence of an aether and thereby realizing a different understanding of EM radiation. Quantum Theory never could be complete or "correct" if a background field such as dark matter, Higgs field, or some other particulate aether-like field exists which could explain some presently unknown influences in the quantum world, or all such influences.
Great. Just show us in appropriate detail how that works and that this theory matches the results of experiments. Maybe Farsight can help you with the math.

Not nice about Farsight math comment; shame on you! The so-called delayed-choice quantum-eraser (DCQE) experiment involves no math for its general conclusions.

Delayed choice quantum eraser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An aether explanation of the DCQE experiment and EM radiation (of course many alternative aether explanations exist):

EM radiation, according to a luminiferous aether, is made up of physical waves of the aether. They are accordingly produced by charged particles in motion, primarily electrons. As an electron's state drops in energy levels it emits radiation in the form of a wave which accordingly is EM radiation. The aether accordingly is made up of strings (or particulates), conceivably much smaller than known particles. Within these waves of minuscule string-like entities there are small agglomerations of loosely engaged strings, some of which are photon sized but without photon velocities. Max Plank said that a photon "appears to be emitted in wavelengths, is actually discharged in small packets (quanta)."

Max Planck Formulates Quantum Theory

So the waves are waves of a physical aether and within it these small packets/quanta/ photos/ engagements when also engaged by an electron are radiated away with their accompanying waves of EM radiation at the speed of light, a speed determined by the density of the aether. A photon accordingly would be particle like in that it would be the largest of such packets when traveling at the speed of light, and accordingly would have a longevity of maybe a thousandth of a second. Photons accordingly have no particular characteristics of spin or otherwise. Upon contact the wave collapses and the largest of these packets can kick out an electron in a detector causing detection and recoil giving the created photon its characteristic spin based upon the "detection" electron's spin motion and related energy.

In the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser (DCQE) experiment let's look at the set up from posting number 120, as I have copied below, from the perspective of an aether model. I will directly follow, as much as possible, the same details and paths as explained by the article according to the link above.

Waves of light enter from the left via double slits seen in the dark vertical line on the left. These waves will take many separate paths based upon the set up. Light accordingly is simply a wave including many little packets of strings within it, most of which would be far too small to be be called photons. As these waves move though the set up they are reflected, refracted, toward specific destinations. As this wave passes through the beta barium borate crystal (BBO) it causes spontaneous parametric down conversion, which converts the wave from either slit into two identical waves which have half the energy and frequency of the original wave. These now separate waves are caused to diverge and follow two separate paths as directed by the designated Glan-Thompson Prism.

One of these half-frequency waves, looking at the red and light-blue lines going upwards from the Glan-Thompson Prism, continues to the target detector designated D0. The positions where these waves will be recorded by the D0 detector, can later be examined to discover if collectively those multiple photon detections form an interference pattern.

The other half-frequency waves, look at the red and light-blue lines going downward from the Glan-Thompson prism, are deflected by the related prism that sends it along divergent paths depending on whether it came from slit A or slit B.

When the experimenters looked only at the signal half-waves whose complementary half-wave were detected at D1 or D2, they found an interference pattern.

However, when they looked at the signal half-waves whose complementary half-waves whose were detected at D3 or similarly at D4, they found no interference pattern.

This result seems similar to the double-slit experiment, in that interference is observed when it is not known which slit a photon went through, while no interference was observed when the path is known.

This was the experiment according to an aether explanation.

Now I will explain why accordingly the experiment outcome works this way:

The D3 and D4 detectors are detecting from a single source, either one slit or the other. The D1 and D2 detectors are detecting waves coming from both slits at one time, therefore waves will interfere with each other indicating an interference pattern.

Take a look at the conventional double slit experiment to better understand it according to explanations herein proposed.

(copied from: Molecular Expressions Microscopy Primer: Light and Color - Thomas Young's Double Slit Experiment: Interactive Java Tutorial )

As consecutive waves pass through the double slit they will show an interference pattern on the other side of the slits since their origin is from two different slit locations. Between the slit location and the generally parallel detector screen location there are lines where these waves intersect each other. According to this proposed explanation, this is primarily where photons are constructed. Although the field and waves accordingly have many minor engagements of strings within them, most do not have enough energy to dislodge an electron of the detector upon contact. But in these intersecting out-of-phase (half-phase) wave lines (red on red; yellow on yellow) designated as ' A' above, these larger engagements from minor field engagements can build up resulting in more force via momentum at certain points 'A' to dislodge an electron, indicating the strike of a photon. Point B locations indicate the absence of such out-of-phase intersections.

Likewise in the DCQE experiment an interference pattern is observed. Accordingly, just as would be expected by a physical aether wave theory of light, where both waves and packets within it co-exist at the same time.

The point is that based upon an aether model all QM experiments that I have ever seen, are predictable and relatively simple to explain, quantum entanglement results being maybe the easiest to explain, as in my second example and explanation in my posting #101 above .

-----------------------------

Here is another proposal concerning EM radiation consisting concurrently of both waves and photons.

Physicists Modify Double-Slit Experiment to Confirm Einstein's Belief

34. I must be stupid, as I can't see where you explained the "delayed choice" and "quantum eraser" part of the experiment.

35. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
I must be stupid, as I can't see where you explained the "delayed choice" and "quantum eraser" part of the experiment.
Don't you see, it's the aether!!!!1!

36. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
I must be stupid, as I can't see where you explained the "delayed choice" and "quantum eraser" part of the experiment.
Au contraire, mon frère, I must be stupid since this oversight on my part was the whole point of this DCQE experiment

OK, here it is.

In a quantum eraser experiment, one arranges to detect which one of the slits the photon passes through, but also to construct the experiment in such a way that this information can be "erased" after the fact.

But in practice, this "erasure" of path information frequently means removing the constraints that kept the half-waves following two different paths separated from each other.

Delayed choice quantum eraser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The detectors of which slit a supposed photon passes through, are detectors D3 and D4. By removing them in the experiments the results in my explanations in my last postings are discussed, since then the interference pattern can be observed. By removing these detectors after the experiment nothing could happen differently since their recordings remain in the Coincidence counter.

In the terminology of the QM explanation the beam splitters produce entangled photons of complimentary spins. In the parlance of my explanation you would say that the split-waves going to detectors are only capable of producing photons of complementary spin because of the accompanying aether wave speed-of-light flow to the Coincidence Counter. Eliminate these detectors, which draws detection aether flow toward the Coincidence Counter, and there would be no directional aether draw, therefore each split-wave path will have the capacity of producing photons of all spins producing the interference patterns observed.

Bottom line is that by removing the D3 and D4 detectors, and their feeds to the Coincidence Counter, one is changing the wave interference character and therefore the locations of the resultant photons producing an interference pattern. You could therefore never know which slit the photon went through since most of the photons were created and directed by the wave interference pattern.

How might evidence be presented for this speculation?

One could try replacing the Coincidence counter with a photon detector determining spin orientation. The waves and so-called photons passing through each beam splitter, without a which-course detector (D3 and D4), accordingly should produce only waves out-of-phase/ orientation and/ or photons involving the same orientations as the original un-split beam. Put back the detectors and the beams coming out of the beam splitters should only produce congruent waves in phase and/or orientation and/ or two entangled photons of complimentary spins, which would not result in an interference pattern.

37. Originally Posted by Strange
Don't you see, it's the aether!!!!1!
Oh Strange, drop this. I've told you umpteen times about Einstein's GR aether and all those arXiv papers. It's just space. The vacuum. Waves run through it. Check out LIGO re gravitational waves. Electromagnetic waves aren't totally different. Re the Bell quote, I gave that to demonstrate that there's things you don't know about, and that you are disparaging from a position of ignorance. See page 3 of J.S. Bell's Concept of Local Causality on arXiv by Travis Norsen. The quote is on page 3. Here's the abstract by the way. The bolding is mine:

John Stewart Bell's famous 1964 theorem is widely regarded as one of the most important developments in the foundations of physics. It has even been described as "the most profound discovery of science." Yet even as we approach the 50th anniversary of Bell's discovery, its meaning and implications remain controversial. Many textbooks and commentators report that Bell's theorem refutes the possibility (suggested especially by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in 1935) of supplementing ordinary quantum theory with additional ("hidden") variables that might restore determinism and/or some notion of an observer-independent reality. On this view, Bell's theorem supports the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation. Bell's own view of his theorem, however, was quite different. He instead took the theorem as establishing an "essential conflict" between the now well-tested empirical predictions of quantum theory and relativistic {local causality}. The goal of the present paper is, in general, to make Bell's own views more widely known and, in particular, to explain in detail Bell's little-known mathematical formulation of the concept of relativistic local causality on which his theorem rests. We thus collect and organize many of Bell's crucial statements on these topics, which are scattered throughout his writings, into a self-contained, pedagogical discussion including elaborations of the concepts "beable", "completeness", and "causality" which figure in the formulation. We also show how local causality (as formulated by Bell) can be used to derive an empirically testable Bell-type inequality, and how it can be used to recapitulate the EPR argument.

38. Originally Posted by Farsight
Oh Strange, drop this.
It was more a comment on Forrest's brilliant explanations than the aether, per se. But, whatever.

39. He didn't really explain the delayed-choice quantum eraser and he's a bit of a "my theory" guy, but the stuff he's talking about isn't all wrong. See the IOP physicsworld article the secret lives of photons revealed. I'll take the liberty of showing the illustration and the caption:

3D plot of a single photon showing wave-like behaviour

IMHO you should be more sceptical of people who assert that the dual slit experiment demonstrates that some point-particle photon can miraculously be in two places at once, and that this is evidence of the multiverse. Stuff like that is taken seriously, usually because the guy peddling it has letters after his name and people are such Emperor's-New-Clothes suckers. But it's total garbage. It's pseudoscience, it's woo, it's crankery.

40. Originally Posted by Farsight
He didn't really explain the delayed-choice quantum eraser and he's a bit of a "my theory" guy
Right. And you're not.

See the IOP physicsworld article the secret lives of photons revealed.
There is a more detailed description of the experiment linked from that page: Watching Photons Interfere: “Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer” – Uncertain Principles (which makes it more explicit that these are averages, not the paths of individual photons).

IMHO you should be more sceptical of people who assert that the dual slit experiment demonstrates that some point-particle photon can miraculously be in two places at once, and that this is evidence of the multiverse.
I would be very sceptical of someone who said that.

I would also be very sceptical of "some guy on the Internet".

41. See Jeff Lundeen's website for more info on direct measurement of wavefunction: Jeff Lundeen.

Be sceptical of bloggers who take many-worlds seriously: see for example this. When some new research threatens to make some chapter of their book look stupid, they aren't always too receptive.

42. Originally Posted by Farsight
I've told you umpteen times about Einstein's GR aether and all those arXiv papers.
Indeed, for years you have been cherry-picking a single quotation from a source that points out that your interpretation is wrong and you have studiously avoided learning how to actually do relativistic physics.

43. Originally Posted by Farsight
I've told you umpteen times about Einstein's GR aether and all those arXiv papers. It's just space. The vacuum.
Err... no, it isn't. It really isn't. It really really is not "just space", at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.

It is the curvature of space-time, and it is only that curvature. That is all Einstein was talking about - that the "gravitational ether" (the curvature of space-time) is purely a result of the matter and energy (and what that matter/energy is doing) in a given space.

I'm sure we have been over this before.

44. Originally Posted by Farsight
He didn't really explain the delayed-choice quantum eraser
Oops!, you’re right. I didn’t discuss the delayed choice interpretation of QM. This was one of the reasons for having Detector D0 in its "forward" position.

Here is the standard delayed-choice interpretation of the experiment:

The problem with this result is that the photon that travels on the upper path reaches sensor D0 at a time, when its entangled partner photon is not even at the first green mirror. At this moment the photon can not really know whether it should create an interference pattern or not because due to the longer path the result which sensor its entangled partner has traveled to is still undetermined.

How can the upper photon know in advance for every single measurement on which path its entangled partner will be traveling through the green mirrors? It can not know, because this decision at the green mirrors is a random event with a 50/50 chance.

Nevertheless the results show that obviously the upper photon knew exactly what to do in each case, otherwise the data assigned to sensors D1 or D2 would not form an interference pattern, while the data assigned to sensors D3 or D4 shows no interference pattern. Did you grasp the paradoxical nature of the result of this experiment ?
Introduction to Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment

Explanation according to an aether model:

Summary from previous postings:

Photons are created by the detectors from "string bundles" and usually do not pre-exist their detection. Accordingly there are precursor string bundles within each wave but most would be smaller than photons and none would have the characteristics of photons including momentum or spin. Most so-called photon characteristics instead are wave characteristics and afterwards the photons are created by the electrons that detect their concentrated wave-energy presence, turning these field bundles into photons. The wave itself consists of strings of varying lengths and loose engagements, the smallest of which may be shorter than a Planck length. The only difference between the waves and field material is its energy of motion, density, and its EM characteristics. Only the wave itself would move at the speed of light, most of the constituent strings or particles within the waves would generally move little.

Accordingly photons once created by an electron, are very short lived "spin-offs," with a half life of maybe no more than a thousandth of a second. To detect and thereby create a photon would usually destroy the accompanying wave by this creation-detection mechanism.

Explanation of delayed choice:

As to detector D0, as in all detectors, it creates its own photons upon detection of the waves from both slits. Because it is receiving waves from both slits it will always accordingly indicate an interference pattern concerning the "hit pattern" detected. Because of the lens that both waves must first pass through to get to detector D0, the resulting interference patterns merge from the lensed waves. Detectors D0, D1 and D2 always receive waves from both slits and therefore always will indicate an interference pattern. Detectors D3, and D4 always will show no interference pattern because they are only receiving waves from just one slit.

The point of my explanation is that there would be no photons in the first place, just waves, therefore there accordingly would be no "which slit," “delayed choice” or “quantum eraser” involved. Most photon material would accordingly be directed by, and/or be created from wave merger materials from both slits. So if one looks at light as waves of an aether instead of particles, there accordingly would be no mystery to any of it.

If this or any part of my other explanations do not make sense to you or anyone, then please point out which parts don't make sense and might need clarification, I expect that I can do so.

45. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Err... no, it isn't. It really isn't. It really really is not "just space", at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. It is the curvature of space-time, and it is only that curvature. That is all Einstein was talking about - that the "gravitational ether" (the curvature of space-time) is purely a result of the matter and energy (and what that matter/energy is doing) in a given space.

"Mach’s idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gμν), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty."

The ten functions concern energy density, pressure, flux, and shear stress, see this. Einstein used those things in a geometrical model to derive the equations of motion to work out how light and objects move through space over time. But he didn't say light curves because spacetime is curved. He said space is inhomogeneous, and that it isn't empty. Think it through.If you play detective you can spot the flaw in what people usually say. You doutbless know that the Riemann curvature tensor is synonymous with curved spacetime, and is the defining feature of a real gravitational field. It's identified with the tidal force, which is the second derivative of gravitational potential. This is so slight as to be undetectable in the room you're in. But drop a ball, and you can detect that very easily. What that means is this: in the room you're in, your ball doesn't fall down because the spacetime in the room is curved. I really am not kidding you about this SpeedFreek.

But hey, let's not get off topic. Let's stick to debunking quantum mysticism.

46. Well we could start by defining "quantum mysticism", as I took it from the OP that they were referring to "new age" mysticism (auras, crystals, and all that woo-woo nonsense) and how those kinds of people like to go on about how the universe is created by the mind, and how quantum physics proves that the universe needs to be observed in order to exist, that photons know we are watching them and so on and so on.. it was that which I started out debunking.

But now, it seems like this thread has been turned into an attack on some of the actual scientific interpretations of quantum mechanics. Metaphysics, perhaps, but certainly not the mysticism referred to in the OP, in my view.

On the subject of Einstein's references to a gravitational ether, I think you are taking the Leyden Address to places it was never intended.

Here is another quote from Einstein, for you.

The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events. What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same. The ether of the general theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativization.
It is abundantly clear what he means.

The state of the GR ether is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations. It is conceptually similar to Lorentzian ether if we substitute the constants which describe the Lorentzian ether with the 10 functions of the Einstein Field Equations that describe the curvature of space-time, and disregard the causes of those 10 functions.

So if we take the mass, stress-energy-momentum etc and calculate how it curves space-time, and then remove the contents and surroundings of that space, we are left with a concept resembling the Lorentzian ether. The GR ether is the curvature of space-time.

Farsight, your views are at odds with what Einstein says in the theory itself, whatever words he used to sum it up.

47. Originally Posted by forrest noble
Explanation of delayed choice:

As to detector D0, as in all detectors, it creates its own photons upon detection of the waves from both slits. Because it is receiving waves from both slits it will always accordingly indicate an interference pattern concerning the "hit pattern" detected. Because of the lense that both waves must first pass through to get to detector D0, the resulting interference patterns merge from the lensed waves. Detectors D0, D1 and D2 always receive waves from both slits and therefore always will indicate an interference pattern. Detectors D3, and D4 always will show no interference pattern because they are receiving waves from just one slit.
Why is the interference pattern at D0+D1 the inverse of the interference pattern at D0+D2, if D1 and D2 both receive waves from both slits?

Using your parlance, the "idler" waves (or half-waves) have been separated and then mixed together again and then randomly split between D1 and D2.

If, as you suggest, the bell curve signal detected at D0 is simply the merging of two interference patterns from separate slits due to the lens (two interference patterns offset such that one fills in the gaps of the other), then it would make sense to conclude that the idlers for one path represent one of those patterns and the idlers for the other path represent the other pattern.

But why, after we mix those idler waves together and then send them to D1 and D2 at random (at Beam Splitter c), as we have to in order to lose the which path information, do we find that the hits on D0+D1 fill in the gaps on D0+D2?

48. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Well we could start by defining "quantum mysticism", as I took it from the OP that they were referring to "new age" mysticism (auras, crystals, and all that woo-woo nonsense) and how those kinds of people like to go on about how the universe is created by the mind, and how quantum physics proves that the universe needs to be observed in order to exist, that photons know we are watching them and so on and so on.. it was that which I started out debunking. But now, it seems like this thread has been turned into an attack on some of the actual scientific interpretations of quantum mechanics. Metaphysics, perhaps, but certainly not the mysticism referred to in the OP, in my view.
That's how the thread started, but the irony is that people who sneer at new age woo usually believe in their own brand of woo, like many worlds and travelling back in time. And just like the first lot, there's just no getting through to them. They dismiss or ignore anything that challenges their conviction.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
On the subject of Einstein's references to a gravitational ether, I think you are taking the Leyden Address to places it was never intended.
Read your own quote. Functions of space. Condition its state. He said what he said, he didn't say curved spacetime, Robert B Laughlin backs me up, and you're dismissing it all whilst ignoring the fact that curved spacetime doesn't make your ball doesn't fall down. So what does? Magic? See Does gravity do any work? from post 34 for more on that, let's stick to QM on this thread.

49. Originally Posted by Farsight
Read your own quote. Functions of space. Condition its state. He said what he said, he didn't say curved spacetime, Robert B Laughlin backs me up, and you're dismissing it all whilst ignoring the fact that curved spacetime doesn't make your ball doesn't fall down. So what does? Magic? See Does gravity do any work? from post 34 for more on that, let's stick to QM on this thread.
No, I'm not letting this go. I have heard of quote mining, but that's phrase mining! Read it properly!

The ether of the general theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the former, disregarding the causes which condition its state.

"the former" is the ether of general relativity. "its state" is referring to the ether of general relativity. The functions of space which describe "the former" are describing the ether of general relativity. The causes which condition its state are its contents and the contents of its surroundings. These things condition the state of the ether.

The functions of space which describe the former are the Einstein Field Equations, which describe what, exactly? They describe the curvature of space-time.

The causes that condition its state are conditioning its state of curvature. Curvature is the only state it can have.

When there is no curvature of space-time, there is no gravitational ether, either. The ether is the curvature. Without the curvature of space-time, there is nothing to reference anything against at all. But with the curvature of space-time, you can use gravitational potential as a reference. That is your ether.

As to your balls, they fall along a geodesic, following the curvature of space-time. If you throw them, it is a different matter. And I am not talking about curved space here. And nor was Einstein, even if he didn't specifically say so it is abundantly clear what he was talking about. The EFE are the functions of space that describe the curvature of space-time.

50. Originally Posted by Farsight
[ Robert B Laughlin backs me up
Robert is talking about a more modern concept where the vacuum might be considered a form of ether in contemporary theoretical physics, but that is a completely different concept to the gravitational ether that Einstein alluded to. Einstein was most definitely not talking about the same thing.

Actually, you linked to the paragraph above that, which links to a nice article on Einstein's own views on the aether.
In 1918 Einstein publicly alluded to that new definition for the first time. Then, in the early 1920s, in a lecture which he was invited to give at Lorentz's university in Leiden, Einstein sought to reconcile the theory of relativity with his mentor's cherished concept of the aether. In this lecture Einstein stressed that special relativity took away the last mechanical property of Lorentz's aether: immobility. However, he continued that special relativity does not necessarily rule out the aether, because the latter can be used to give physical reality to acceleration and rotation. This concept was fully elaborated within general relativity, in which physical properties (which are partially determined by matter) are attributed to space, but no substance or state of motion can be attributed to that "aether" (aether = curved space-time).
It isn't just me, then.

I think it's just you.

51. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Why is the interference pattern at D0+D1 the inverse of the interference pattern at D0+D2, if D1 and D2 both receive waves from both slits?
Thanks for the questions I think it's simply a shift of the detected position as the result of the yellow lens.

Using your parlance, the "idler" waves (or half-waves) have been separated and then mixed together again and then randomly split between D1 and D2.

If, as you suggest, the bell curve signal detected at D0 is simply the merging of two interference patterns from separate slits due to the lens (two interference patterns offset such that one fills in the gaps of the other), then it would make sense to conclude that the idlers for one path represent one of those patterns and the idlers for the other path represent the other pattern.
Yes, this is also what I think, and accordingly it takes both waves to create the interference pattern because of the intersection lines of alternating waves would according direct the locations of the larger field material that could accordingly become a photon upon contacting an electron in the detector.

But why, after we mix those idler waves together and then send them to D1 and D2 at random (at Beam Splitter c), as we have to in order to lose the which path information, do we find that the hits on D0+D1 fill in the gaps on D0+D2?
Hope I understand your question properly. Those mixed waves at detectors D1 and D2 are not first lensed, they have just been diverted by the P5 transparent medium. Both detectors D1 and D2, I think, would show the same almost identical interference patterns/ locations excepting for the shift by the yellow lens that causes the shift so that the experimenters could compare the D1 and D2 sources separately at D0, otherwise there would be no distinction between D1 and D2 hit locations at detector D0. The D1 and D2 detectors themselves, I think, can only indicate an interference pattern, not a shift of it as indicated by the colored depictions of the hits as seen in D0, as shown in the link. Do these explanations make sense to you and answer your questions?

52. Originally Posted by forrest noble
Hope I understand your question properly. Those mixed waves at detectors D1 and D2 are not first lensed, they have just been diverted by the P5 transparent medium. Both detectors D1 and D2, I think, would show the same almost identical interference patterns/ locations excepting for the shift by the yellow lens that causes the shift so that the experimenters could compare the D1 and D2 sources separately at D0, otherwise there would be no distinction between D1 and D2 hit locations at detector D0. The D1 and D2 detectors themselves, I think, can only indicate an interference pattern, not a shift of it as indicated by the colored depictions of the hits as seen in D0, as shown in the link. Do these explanations make sense to you and answer your questions?
That doesn't answer my question, but I acknowledge that I didn't put my question into any context, and there is a reason for that - I didn't want to lead you anywhere you didn't want to go on your own.

Here are the results:

D0 detects the positional information of the hits of the signals from both slits. The signal is detected before any choice is made as to whether to erase the which path information of the idlers, or not. There are no interference patterns at the lens to be "mixed", just two bell curves overlaid over each other.

D1 - D4 detect only the timing of the arrival of an entangled idler particle, which is then correlated with the data previously collected at D0, using the coincidence counter.

The reason that D0 shows a bell curve is not because the lens is mixing two interference patterns from two paths. If, as you suggest, it were the case that the experimenters use the lens to shift two distinct inteference patterns to allow them to compare hits at D1 and D2, this might imply that the interference pattern exists at D0 before any choice is made.

If D1 has a mixture of light from both paths, and D2 has a mixture of light from both paths also, then if what you say is true this means that the interference patterns you claim are being mixed up by the lens would both be the same, comprised of half the photons from each path, would they not? So how can the experimenters be shifting these interference patterns at the lens, using the signal photons from two separate paths, if the final two interference patterns are each made up of light from both paths?

53. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
No, I'm not letting this go. I have heard of quote mining, but that's phrase mining! Read it properly!
I have. Now you read it properly.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
The functions of space which describe the former are the Einstein Field Equations, which describe what, exactly? They describe the curvature of space-time.
No, they give energy-momentum density, flux, pressure, and shear stress and describe the equations of motion. Read what Einstein said. Don't just ignore it because it isn't in accord with what you got spoonfed in Sunday school.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
The causes that condition its state are conditioning its state of curvature. Curvature is the only state it can have.
LOL! If you get uniform measurements of distance and time with your light beams and light clocks, then a plot of your measurements isn't curved, and you will find that light goes straight as a die. Where's your curvature then?

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
When there is no curvature of space-time, there is no gravitational ether, either. The ether is the curvature. Without the curvature of space-time, there is nothing to reference anything against at all. But with the curvature of space-time, you can use gravitational potential as a reference. That is your ether.
Garbage. Space is what it is, waves run through it, and you are winging it. Gravitational potential is lowest in a void at the centre of a massive body where you just float around. That's where light clock run slowest. But there is no spacetime curvature there. The light goes straight as a die.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
As to your balls, they fall along a geodesic, following the curvature of space-time.
Ah yes, see all those geodesics sticking out of the Earth? See that ball following the curvature of spacetime like a bloodhound? Straight down? In a straight line? Even though there's no detectable tidal force in the room you're in, and therefore no spacetime curvature? Magic!

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
If you throw them, it is a different matter. And I am not talking about curved space here. And nor was Einstein, even if he didn't specifically say so it is abundantly clear what he was talking about. The EFE are the functions of space that describe the curvature of space-time.
Which is nothng more than a curvature in your plot of measurements made with light clocks and light beams. That's light moving through space. Not spacetime. Nothing moves in spacetime. Spacetime is a mathematical space, a "block universe" that shows you all times at once. It's like you throw that ball across the room and I film it. Then I develop the film and cut it up into individual frames, and arrange them into a stack. Your ball is just a streak in the stack. It ain't moving in spacetime. See Nasty little truth about spacetime physics. Think it through for yourself, and do not accept specious non-answers that do not stand up to scrutiny. Capiche? And if you want to talk about gravity any more, do it on an appropriate thread.

54. Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
The functions of space which describe the former are the Einstein Field Equations, which describe what, exactly? They describe the curvature of space-time.
No, they give energy-momentum density, flux, pressure, and shear stress and describe the equations of motion. Read what Einstein said. Don't just ignore it because it isn't in accord with what you got spoonfed in Sunday school.
It is better to learn in school than to simply take the word of people with, .... alternative views to the mainstream.

Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
The causes that condition its state are conditioning its state of curvature. Curvature is the only state it can have.
LOL! If you get uniform measurements of distance and time with your light beams and light clocks, then a plot of your measurements isn't curved, and you will find that light goes straight as a die. Where's your curvature then?
It sounds like you either are talking empty space here, or only referring to local measurements.

Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
When there is no curvature of space-time, there is no gravitational ether, either. The ether is the curvature. Without the curvature of space-time, there is nothing to reference anything against at all. But with the curvature of space-time, you can use gravitational potential as a reference. That is your ether.
Garbage. Space is what it is, waves run through it, and you are winging it. Gravitational potential is lowest in a void at the centre of a massive body where you just float around. That's where light clock run slowest. But there is no spacetime curvature there. The light goes straight as a die.
I was referring to flat Minkowski space - the setting for SR - an empty universe. You know that of course, but choose to misunderstand on purpose? Only in an empty universe is there no curvature and thus nothing to reference against. In our universe, there is curvature. At the centre of the Earth you are blueshifted in relation to an observer at the centre of Jupiter and that observer is redshifted in relation to you. Nobody can argue about that relationship. The same is not true of relationships in an empty universe, and that is what Einstein's "ether" is all about.

Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
As to your balls, they fall along a geodesic, following the curvature of space-time.
Ah yes, see all those geodesics sticking out of the Earth? See that ball following the curvature of spacetime like a bloodhound? Straight down? In a straight line? Even though there's no detectable tidal force in the room you're in, and therefore no spacetime curvature? Magic!
Straw man followed by argument from ignorance. The Moon doesn't orbit the Earth due to tidal force, it follows its geodesic through curved space-time. All free-falling objects follow their geodesic through curved space-time.

Originally Posted by Farsight
And if you want to talk about gravity any more, do it on an appropriate thread.
You started it, and I replied to you. I will continue as long as you do, as you are the one promoting alternative views.

55. Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
The functions of space which describe the former are the Einstein Field Equations, which describe what, exactly? They describe the curvature of space-time.
No, they give energy-momentum density, flux, pressure, and shear stress and describe the equations of motion. Read what Einstein said. Don't just ignore it because it isn't in accord with what you got spoonfed in Sunday school.
Not Sunday School, physics classes and experiments. You don't know how to do any of the relevant physics. You never study the relevant physics because, deep down, you know that the actual physics has nothing to do with the nonsense that you spout and try to sell online. It's much easier to lie and sell your product when you don't actually know the specifics of where you are wrong.
Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
The causes that condition its state are conditioning its state of curvature. Curvature is the only state it can have.
LOL! If you get uniform measurements of distance and time with your light beams and light clocks, then a plot of your measurements isn't curved, and you will find that light goes straight as a die. Where's your curvature then?
That would be still be a measurement of curvature. However, it's irrelevant, since this is so clearly not what we see in the universe.

56. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Originally Posted by forrest noble
Hope I understand your question properly. Those mixed waves at detectors D1 and D2 are not first lensed, they have just been diverted by the P5 transparent medium. Both detectors D1 and D2, I think, would show the same almost identical interference patterns/ locations excepting for the shift by the yellow lens that causes the shift so that the experimenters could compare the D1 and D2 sources separately at D0, otherwise there would be no distinction between D1 and D2 hit locations at detector D0. The D1 and D2 detectors themselves, I think, can only indicate an interference pattern, not a shift of it as indicated by the colored depictions of the hits as seen in D0, as shown in the link. Do these explanations make sense to you and answer your questions?
That doesn't answer my question, but I acknowledge that I didn't put my question into any context, and there is a reason for that - I didn't want to lead you anywhere you didn't want to go on your own.

Here are the results:

D0 detects the positional information of the hits of the signals from both slits. The signal is detected before any choice is made as to whether to erase the which path information of the idlers, or not. There are no interference patterns at the lens to be "mixed", just two bell curves overlaid over each other.

D1 - D4 detect only the timing of the arrival of an entangled idler particle, which is then correlated with the data previously collected at D0, using the coincidence counter.

The reason that D0 shows a bell curve is not because the lens is mixing two interference patterns from two paths. If, as you suggest, it were the case that the experimenters use the lens to shift two distinct interference patterns to allow them to compare hits at D1 and D2, this might imply that the interference pattern exists at D0 before any choice is made.

When looking at the bell curve hits for the uncorrelated DO, that chart you provided looks to me like what I would expect. D0 correlated with D1 also looks like I would expect. D0 correlated with D2 lines up with each consecutive wave as seen in intersection lines B above, where in D0 correlation with D1 detector, the photon contacts lines up with every other wave as in lines A above. The difference between the two D1 and D2 detectors was not apparent in the original Design of Experiment but I notice a dotted light blue line going to detector D1 and a solid light blue line going to detector D2.

The D1 correlated pattern you have shown looks like some "constructive wave interference," and the D2 correlated pattern looks like some "destructive wave interference" is involved as well as consecutive waves as controlling the directed motion of potential photons.

Interference (wave propagation) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Raw results for D0 are all delivered to the same detector regardless of what happens at the other detectors.

Raw results for D0 can be sorted according to correspondences with the other detectors,1 through 4

Delayed choice quantum eraser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If D1 has a mixture of light from both paths, and D2 has a mixture of light from both paths also, then if what you say is true this means that the interference patterns you claim are being mixed up by the lens would both be the same, comprised of half the photons from each path, would they not? So how can the experimenters be shifting these interference patterns at the lens, using the signal photons from two separate paths, if the final two interference patterns are each made up of light from both paths?
Not mixed up by the lens, instead redirected by the yellow lens. Remember, in this aether-wave model there are no photons to start with, so I would say "comprised of hits from half-waves from both paths." From the looks of the interference pattern directly above, D2, it appears to be a horizontal shift, the only way that seemed possible was from the lens that these waves must first go through to focus their path. On the other hand your D0 depiction display instead looks like D1 correlates with every other half-wave interaction, while D2 correlates with consecutive wave intersections, which might be expected from maybe every other half-wave interacting with a counterpart of half-waves. Again look at the dotted light blue line going from the beam splitter to the D1 detector.

Beam Splitter B5c is the only beam splitter splitting both of the beams from both slits. The other beam splitters split one beam only. If this beam splitter only allowed one wave to pass through it at a time from each source then this would decrease the number of waves each detector D1 or D2 will receive. This alternation of waves by this beam splitter to the detectors could explain the inverse pattern seen in detector D2.

To test this hypothesis the interval of wave production could be controlled to brief maybe pico second laser pulses observing hits first one at a time, and then in progressively longer pulses.

This inverted wave pattern of detector D2 seems to be readily explainable (if I haven't already explained it) and of minor concern since it seems unrelated to the delayed choice assertion, or the experiment in general.

What do you think?

57. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
It is better to learn in school than to simply take the word of people with, .... alternative views to the mainstream.
No, it's better to understand the science than to peddle woo.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
I was referring to flat Minkowski space - the setting for SR - an empty universe. You know that of course, but choose to misunderstand on purpose? Only in an empty universe is there no curvature and thus nothing to reference against. In our universe, there is curvature.
I understand it perfectly. And I also understand that on the large scale, the universe is flat, and always has been. See WMAP. You don't know what you're talking about.

58. Originally Posted by Farsight
It's like you throw that ball across the room and I film it. Then I develop the film and cut it up into individual frames, and arrange them into a stack. Your ball is just a streak in the stack. It ain't moving in spacetime.
It isn't following its geodesic, because you threw it, rather than dropped it.

Originally Posted by Farsight
See Nasty little truth about spacetime physics. Think it through for yourself, and do not accept specious non-answers that do not stand up to scrutiny. Capiche? And if you want to talk about gravity any more, do it on an appropriate thread.
What a nasty little website, calling all those well known and established physicists crackpots! That website calls Wheeler, Feynman, Einstein and Godel "time travel and spacetime crackpots", so how do you expect me to take it seriously.

Like I said, it is YOU who is promoting the anti-mainstream crackpottery around here, not me.

Oh and if you are reading this Markus, don't be taken in by what Farsight says.

59. Originally Posted by Farsight
I understand it perfectly. And I also understand that on the large scale, the universe is flat, and always has been. See WMAP. You don't know what you're talking about.
You are conflating two different concepts here. I already said I wasn't taking about the curvature of space.

60. Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
I was referring to flat Minkowski space - the setting for SR - an empty universe. You know that of course, but choose to misunderstand on purpose? Only in an empty universe is there no curvature and thus nothing to reference against. In our universe, there is curvature.
I understand it perfectly. And I also understand that on the large scale, the universe is flat, and always has been. See WMAP. You don't know what you're talking about.
Either you don't read carefully, or you don't process syllogisms well. An empty universe is flat, but a flat universe need not be empty. Our universe is flat to within a narrow tolerance, but it is also not empty, as SpeedFreek was trying to teach you. Learn from him instead of peddling woo.

61. Originally Posted by Farsight
]No, it's better to understand the science than to peddle woo.
That's a very interesting statement coming from someone who admits that they cannot do the mathematics of GR or QM and who has a book to sell.

62. I do understand, of course, that nothing physically moves through space-time, as space-time is simply a mathematical construct to describe the history of relationships between things. For that matter, there are no actual physical objects in space-time either. It is just as wrong to say objects are static in space-time as it is to say they move. Space-time is just a construct that allows us to understand the relationship an object or objects have had with time and space. Half the problems people have with these concepts are due to the loose usage of language and I am as guilty of this as anyone else, just as a lot of people are guilty of using the term space when they actually mean space-time.

So when I say the Moon follows a path through curved space-time, what I am really describing is the relationship the Moon has had with its local curved space-time, across its history. This "path" is more formally known as a world-line, and is a geodesic if the object in question is not subject to any external forces. A space-time diagram for the Moon might show a corkscrew shaped path (partly space-like and partly time-like) relative to a straight path for the Earth, for instance, depending on the coordinate system used. But the Earth might also have a corkscrew shaped path relative to a straight line for the Sun, and so on...

Saying objects move through space-time is just shorthand. It is like holding up a map with your route across the country and saying you drove across the map. People who understand the concept would know what I mean, and I wouldn't discuss it in such terms with people who don't.

63. Originally Posted by forrest noble
This inverted wave pattern of detector D2 seems to be readily explainable (if I haven't already explained it) and of minor concern since it seems unrelated to the delayed choice assertion, or the experiment in general.

What do you think?
According to the standard interpretation, it is indeed unrelated to the delayed choice part of the experiment, but it is related to the quantum eraser. If I understand what you are saying, then I have to say that the Beam Splitter c (BSc) does not send photons in alternate directions, such that one path goes one way and the other goes the other, as that would still mean the which path information was intact. The output from BSc has to be random.

64. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Originally Posted by forrest noble
This inverted wave pattern of detector D2 seems to be readily explainable (if I haven't already explained it) and of minor concern since it seems unrelated to the delayed choice assertion, or the experiment in general.

What do you think?
According to the standard interpretation, it is indeed unrelated to the delayed choice part of the experiment, but it is related to the quantum eraser. If I understand what you are saying, then I have to say that the Beam Splitter c (BSc) does not send photons in alternate directions, such that one path goes one way and the other goes the other, as that would still mean the which path information was intact. The output from BSc has to be random.
Detector D1 seems to indicate a constructive interference pattern while D2 seems to indicate a destructive interference pattern. Passing through a beam splitter would not change the phase of the wave, while being reflected seemingly would. I think that's all there is to it. Constructive Interference of phase at detector D1, and out-of-phase interference at detector D2. Each wave is not identical to the other split wave in the first place, instead they were created as complimentary entangled waves producing photons of different spins.

....such that one path goes one way and the other goes the other, as that would still mean the "which-path" information was intact....

As I explained before there accordingly would be no such thing in this wave-light model as to "which path' since accordingly there would be no photons involved until detected, their material and paths would be directed by the related interference waves. I understand your point that randomness would be essential so as to keep the path of an asserted photon unknown, based upon the standard interpretation.

As always, if this explanation or any part of my other explanations do not make sense to you or anyone, then please point out which parts don't make sense and might need clarification, I expect that I can do so. All explanations like the ones that I have already given in this thread should explain all aspects of QM without mystery of any kind. There accordingly then would be no illogical aspects to QM or Quantum Theory. If you think there are still possible lingering questions concerning illogical aspects of QM please ask further questions, otherwise I can hope that all of your questions have been answered and QM is now very simple for all reading this thread to understand.

65. Did somebody delete my post where I replied to TK and gave a one-liner rebuff to PhysBang?

I referred to the CMBR which is homogeneous to one part in 100,000, and to the wikipedia Big Bang article wherein the early universe had a homogeneous huge energy density. I challenged TK to explain why this flat universe was not empty.

Fair enough it was some kind of mistake or system glitch, but if we have a "moderator" here who is playing thought-police and siding with abuse and nonsense, we've got a problem.

66. Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by forrest noble
Almost any kind of aether might explain the proposed hidden variables of QM. My preference is a particulate background field (aether), something like dark matter, Higgs particles, gravitons, etc, only in my own theory such string-like entities (no-extra dimensions) go down in size to quantum lengths or smaller. .......I'm hoping for the replacement of theory concerning QM, SM, SR, GR, BB theory. In many ways theoretically I think the 20th century was a step backwards. I think all of these problems relate to discarding the aether ideas of Maxwell, Lorentz, and many others.(parenthesis and bold added)
There are certainly some issues, but I'd say it's in the interpretation of the theory rather than the theory itself. Stuff like relativity and quantum mechanics aren't wrong per se, it's just that people don't understand them, and lap up the mystic baggage................
I'll go much father in my opinion. I would say that Quantum Theory is almost entirely wrong, the Standard Model of particle physics includes a number of valid facts but I think the theory itself is also almost entirely wrong. If an aether exists Special Relativity will almost entirely be discarded in favor of Lorentz transforms. If an aether exists and if there is no dark matter other than an aether, and if space does not warp, then there would seemingly be little or no vestige of General Relativity remaining in its replacement theory. If the universe is far older than 13.7 Big Bang age, this conceivably could be detectable via some galaxies appearing the same size and age as the Milky Way at the farthest possible observable distances in the universe, by the James Webb telescope. I also expect that galactic redshifts have a different explanation, that neither space nor the universe is expanding. For these reasons I expect the Big Bang model will be the first of all the above mainstream theories to be replaced.

But by far the most transparent model concerning what I think is almost entirely hokum, is Quantum Theory. But I also think QM will probably be the only theory of the above whose practical application will change little after the entire theory is replaced.

67. Originally Posted by Farsight
Did somebody delete my post where I replied to TK and gave a one-liner rebuff to PhysBang?
Perhaps it was a fantasy, like your physics?
I referred to the CMBR which is homogeneous to one part in 100,000, and to the wikipedia Big Bang article wherein the early universe had a homogeneous huge energy density. I challenged TK to explain why this flat universe was not empty.
Isn't it dishonest to ask this, since this aspect of cosmology has been explained to you over and over and over again? All one has to do is google your username to find a host of corrections to your posts.

68. Originally Posted by forrest noble
if space does not warp, then there would seemingly be little or no vestige of General Relativity remaining in its replacement theory.
Do you have anything to explain all the thousands of images collected over the last two decades of gravitationally lensed galaxies?

69. Originally Posted by PhysBang
Originally Posted by forrest noble
if space does not warp, then there would seemingly be little or no vestige of General Relativity remaining in its replacement theory.
Do you have anything to explain all the thousands of images collected over the last two decades of gravitationally lensed galaxies?
There is no question that a great many galaxies have successfully been lensed. But because many of these images are greatly distorted they have to be reassembled theoretically. It is therefore difficult to determine their true redshifts, sizes, and material characteristics. In some cases that I have seen I think they have done an incredibly good job but realize that they are under great pressure not to come up with anything that might contradict the standard BB model. Only the bravest, youngest, or a few alternative astronomers/ theorists might consider non-mainsteam interpretations. When the James Webb goes up and we can see these same galaxies with much less BB interpretations involved, then I expect many of these past interpretations will turn out to be wrong in major ways.

70. Originally Posted by forrest noble
I'll go much father in my opinion. I would say that Quantum Theory is almost entirely wrong, the Standard Model of particle physics includes a number of valid facts but I think the theory itself is also almost entirely wrong. If an aether exists Special Relativity will almost entirely be discarded in favor of Lorentz transforms. If an aether exists and if there is no dark matter other than an aether, and if space does not warp, then there would seemingly be little or no vestige of General Relativity remaining in its replacement theory. If the universe is far older than 13.7 Big Bang age, this conceivably could be detectable via some galaxies appearing the same size and age as the Milky Way at the farthest possible observable distances in the universe, by the James Webb telescope. I also expect that galactic redshifts have a different explanation, that neither space nor the universe is expanding. For these reasons I expect the Big Bang model will be the first of all the above mainstream theories to be replaced. But by far the most transparent model concerning what I think is almost entirely hokum, is Quantum Theory. But I also think QM will probably be the only theory of the above whose practical application will change little after the entire theory is replaced.
I think you're going way too far with this forrest. There are some aspects of quantum theory and the standard model that one might say are misguided, but they really aren't "entirely wrong". And special relativity is not to be discarded, see the other meaning of special relativity by Robert Close to understand how it is strengthened. General relativity isn't wrong either, just misunderstood. When you understand it correctly, I hope you will come to appreciate exactly why the universe just has to expand.

71. Originally Posted by forrest noble
Originally Posted by PhysBang
Originally Posted by forrest noble
if space does not warp, then there would seemingly be little or no vestige of General Relativity remaining in its replacement theory.
Do you have anything to explain all the thousands of images collected over the last two decades of gravitationally lensed galaxies?
There is no question that a great many galaxies have successfully been lensed. But because many of these images are greatly distorted they have to be reassembled theoretically. It is therefore difficult to determine their true redshifts, sizes, and material characteristics. In some cases that I have seen I think they have done an incredibly good job but realize that they are under great pressure not to come up with anything that might contradict the standard BB model. Only the bravest, youngest, or a few alternative astronomers/ theorists might consider non-mainsteam interpretations. When the James Webb goes up and we can see these same galaxies with much less BB interpretations involved, then I expect many of these past interpretations will turn out to be wrong in major ways.

Just because things are difficult does not mean that it is impossible to make cosmological determinations. Just because you cannot work through the science does not mean that others cannot. Just because you face hostility to your position does not mean that others face pressure to come up with conclusions; you speak in ignorance, those who can overturn accepted models with evidence get rewarded.

72. Originally Posted by Farsight
And special relativity is not to be discarded, see the other meaning of special relativity by Robert Close to understand how it is strengthened. General relativity isn't wrong either, just misunderstood. When you understand it correctly, I hope you will come to appreciate exactly why the universe just has to expand.
Robert Close is a great crackpot source.

73. Originally Posted by forrest noble
But because many of these images are greatly distorted they have to be reassembled theoretically.
Forrest loves to use meaningless phrases like "reassembled theoretically". As opposed to practically?

they are under great pressure not to come up with anything that might contradict the standard BB model.
Forrest is frequently criticising people here for pointing out the fact (supported by the evidence he himself provides) that he is almost completely ignorant of relativity, cosmology, quantum mechanics and mathematics. And yet he happily makes gratuitous, unjustified and deeply offensive comments about an entire community just because they disagree with him (because they know what they are talking about). He should be ashamed of himself.

Only the bravest, youngest, or a few alternative astronomers/ theorists might consider non-mainsteam interpretations.
And of course, every year we get thousands of "brave", young scientists who want to challenge their elders and make a name for themselves. None of them ever come up with ideas as daft as Forrest's though. That is probably because thy have a basic education in science.

74. Originally Posted by Farsight
I think you're going way too far with this forrest. There are some aspects of quantum theory and the standard model that one might say are misguided, but they really aren't "entirely wrong". And special relativity is not to be discarded, see the other meaning of special relativity by Robert Close to understand how it is strengthened. General relativity isn't wrong either, just misunderstood. When you understand it correctly, I hope you will come to appreciate exactly why the universe just has to expand.
"Some aspects are misguided" is being quite polite and generous, I think. I go a big step further and would say that most aspects of both are misguided. Since the math is the same. Special Relativity was accepted because it was believed there was no aether, and if they discover sometime in the future that there really is an aether, it will be hard to salvage very much of SR in light of preferred reference frames. General Relativity has shown to have been very successful at solar system scales. No other models to date better compete mathematically at this scale. But if space does not bend/warp and if there is no dark matter then GR would fail at the conceptual level and gravitational formulations of a new model will be different to accommodate both larger and smaller scales.

As to why I and others think the universe is not expanding at all you can PM me, I can start a new thread if you like, or I can bring back a thread that has already had a long run, your choice. If I hear no choice I'll PM you.

cheers

75. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by forrest noble
But because many of these images are greatly distorted they have to be reassembled theoretically.
Forrest loves to use meaningless phrases like "reassembled theoretically". As opposed to practically?
they are under great pressure not to come up with anything that might contradict the standard BB model.
Forrest is frequently criticising people here for pointing out the fact (supported by the evidence he himself provides) that he is almost completely ignorant of relativity, cosmology, quantum mechanics and mathematics. And yet he happily makes gratuitous, unjustified and deeply offensive comments about an entire community just because they disagree with him (because they know what they are talking about). He should be ashamed of himself.
I do not ever criticize people unless they violate forum rules, otherwise just concerning some of the things that they say. And then I am certainly more gentle in my comments than some who disagree with me

(my comment)
Only the bravest, youngest, or a few alternative astronomers/ theorists might consider non-mainsteam interpretations.
(Strange's quote)
And of course, every year we get thousands of "brave", young scientists who want to challenge their elders and make a name for themselves. None of them ever come up with ideas as daft as Forrest's though. That is probably because thy have a basic education in science.
Once in awhile I see some cool experiments like the one recently involving Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, conceptualized and built, as I understand it, primarily by graduate students. Yes, many have thought my ideas "daft" but none that have read my book. That's probably because no one would buy or read all the way through it if they didn't think there was something of value there

76. PhysBang,

.....Just because you face hostility to your position does not mean that others face pressure to come up with conclusions; you speak in ignorance, those who can overturn accepted models with evidence get rewarded.
If one can overturn accepted models with acceptable evidence of the time, then one might get rewarded. Some of the people that have done so were first criticized all of their lives and some executed, and it was not realized until long after their deaths that some of the most renowned today were correct. Many great names come to mind such as Galileo, forced to recant and falling under house arrest until his death. Copernicus fearing to publish until his death was imminent. Even Newton who had his own staunch religious views, was urged and financed to publish by Edmund Halley. He might not have otherwise published until much later or posthumously, maybe because of his fears of reprisal from the Church of England. His religious views, or at least those great volumes that he made public, were made available shortly after his published Principia. He was asked for clarification of his biblical views from church officials on various occasions.

In modern times if your persist in your opposition to mainstream ideas, you may be rebuffed by mainstream practitioners and lose your bid for a Nobel prize, Fred Hoyle comes to mind, or lose your job, your writings generally overlooked by mainstream practitioners and forced to live in a foreign country to practice your trade, Halton Arp comes to mind.

77. Originally Posted by forrest noble
In modern times if your persist in your opposition to mainstream ideas, you may be rebuffed by mainstream practitioners and lose your bid for a Nobel prize, Fred Hoyle comes to mind, or lose your job, your writings generally overlooked by mainstream practitioners and forced to live in a foreign country to practice your trade, Halton Arp comes to mind.
Really? You are going to compare the actions of the scientific community towards these two to the actions of religious zealots hundreds of years ago? Both Hoyle and Arp are respected for their scientific contributions. Arp is dismissed for his flights of fancy that cannot stand up to the evidence. There is a lot of evidence against Arp's hypothesis that quasars are ejecta. Arp's work in astronomy, particularly on cataloging galaxies, is respected despite his cosmological claims.

You claim that these people deserve Nobel prizes? For what? What ground-breaking physics did they reveal? Hoyle produced the calculations for stellar nucleosynthesis, the very results that help establish that his steady-state model cannot be correct. Is this the Nobel prize winning research he should be recognized for? If not, then what do you have in mind?

It is easy for you to rail, in almost complete ignorance, against the science. But why should we not hold you in contempt for your behavior?

78. Originally Posted by PhysBang
Originally Posted by forrest noble
In modern times if your persist in your opposition to mainstream ideas, you may be rebuffed by mainstream practitioners and lose your bid for a Nobel prize, Fred Hoyle comes to mind, or lose your job, your writings generally overlooked by mainstream practitioners and forced to live in a foreign country to practice your trade, Halton Arp comes to mind.
Really? You are going to compare the actions of the scientific community towards these two to the actions of religious zealots hundreds of years ago? Both Hoyle and Arp are respected for their scientific contributions. Arp is dismissed for his flights of fancy that cannot stand up to the evidence. There is a lot of evidence against Arp's hypothesis that quasars are ejecta. Arp's work in astronomy, particularly on cataloging galaxies, is respected despite his cosmological claims.

You claim that these people deserve Nobel prizes?
What ground-breaking physics did they reveal? Hoyle produced the calculations for stellar nucleosynthesis, the very results that help establish that his steady-state model cannot be correct.
The basis of his nucleo-sythesis theory were adopted by the mainstream as well as Big Bang proponents but did not "establish that his steady-state model cannot be correct,' instead it was evidence in support of his own model also -- which was the basis for his work.

Is this the Nobel prize winning research he should be recognized for? ............Hoyle produced the calculations for stellar nucleosynthesis,,,.

Fred Hoyle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Non-mainstream organizations cannot get public funding, and it's difficult for them to get grant monies from established trusts controlled by recognized academicians. The very few such organizations that exist are generally self funded. Non-mainstream science is generally conducted by "lone wolves" world wide, mostly without consort. I am one on the list of 7,000 world-wide dissident scientists, one of only roughly 700 theories recognized by the Jean de Climont Society : Forrest Noble. Maybe only one of maybe a few dozen modern Theories Of Everything (TOE) having some recognition worldwide, and the only TOE that I am aware of that was formulated from "first principles." My first published writings and papers were in 1983, My first copyrighted book 1997.: The Pan Theory : now online free.

Editions d'Assailly

79. The original reason for dark matter was that galaxies spin at rates at which can not be accounted for by the mass of the matter in the galaxy.This non-baryonic dark matter was supposed to be anchored to the matter. This has been shown not to be the case.

What is presently postulated as non-baryonic dark matter which is not anchored to matter is aether with mass.What Einstein originally referred to as curved spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether. The Milky Way's halo is not non-baryonic dark matter anchored to the Milky Way.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

The Milky Way's halo is what Einstein referred to as curved spacetime.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf

“When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles.”“any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium”

The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether. The “energetic contact” is the state of displacement of the aether.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path which takes it through one slit. The associated aether wave passes through both. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Detecting the particle strongly exiting a single slit turns the associated aether wave into chop. The aether waves exiting the slits interact with the detectors and become many short waves with irregular motion. The waves are disorganized. There is no wave interference. The particle pitches and rolls through the chop. The particle gets knocked around by the chop and it no longer creates an interference pattern.

Aether displaced by matter unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics.

80. <delete dup>

81. Originally Posted by gravitational_aether
This non-baryonic dark matter was supposed to be anchored to the matter.
Really? Where did you get that from?

82. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by gravitational_aether
This non-baryonic dark matter was supposed to be anchored to the matter.
Really? Where did you get that from?
'Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in NASA Hubble Image'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012...Dark_Core.html

"This technique revealed the dark matter in Abell 520 had collected into a "dark core," containing far fewer galaxies than would be expected if the dark matter and galaxies were anchored together. Most of the galaxies apparently have sailed far away from the collision. "This result is a puzzle," said astronomer James Jee of the University of California in Davis, lead author of paper about the results available online in The Astrophysical Journal. "Dark matter is not behaving as predicted, and it's not obviously clear what is going on. It is difficult to explain this Hubble observation with the current theories of galaxy formation and dark matter.""

The dark matter core does not defy explanation. The dark matter core is not a puzzle. The dark matter core is not difficult to explain. It is obviously clear what is going on.

Non-baryonic dark matter and galaxies are not anchored together. There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter.

Aether has mass. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

83. Originally Posted by gravitational_aether
'Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in NASA Hubble Image'
NASA - Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in NASA Hubble Image
Thanks. That was intersting.

Although, obviously, it doesn't provide any support for anything you wrote. But then, nothing does.

84. gravitational-aether,

Strange,

PhysBang,

Right now I am leaving for Mexico but will be back tomorrow night. Have fun.

85. Originally Posted by forrest noble
gravitational-aether,Strange,Right now I am leaving for Mexico but will be back tomorrow night. Have fun.
There was a post describing the aether theory explanation of what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment which was not completely accurate. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both. As the wave in the aether exits the slits it creates wave interference which alters the direction the particle travels. Strongly detecting the particle turns the wave in the aether into chop and there is no wave interference.

86. Originally Posted by forrest noble
The basis of his nucleo-sythesis theory were adopted by the mainstream as well as Big Bang proponents but did not "establish that his steady-state model cannot be correct,' instead it was evidence in support of his own model also -- which was the basis for his work.
You know the PR, but you are ignorant of the actual science and its history. Hoyle established that stars could not produce the observed relative abundance of light elements. Hoyle waves a magic wand and says that these elements are simply created in these abundances. The standard cosmological model provides an account for their origin tied to the measurement of cosmological parameters. This is why his own work is instrumental in establishing that the Steady State theory is incorrect.

Is this the Nobel prize winning research he should be recognized for? ............Hoyle produced the calculations for stellar nucleosynthesis,,,.

Fred Hoyle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That is pathetic. I know Hoyle's work. I've actually taken the time to read his work, not some wikipedia page. Please give a direct answer to the question as to what he has done that is Nobel prize worthy.

87. Originally Posted by PhysBang
Originally Posted by forrest noble
The basis of his nucleo-sythesis theory were adopted by the mainstream as well as Big Bang proponents but did not "establish that his steady-state model cannot be correct,' instead it was evidence in support of his own model also -- which was the basis for his work.
You know the PR, but you are ignorant of the actual science and its history. Hoyle established that stars could not produce the observed relative abundance of light elements. Hoyle waves a magic wand and says that these elements are simply created in these abundances. The standard cosmological model provides an account for their origin tied to the measurement of cosmological parameters. This is why his own work is instrumental in establishing that the Steady State theory is incorrect.

Is this the Nobel prize winning research he should be recognized for? ............Hoyle produced the calculations for stellar nucleosynthesis,,,.

Fred Hoyle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That is pathetic. I know Hoyle's work. I've actually taken the time to read his work, not some wikipedia page. Please give a direct answer to the question as to what he has done that is Nobel prize worthy.
Forrest is impervious to correction. Many have offered corrections repeatedly. FN either rudely ignores them, or waves them away. As "support" he'll often link to some quote from a dodgy source, or he'll mischaracterize a reference in hopes that you won't actually read carefully. He's even been caught simply making up a quote in a desperate attempt to support an erroneous assertion.

And he'll act offended at such charges and challenge you to support them, often making some noise about "forum rules," "proper behavior," etc. But he will absolutely refuse to learn. His mind is closed. Permanently.

88. Originally Posted by forrest noble
"Some aspects are misguided" is being quite polite and generous, I think. I go a big step further and would say that most aspects of both are misguided. Since the math is the same, Special Relativity was accepted because it was believed there was no aether, and if they discover sometime in the future that there really is an aether, it will be hard to salvage very much of SR in light of preferred reference frames.
I'm sorry forrest, but I have to say you're being convictional about that. You're exhibiting the same psychology as what you accuse others of having.

Originally Posted by forrest noble
General Relativity has shown to have been very successful at solar system scales. No other models to date better compete mathematically at this scale. But if space does not warp and if there is no dark matter then GR would fail at the conceptual level and gravitational formulations of a new model will be different to accommodate both larger and smaller scales.
GR does not concern the warping of space, and it does not propose dark matter. I'm sorry forrest, but you're making unfounded assertions here.

Originally Posted by forrest noble
As to why I and others think the universe is not expanding at all you can PM me, I can start a new thread if you like, or I can bring back a thread that has already had a long run, your choice. If I hear no choice I'll PM you.
With respect forrest, I'm really not sure that you're going to listen.

89. Originally Posted by PhysBang
Originally Posted by forrest noble
The basis of his nucleo-sythesis theory were adopted by the mainstream as well as Big Bang proponents but did not "establish that his steady-state model cannot be correct,' instead it was evidence in support of his own model also -- which was the basis for his work.
You know the PR, but you are ignorant of the actual science and its history. Hoyle established that stars could not produce the observed relative abundance of light elements. Hoyle waves a magic wand and says that these elements are simply created in these abundances. The standard cosmological model provides an account for their origin tied to the measurement of cosmological parameters. This is why his own work is instrumental in establishing that the Steady State theory is incorrect.

Is this the Nobel prize winning research he should be recognized for? ............Hoyle produced the calculations for stellar nucleosynthesis,,,.

Fred Hoyle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That is pathetic. I know Hoyle's work. I've actually taken the time to read his work, not some wikipedia page. Please give a direct answer to the question as to what he has done that is Nobel prize worthy.
(Fred Hoyle's) co-worker William Alfred Fowler eventually won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1983 (with Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar), but for some reason Hoyle’s original contribution was overlooked, and many were surprised that such a notable astronomer missed out...... Fowler himself in an autobiographical sketch affirmed Hoyle’s pioneering efforts......Hoyle observed that one particular nuclear reaction, the triple-alpha process, which generates carbon, would require the carbon nucleus to have a very specific resonance energy for it to work. The large amount of carbon in the universe, which makes it possible for carbon-based life-forms of any kind to exist, demonstrated that this nuclear reaction must work. Based on this notion, he made a prediction of the energy levels in the carbon nucleus that was later borne out by experiment.

These are quotes from Wiki. If you disagree that Hoyle did not deserve to be one of the Nobel Laureates then so be it.

90. Originally Posted by gravitational_aether
Originally Posted by forrest noble
gravitational-aether,Strange,Right now I am leaving for Mexico but will be back tomorrow night. Have fun.
There was a post describing the aether theory explanation of what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment which was not completely accurate. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both. As the wave in the aether exits the slits it creates wave interference which alters the direction the particle travels. Strongly detecting the particle turns the wave in the aether into chop and there is no wave interference.
Yours is a good and logical answer. Mine is a little different but quite similar. Since both are hypothetical we cannot argue such details in this forum. This forum again involves the pros and cons of quantum theory

91. Farsight,

GR does not concern the warping of space, and it does not propose dark matter. I'm sorry forrest, but you're making unfounded assertions here.
This is your statement not mine. What I said was:

(my quote)
....But if space does not warp and if there is no dark matter then GR would fail at the conceptual level.....
Since GR proposes warped space via Riemann Geometry and GR seems to need dark matter to explain the motions of stars within a spiral galaxy, I think my statement in quotes is totally justifiable. But to be certain I will simply add "I think." Therefore I think anyone could rightfully say: "if space does not warp and if there is no dark matter then I think GR may have some failures at the conceptual level. Anyone can also disagree with this opinion.

I'm sorry forrest, but I have to say you're being convictional about that. You're exhibiting the same psychology as what you accuse others of having.
I never accuse people, it's not my style. Once in a while I have to point out bad manners and insults, but that is generally rare. If I disagree I point out what I consider to be wrong statements of theirs and provide links to back up my own related statements. I suggested that your opinions on some of these theories I thought were "generous." That's just my opinion. It is almost always impossible to argue against my statements because almost all include "if statements", in my opinion, I think, according to the model., etc. when discussing theoretical material. Yes, I have strong convictions and have my own theories but a mainstream physics topic is not the place for any such details. Statements that I make are rarely assertive, they are usually opinion statements whereby I try usually to provide my reasoning for the opinion, and of course anyone can disagree with my opinions providing their own reasoning or not

92. Originally Posted by forrest noble
I never accuse people, it's not my style.
You are forever accusing people of dishonesty, lack of imagination, corruption and other things. It is completely your style. You seem to assume that everyone else is as ignorant of science as you are.

Here is just one recent example of your baseless and vile accusations against an entire group of people:
Originally Posted by forrest noble
they are under great pressure not to come up with anything that might contradict the standard BB model. Only the bravest, youngest, or a few alternative astronomers/ theorists might consider non-mainsteam interpretations.

93. Originally Posted by forrest noble
Originally Posted by gravitational_aether
Originally Posted by forrest noble
gravitational-aether,Strange,Right now I am leaving for Mexico but will be back tomorrow night. Have fun.
There was a post describing the aether theory explanation of what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment which was not completely accurate. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both. As the wave in the aether exits the slits it creates wave interference which alters the direction the particle travels. Strongly detecting the particle turns the wave in the aether into chop and there is no wave interference.
Yours is a good and logical answer. Mine is a little different but quite similar. Since both are hypothetical we cannot argue such details in this forum. This forum again involves the pros and cons of quantum theory
One of the cons against quantum theory is that it can not be discussed in a natural language.

BBC News - Quantum mechanics rule 'bent' in classic experiment

'For his part, Professor Steinberg believes that the result reduces a limitation not on quantum physics but on physicists themselves. "I feel like we're starting to pull back a veil on what nature really is," he said. "The trouble with quantum mechanics is that while we've learned to calculate the outcomes of all sorts of experiments, we've lost much of our ability to describe what is really happening in any natural language. I think that this has really hampered our ability to make progress, to come up with new ideas and see intuitively how new systems ought to behave."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...inty-principle

"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through both slits."

What I have figured out is what waves in a double slit experiment. The aether waves. This is the correct intuitive explanation which allows quantum theory to be discussed in a natural language.

94. Originally Posted by forrest noble
Since GR proposes warped space via Riemann Geometry
It doesn't. The Riemann curvature tensor is synonymous with curved spacetime and tidal force, but it isn't warped space at all. What's warped is a plot of your measurements. The metric is "what you measure", not space itself. For example if you strung a series of light clocks between two stars that were close together, then waited for six months, then when you plotted the clock readings your plot would be curved. But if you shine a light beam between those two stars, it doesn't curve at all.

Originally Posted by forrest noble
and GR seems to need dark matter to explain the motions of stars within a spiral galaxy
That's a myth too. When you read what Einstein actually said, you see him referring to inhomogeneous space. The space between the galaxies expands but not within, so every galaxy should be surrounded by a shell of inhomogeneous space. A gravitational field. Not caused by dark matter, but by the non-uniform expansion of space.

Originally Posted by forrest noble
I think my statement in quotes is totally justifiable. But to be certain I will simply add "I think." Therefore I think anyone could rightfully say: "if space does not warp and if there is no dark matter then I think GR may have some failures at the conceptual level. Anyone can also disagree with this opinion.
GR is a well-tested theory, I think the failure is in interpretation and understanding.

Originally Posted by forrest noble
I never accuse people, it's not my style. Once in a while I have to point out bad manners and insults, but that is generally rare. If I disagree I point out what I consider to be wrong statements of theirs and provide links to back up my own related statements. I suggested that your opinions on some of these theories I thought were "generous." That's just my opinion. It is almost always impossible to argue against my statements because almost all include "if statements", in my opinion, I think, according to the model., etc. when discussing theoretical material. Yes, I have strong convictions and have my own theories but a mainstream physics topic is not the place for any such details. Statements that I make are rarely assertive, they are usually opinion statements whereby I try usually to provide my reasoning for the opinion, and of course anyone can disagree with my opinions providing their own reasoning or not.
All points noted forrest. Your civility is appreciated.

95. Originally Posted by forrest noble
These are quotes from Wiki. If you disagree that Hoyle did not deserve to be one of the Nobel Laureates then so be it.
Given the crazy amount of PR involved in those who, in ignorance of the evidence defend anything against the standard cosmological model, can you please give some reason other than something written anonymously on wikipedia? Can you answer any other questions?

96. Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by forrest noble
and GR seems to need dark matter to explain the motions of stars within a spiral galaxy
That's a myth too. When you read what Einstein actually said, you see him referring to inhomogeneous space. The space between the galaxies expands but not within, so every galaxy should be surrounded by a shell of inhomogeneous space. A gravitational field. Not caused by dark matter, but by the non-uniform expansion of space.
And, for perhaps the 100ths time, I ask you to show us the calculation that establishes this.

Please stop your pathetic attempts to present your huckster positions as truth. Nobody here will buy the book you are trying to sell.

97. Originally Posted by PhysBang
Nobody here will buy the book you are trying to sell.
Maybe Forrest and Farsight could send each other complementary copies of their books. That might keep them both quiet for a while.

98. Originally Posted by Strange
The aether is space, the vacuum. It sustains fields, and waves run through it. It isn't the luminiferous aether of old, but it isn't nothing either.
Unicorns are not the mythical beasts of old, they are four-legged equine beasts commonly used as beasts of burden and for sport. Therefore unicorns exist.

You are just redefining what the word "aether" means and then saying it exists. The word is being applied to so many concepts it has become meaningless.
Space-time does appear to behave quite a bit like a medium. It isn't the ideal medium proposed by Aether theorists, and it's not "stationary" with respect to any frame of reference, but it does convey particle-waves, and it appears to be distorted by gravity.

Until a better word comes along that can describe that more eloquently, I really wish they'd just bring back the old one. Why can't Aether theory simply modify itself to match GR/SR and then keep it's old name? Why must we visit such a semantic and aesthetic injustice upon the field of physics? Isn't it already aesthetically burdened enough?

If there did not exist any word "Horse" in the English language, and the closest similar word was "Unicorn", could we not forgive the bending of meaning and allow people to say "Unicorn"?

99. Farsight,

It doesn't. The Riemann curvature tensor is synonymous with curved spacetime and tidal force, but it isn't warped space at all. What's warped is a plot of your measurements. The metric is "what you measure", not space itself. For example if you strung a series of light clocks between two stars that were close together, then waited for six months, then when you plotted the clock readings your plot would be curved. But if you shine a light beam between those two stars, it doesn't curve at all.
OK, if you prefer to call it curved spacetime, I'll accept that. Warped space is kind of nebulous anyway

(my quote)
GR seems to need dark matter to explain the motions of stars within a spiral galaxy
That's a myth too. When you read what Einstein actually said, you see him referring to inhomogeneous space. The space between the galaxies expands but not within, so every galaxy should be surrounded by a shell of inhomogeneous space. A gravitational field. Not caused by dark matter, but by the non-uniform expansion of space.
GR cannot correctly calculate the motions of stars orbiting within spiral galaxies without adding dark matter to the equations. Mine is a valid statement. Einstein's statements are of no consequence because this fact was unknown until maybe 20 years after Einstein's death. This "modern" discovery was credited to the astronomer Vera Rubin in the mid 1970's. Zwicky was aware of the similar behavior of galaxies within a cluster in the early 30's.

All points noted forrest. Your civility is appreciated.
Yours too, thanks

100. Originally Posted by kojax
Space-time does appear to behave quite a bit like a medium.
Which is why Einstein and others have used the word as an analogy to describe various aspects of it.

Until a better word comes along that can describe that more eloquently, I really wish they'd just bring back the old one.
The trouble is it has a lot of "baggage". And also, as noted above, it used as a name for so many different "everywhere" phenomena that it effectively becomes meaningless.

Why can't Aether theory simply modify itself to match GR/SR and then keep it's old name?
You can, of course, have a version of special relativity that includes an (undetectable) aether; Lorentz Ether Theory, for example. But the aether in this case makes absolutely no difference; the theory is indistinguishable from SR. So you just add an arbitrary aether that has no effect. One has to wonder why.

Page 2 of 5 First 1234 ... Last
 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement