Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.

Science > Physics > Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"Landle"
Date:	20 Jan 2005 05:39:56 AM
Object:	Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.

To the Aetherists, how do you take apart Quantum Mechanics
when it explains a lot of things in science. Some of us know it
may not truly represent reality so to take it apart... you have to
find an alternative one that can explain all experiments and data
plus new ones that can't be predicted by the incomplete or
wrongly concepted QM.
To take it apart, you need to take apart Quantum Electrodynamics,
Quantum Chromodyanamics, Quantum Electroweak Theories, etc.
too.
Let us begin by looking at history of what went wrong. Planck
started it all with Black body radiation and the concept of
Quanta, Einstein explains the particle nature of photons by
the photoelectric effect to complement Young double slit
experiment where he showed light to have wave nature. De
Broglie reasoned that since photon being a particle has
wave like characteristic, electron has wave behavior too.
Schrodinger created the famous wave function equation.
He reasoned initially that it can represent smear out
electrons. Max Born said no, it represented probability.
Here's where the first mistake may occur. By focusing on
the mathematics and probability side of it, the objective
side is pulled under the rug.. that's why most physicists will
tell you not to ask what is behind the scene in quantum reality
because it simply just represent probability and there is
nothing to the wave or any objective reality underneath it.
Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life looking into this. Others
did likewise looking for hidden variables.
As the years passed by. Scientists wanted to integrate
Quantum Mechanics to the 4 forces. They started with
Quantum Electrodynamic (to deal with the Electromagnetic
Force), Quantum Chromadynamics (to deal with the
Strong Force, Quantum Electroweak (to deal with the
Weak Force), Quantum Gravity (still under research).
Now how do you take apart the above... esp QED
and QCD. It is reasoned that there are fluctuations in the
vaccum.. so the lowest energy level is not always zero...
Now what the heck made them create the ideas of
virtual particles?? In the Uncertainty Principle. It
merely focuses on the electron position and momentum
that can't be known with the intervention of measuring
instruments because the probing can affect the electron
itself. Now what QED does is applying Uncertainty
Principle to the Vacuum and producing the concept
of virtual particles that may not correspond to reality.
Aether concept demonstrated that the 4 fundamental forces
can be derived by Aether dynamics as shown conceptually
and mathematically in the incomplete work of Thomson
and Boraussa. This means there are other ways to derive
at the forces that attract or repel the main subatomic
particles. More work is needed to investigate the exact
mechanisms. You can't expect just 1 or 2 people to solve
the entire problems of physics via the Aether Model. If
it takes a hundred years to perfect the incomplete QM
concept. It needs equal years or less (depending on
the work and the effort exerted). This is why it is
natural that Thomson work is incomplete and ran
initial error.
Now going to QCD. The quarks and especially the
gluons can be produced by interplay of the Aether too. I
haven't read Seto work so can't fully grasp his share of
it. It is possible 25% of what Seto wrote may be true
so don't discount all their work outright (Of course if
bonafide physicists will work on the aether mechanics.
It would take not long for the Theory of Everything
to become fact of life).
Now Quantum Gravity. Here's where the problem
really begin officially. In the microscopic Planck realms...
spaces are in turbulence. This is why when you apply
General Relativity to it, the theory breaks down. This
is what scientists meant when they say that General
Relativity is not compatible with Quantum Mechanics.
This is why some went to M-Theory or Superstring
theory.. to explain Quantum Gravity.
So M-theory is based on Quantum Mechanics and
General Relativity. If QM is not complete or representative
of another reality. Then M-theory is doa (dead on arrival).
It can be questioned too if General and Special Reality
are perfect themselves and truly represent reality.
Whatever, the aether based model may be a good
candidate to work out. For it to be true, it has to explains
all current theories and experments/data such as magnetic
moments of particles, lamb shifts of elements, etc. Not
only that. But it has to produce predictions for experiments
to be performed such as telepathy, clairvoyancy, remote
viewing, mind effect on substance, etc... something I am
categorically certain exist and the reason why I came to
study physics to know its limits and to understand where the
new principles may be inserted, etc.
If Aether based Model is not the best candidate. I don't
know what is at the moment. What do you think are other
good candidates with enough power to explain all the present
data and can predict new ones that QM and Standard Model
can never do (such as telepathy, remote viewing ESP, etc.)?
Landle
.

User: "Franz Heymann"
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	20 Jan 2005 09:56:14 AM

"Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106221196.003090.72560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[snip]

Aether concept demonstrated that the 4 fundamental forces
can be derived by Aether dynamics as shown conceptually
and mathematically in the incomplete work of Thomson
and Boraussa.

If you are referring to that nerd David Thomson, you should be
reminded that he perfected the art of disseminating horse manure even
better than you do.
[snip]
Franz
.

User: "Nick"
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	20 Jan 2005 11:08:38 PM

If Einstein were around I'd like to ask him one question:
What is Right about quantum mechanics.
Something basic must be right. It is not all wrong.
I think its waves.
Mitch Raemsch
.

User: "greywolf42"
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	25 Jan 2005 04:04:25 PM

Landle <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106221196.003090.72560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

To the Aetherists, how do you take apart Quantum Mechanics
when it explains a lot of things in science.

Aether theory simply gives you the explanation of why QM works the way it
does. And why renormalization is needed (to patch up the pure
mathematicians' assumption that real particles are points).

Some of us know it
may not truly represent reality so to take it apart... you have to
find an alternative one that can explain all experiments and data

True.

plus new ones that can't be predicted by the incomplete or
wrongly concepted QM.

False. There is no need to "do more" than QM, to replace QM. In fact, you
don't even have to do "as well" -- if the only difference is claimed
precision.

To take it apart, you need to take apart Quantum Electrodynamics,

Yep. No problem.

Quantum Chromodyanamics,

What specific experiments do you ascribe to QCD?

Quantum Electroweak Theories, etc. too.

What specific experiments do you ascribe to QEW?

Let us begin by looking at history of what went wrong. Planck
started it all with Black body radiation and the concept of
Quanta, Einstein explains the particle nature of photons by
the photoelectric effect to complement Young double slit
experiment where he showed light to have wave nature. De
Broglie reasoned that since photon being a particle has
wave like characteristic, electron has wave behavior too.
Schrodinger created the famous wave function equation.
He reasoned initially that it can represent smear out
electrons. Max Born said no, it represented probability.

Here's where the first mistake may occur. By focusing on
the mathematics and probability side of it, the objective
side is pulled under the rug.. that's why most physicists will
tell you not to ask what is behind the scene in quantum reality
because it simply just represent probability and there is
nothing to the wave or any objective reality underneath it.
Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life looking into this. Others
did likewise looking for hidden variables.

As the years passed by. Scientists wanted to integrate
Quantum Mechanics to the 4 forces. They started with
Quantum Electrodynamic (to deal with the Electromagnetic
Force), Quantum Chromadynamics (to deal with the
Strong Force, Quantum Electroweak (to deal with the
Weak Force), Quantum Gravity (still under research).

Now how do you take apart the above... esp QED
and QCD. It is reasoned that there are fluctuations in the
vaccum.. so the lowest energy level is not always zero...
Now what the heck made them create the ideas of
virtual particles??

It's a sneaky way of describing the movement of aether corpuscles ...
without using the term.

In the Uncertainty Principle. It
merely focuses on the electron position and momentum
that can't be known with the intervention of measuring
instruments because the probing can affect the electron
itself. Now what QED does is applying Uncertainty
Principle to the Vacuum and producing the concept
of virtual particles that may not correspond to reality.

Aether concept demonstrated that the 4 fundamental forces
can be derived by Aether dynamics as shown conceptually
and mathematically in the incomplete work of Thomson
and Boraussa. This means there are other ways to derive
at the forces that attract or repel the main subatomic
particles. More work is needed to investigate the exact
mechanisms. You can't expect just 1 or 2 people to solve
the entire problems of physics via the Aether Model. If
it takes a hundred years to perfect the incomplete QM
concept. It needs equal years or less (depending on
the work and the effort exerted). This is why it is
natural that Thomson work is incomplete and ran
initial error.

Now going to QCD. The quarks and especially the
gluons can be produced by interplay of the Aether too. I
haven't read Seto work so can't fully grasp his share of
it. It is possible 25% of what Seto wrote may be true
so don't discount all their work outright (Of course if
bonafide physicists will work on the aether mechanics.
It would take not long for the Theory of Everything
to become fact of life).

Now Quantum Gravity. Here's where the problem
really begin officially. In the microscopic Planck realms...
spaces are in turbulence. This is why when you apply
General Relativity to it, the theory breaks down. This
is what scientists meant when they say that General
Relativity is not compatible with Quantum Mechanics.
This is why some went to M-Theory or Superstring
theory.. to explain Quantum Gravity.

So M-theory is based on Quantum Mechanics and
General Relativity. If QM is not complete or representative
of another reality. Then M-theory is doa (dead on arrival).

It can be questioned too if General and Special Reality
are perfect themselves and truly represent reality.

Whatever, the aether based model may be a good
candidate to work out. For it to be true, it has to explains
all current theories and experments/data such as magnetic
moments of particles, lamb shifts of elements, etc. Not
only that. But it has to produce predictions for experiments
to be performed such as telepathy, clairvoyancy, remote
viewing, mind effect on substance, etc... something I am
categorically certain exist and the reason why I came to
study physics to know its limits and to understand where the
new principles may be inserted, etc.

If Aether based Model is not the best candidate. I don't
know what is at the moment. What do you think are other
good candidates with enough power to explain all the present
data and can predict new ones that QM and Standard Model
can never do (such as telepathy, remote viewing ESP, etc.)?

One must choose one's own goal, as well as one's own path. Good hunting.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
.

User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	20 Jan 2005 10:57:23 AM

Landle wrote:

To the Aetherists, how do you take apart Quantum Mechanics
when it explains a lot of things in science.

They simply ignore most of the data.

Some of us know it
may not truly represent reality so to take it apart...

I think that most physicists will agree that QM *may*
not truly represent reality. The question is not if
it *may* - the question if it *does*.

you have to
find an alternative one that can explain all experiments and data
plus new ones that can't be predicted by the incomplete or
wrongly concepted QM.

Why do you start by assuming that it is "wrongly concepted"?

To take it apart, you need to take apart Quantum Electrodynamics,
Quantum Chromodyanamics, Quantum Electroweak Theories, etc.
too.

Let us begin by looking at history of what went wrong. Planck
started it all with Black body radiation and the concept of
Quanta, Einstein explains the particle nature of photons by
the photoelectric effect to complement Young double slit
experiment where he showed light to have wave nature. De
Broglie reasoned that since photon being a particle has
wave like characteristic, electron has wave behavior too.
Schrodinger created the famous wave function equation.
He reasoned initially that it can represent smear out
electrons. Max Born said no, it represented probability.

Essentially right so far. Congratulations, that's more
than most crackpots can achieve!

Here's where the first mistake may occur. By focusing on
the mathematics and probability side of it, the objective
side is pulled under the rug.. that's why most physicists will
tell you not to ask what is behind the scene in quantum reality
because it simply just represent probability and there is
nothing to the wave or any objective reality underneath it.
Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life looking into this. Others
did likewise looking for hidden variables.

Oh, most physicists ignore this? I would say that *you*
conveniently ignore something here: that several different
interpretations of QM were devised in the last decades, and
that research on "hidden variable" proposals is still going on.
True, most physicists don't bother and take a "shut up and
calculate" approach - but so what? The crucial point is that
these topics are *not* simply totally ignored.

As the years passed by. Scientists wanted to integrate
Quantum Mechanics to the 4 forces. They started with
Quantum Electrodynamic (to deal with the Electromagnetic
Force), Quantum Chromadynamics (to deal with the
Strong Force, Quantum Electroweak (to deal with the
Weak Force), Quantum Gravity (still under research).

A bit strangely worded, but still essentially right.
Again, congratulations!

Now how do you take apart the above... esp QED
and QCD. It is reasoned that there are fluctuations in the
vaccum.. so the lowest energy level is not always zero...

This is not "reasoned" - this comes straight out of the
calculations.

Now what the heck made them create the ideas of
virtual particles??

The math says that they exist. They weren't dreamt up out
of thin air.

The uncertainty principle does a *lot* more than that.
Try reading up on
1) interaction-free measurements
2) the application of the UP to fields

Now what QED does is applying Uncertainty
Principle to the Vacuum

Wrong. Where did you get that idea from?

and producing the concept
of virtual particles that may not correspond to reality.

Suggestion: first learn something about the things which
you try to attack.

Aether concept demonstrated that the 4 fundamental forces
can be derived by Aether dynamics as shown conceptually
and mathematically in the incomplete work of Thomson
and Boraussa.

Reference, please.

This means there are other ways to derive
at the forces that attract or repel the main subatomic
particles. More work is needed to investigate the exact
mechanisms. You can't expect just 1 or 2 people to solve
the entire problems of physics via the Aether Model. If
it takes a hundred years to perfect the incomplete QM
concept. It needs equal years or less (depending on
the work and the effort exerted). This is why it is
natural that Thomson work is incomplete and ran
initial error.

What do you mean with "ran initial error"?

Now going to QCD. The quarks and especially the
gluons can be produced by interplay of the Aether too.

Unsupported assertion.

I haven't read Seto work

Good. Don't waste your time on his fantasies.

so can't fully grasp his share of
it. It is possible 25% of what Seto wrote may be true

No, that is not possible. Seto has no clue of anything
he writes about.

so don't discount all their work outright

I don't dispute it outright. I read his paper. It's crap.

(Of course if
bonafide physicists will work on the aether mechanics.
It would take not long for the Theory of Everything
to become fact of life).

Unsupported assertion.

Now Quantum Gravity. Here's where the problem
really begin officially. In the microscopic Planck realms...
spaces are in turbulence.

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

This is why when you apply
General Relativity to it, the theory breaks down.

I see that you also have no clue at all of the problems
of Quantum Gravity.

This is what scientists meant when they say that General
Relativity is not compatible with Quantum Mechanics.

No, it isn't.

This is why some went to M-Theory or Superstring
theory.. to explain Quantum Gravity.

So M-theory is based on Quantum Mechanics and
General Relativity.

No, it isn't.

If QM is not complete or representative
of another reality. Then M-theory is doa (dead on arrival).

It can be questioned too if General and Special Reality
are perfect themselves and truly represent reality.

Question as long as you want - as long as you are ignorant
about these theories, no one will take you seriously.

Whatever, the aether based model may be a good
candidate to work out.

Says who? You, the ignorant layman?

For it to be true, it has to explains
all current theories and experments/data such as magnetic
moments of particles, lamb shifts of elements, etc. Not
only that. But it has to produce predictions for experiments
to be performed such as telepathy, clairvoyancy, remote
viewing, mind effect on substance, etc... something I am
categorically certain exist

And because *you* are certain that these things exist,
physics *has* to explain them? Strange kind of logic.

and the reason why I came to
study physics to know its limits and to understand where the
new principles may be inserted, etc.

So far, you have not shown that you learned much during
your studies.

If Aether based Model is not the best candidate. I don't
know what is at the moment. What do you think are other
good candidates with enough power to explain all the present
data and can predict new ones that QM and Standard Model
can never do (such as telepathy, remote viewing ESP, etc.)?

Why don't you first present evidence that these things
even exist?
Bye,
Bjoern
.

User: "kenseto"
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	20 Jan 2005 02:09:01 PM

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:csontj$ijk$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

Landle wrote:

Now going to QCD. The quarks and especially the
gluons can be produced by interplay of the Aether too.

Unsupported assertion.

I haven't read Seto work

Good. Don't waste your time on his fantasies.

Yeah that's because you are a brain-washed idiot.

so can't fully grasp his share of
it. It is possible 25% of what Seto wrote may be true

No, that is not possible. Seto has no clue of anything
he writes about.

The editors of Galilean Electrodynamics, Journal Of The Theorics and
EPISTEME don't agree with you. They published many of my papers.

so don't discount all their work outright

I don't dispute it outright. I read his paper. It's crap.

That's because you judgement is based on your naive understand of physics.
Ken Seto
.

User: "Franz Heymann"
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	21 Jan 2005 01:36:58 AM

"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:xdUHd.41672$re1.14569@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
[snip]

The editors of Galilean Electrodynamics, Journal Of The Theorics and
EPISTEME don't agree with you. They published many of my papers.

Since Electrodynamics is provably Lorentz invariant and not Galilean
invariant, it is not surprising that a journal called "Galilean
Electrodynamics" will publish the kind of horse dung you are likely to
offer them.
Where do those two journals find referees?
Why did you have to go to such a crank journal to get your stuff
published?
Episteme advertises itself as an undergraduate journal of social
philosophy.
What might the connection between that and serious physics research
be?
No. 1 of Episteme was published in June 2003
No. 2 was due to be published in Oct 2003, but publication was
postponed till "early" Feb 2004
No 3 was due to be published in Feb 2004.
At that stage their website dries up.
Could it be that the article you wrote for them was so bad that the
whole project went bankrupt as a result?
Franz
.

User: "Landle"
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	20 Jan 2005 05:58:00 PM

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

Landle wrote:

To the Aetherists, how do you take apart Quantum Mechanics
when it explains a lot of things in science.

They simply ignore most of the data.

That's the problem with them. They think that by
ignoring the data. Reality would conspire to change
the law of physics to their liking. An example is
S. Enterprize....

Some of us know it
may not truly represent reality so to take it apart...

I think that most physicists will agree that QM *may*
not truly represent reality. The question is not if
it *may* - the question if it *does*.

Oh... really? But I thought more physicists followed
QM like God without second thoughts about it or what
it represents.

you have to
find an alternative one that can explain all experiments and data
plus new ones that can't be predicted by the incomplete or
wrongly concepted QM.

Why do you start by assuming that it is "wrongly concepted"?

Because our present QM and physics has not much
degree of freedom to explain telepathy, clairvoyancy,
etc. That's why I know it is either incomplete or wrong.

Oh, most physicists ignore this? I would say that *you*
conveniently ignore something here: that several different
interpretations of QM were devised in the last decades, and
that research on "hidden variable" proposals is still going on.

True, most physicists don't bother and take a "shut up and
calculate" approach - but so what? The crucial point is that
these topics are *not* simply totally ignored.

I think 95% of physicists are totally sold to the idea
that QM is just mathematics, probability and all. Ask
Uncle Al or Old Man about Everett Many World
Interpretations and they would reply "crap, all hidden
variable theories have been discredited".

Now what the heck made them create the ideas of

virtual particles??

The math says that they exist. They weren't dreamt up out
of thin air.

But not all math may hold up to reality. For example.
The name "Bill Gates" ascii equivalent is 666. Does
that mean he is the anti-Christ?

Now what QED does is applying Uncertainty
Principle to the Vacuum

Wrong. Where did you get that idea from?

It's just another way of saying that virtual particles
were produced without violation of conservation of
energy because within the time imposed from the
Uncertainty Principle. It can borrow energy from
the vacuum and return it back. You may argue it is
the property of the particles themselves. Come on.\
I thought it is consensus. If you will search
"virtual particles" in goggle. You can come up with
a lot of university material like "in quantum field
theory, the vacuum is not empty, but rather filled
with virtual particles:". You are saying it is the
properties of the particles themselves. But not
completely. See:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_04.htm
About Uncertainty Principle. It affects the lifetime
of the virtual particles. See.
http://www.upei.ca/~physics/p221/pro99/virtualparticles/virtual.htm
http://pdg.web.cern.ch/pdg/cpep/unc_vir.html

Aether concept demonstrated that the 4 fundamental forces
can be derived by Aether dynamics as shown conceptually
and mathematically in the incomplete work of Thomson
and Boraussa.

Reference, please.

See their site www.16pi2.com

What do you mean with "ran initial error"?

I analyzed their site and found some errors in the
concept. But I don't want to get into it because
theirs is just initial work and therefore errors
are normal. And don't want to wipe them out before
they go public. I want their work to spread first
before I attack it. If works of fictions such as
Mark Mccutcheon "Final Theory" can become
bestsellers in amazon.com Why not David Thomson
book when it makes more sense than Mccutcheon and
people can gain new ideas from Thomson that they
won't do with Mccutcheon.

Now Quantum Gravity. Here's where the problem
really begin officially. In the microscopic Planck realms...
spaces are in turbulence.

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

See:
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Physics/Mathematical/SuperstringTheory/Superstring/Superstring.htm
http://www.astronomytoday.com/cosmology/superstrings.html

This is what scientists meant when they say that General
Relativity is not compatible with Quantum Mechanics.

No, it isn't.

What do you mean it isn't. You mean all the references
like the above are wrong?? Pls. elaborate.

This is why some went to M-Theory or Superstring
theory.. to explain Quantum Gravity.

So M-theory is based on Quantum Mechanics and
General Relativity.

No, it isn't.

Come on. I've read Brian Greene book "The Elegant
Universe" M-Theory is supposed to reconcile
Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity to make
them compatible. But methinks if there is something
wrong with QM and GR, how can they make a complete
M-theory out of it. Therefore the best approach is
to take apart QM, GR and start anew with a model
that can explain other stuff too.

Question as long as you want - as long as you are ignorant
about these theories, no one will take you seriously.

I'm not ignorant. Just explained it above. And backed
up by serious books, etc. Don't say Brian Greene is
crackpot too.

Why don't you first present evidence that these things
even exist?

Oh... don't want to go over it.. again.
I can show proof that telepathy, ESP. exist but it will
be time consuming. I'm categorical they exist and can
accept a $20,000 challenge to anyone. Too bad I
don't have visa to visit the US.
Anyway. I don't want to spend on the details of ESP,
etc. I'd rather spend my time trying to see how physics
can include them. Well. I just want to have an idea
how the true and real Theory of Everything will be
based on.. like what really is Gravity and how it
relates to the other forces. Once I know what makes the
universe tick, I'm satisfied and I'm outta here.
Landle
.

User: "Gregory L. Hansen"
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	20 Jan 2005 08:22:26 PM

In article <1106265480.497151.216780@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Landle <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

Landle wrote:

Some of us know it
may not truly represent reality so to take it apart...

I think that most physicists will agree that QM *may*
not truly represent reality. The question is not if
it *may* - the question if it *does*.

Oh... really? But I thought more physicists followed
QM like God without second thoughts about it or what
it represents.

It was once thought that with Newtonian physics, theoretical physics was
complete and all that was left to do is catalog things and iron out a few
discrepencies. By now, any scientist should know better. And in fact,
what drives much research is the faith that the current theories *aren't*
the last word. Otherwise, why bother to keep testing them and coming up
with string theories and so on?
Around here you'll see a lot of people saying things like "Einstein was
wrong because..." And maybe replies should be prefaced as "Although
Einstein may have been wrong, it wouldn't be for the reasons you say", but
this is Usenet, what can you expect? But when I'm speaking in the context
of a theory, I try to qualify that with a "As the theory goes..." or
somesuch. I don't know if anyone notices that nuance.
--
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible
.

User: "Ken S. Tucker"
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	20 Jan 2005 08:37:32 PM

Yes Gregory,
My attitude to take a hard look at definitions,
in a way I think Einstein improved our definitions
that in hindsight look colloquial from Newton's
PoV.
I was elated when the ISU adopted L=cT,
to interdefine the meter, speed of light, and
the second, in my lifetime.
That's why you might see me pushing for a
concensus relating a Kilogram to the second.
Good for you!
Ken S. Tucker
.

User: "Franz Heymann"
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	21 Jan 2005 10:23:41 AM

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1106275051.997341.58030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Yes Gregory,
My attitude to take a hard look at definitions,
in a way I think Einstein improved our definitions
that in hindsight look colloquial from Newton's
PoV.

What does that sentence mean?
[snip]
Franz
.

User: "Ken S. Tucker"
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	21 Jan 2005 01:43:25 PM

Franz Heymann wrote:

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1106275051.997341.58030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Yes Gregory,
My attitude to take a hard look at definitions,
in a way I think Einstein improved our definitions
that in hindsight look colloquial from Newton's
PoV.

What does that sentence mean?
Franz

When a student, I thought Relativity was a theory
about the definition of units, still do.
The definitions of units of time, space and mass
Newton used were altered significantly by relativity.
Definitions such as L=cT and E=mc^2 from SR and
in GR a relation of Mass to Length, L = G*M/c^2,
was established, the later is not well understood
yet.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.

User: "Franz Heymann"
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	26 Jan 2005 10:23:34 AM

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1106336605.237020.154260@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Franz Heymann wrote:

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1106275051.997341.58030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Yes Gregory,
My attitude to take a hard look at definitions,
in a way I think Einstein improved our definitions
that in hindsight look colloquial from Newton's
PoV.

What does that sentence mean?
Franz

When a student, I thought Relativity was a theory
about the definition of units, still do.

That woulld account for the crap you are in the habit of submitting to
this ng.

The definitions of units of time, space and mass
Newton used were altered significantly by relativity.

Not at all. Any of the units whatsoever which are in use are suitable
for use in relativity. Even the foot pound second units are just fine
in principle, even if somewhat cumbersome.

Definitions such as L=cT and E=mc^2 from SR

Neither of those are definitions. They are equatons.
and

in GR a relation of Mass to Length, L = G*M/c^2,

And that is not a definition either. It summarises a subtle physical
observation

was established, the later is not well understood
yet.

[snip]
Franz
.

User: "Ken S. Tucker"
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	26 Jan 2005 03:17:52 PM

Franz Heymann wrote:

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1106336605.237020.154260@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

....

The definitions of units of time, space and mass
Newton used were altered significantly by relativity.

....

Not at all.

Ah, Franz, the *month*, *stone* and *cubit*, are no
longer absolute. We use sand clocks now.

Any of the units whatsoever which are in use are suitable
for use in relativity. Even the foot pound second units are just

fine

in principle, even if somewhat cumbersome.
Franz

Ken
.

User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	21 Jan 2005 04:35:04 AM

Landle wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

Landle wrote:

[snip]

Some of us know it
may not truly represent reality so to take it apart...

I think that most physicists will agree that QM *may*
not truly represent reality. The question is not if
it *may* - the question if it *does*.

Oh... really? But I thought more physicists followed
QM like God without second thoughts about it or what
it represents.

Not thinking about what it represents and simply using
it in everyday work does not imply that they follow
it "like God", and that they are 100% that it truly
represents reality.

you have to
find an alternative one that can explain all experiments and data
plus new ones that can't be predicted by the incomplete or
wrongly concepted QM.

Why do you start by assuming that it is "wrongly concepted"?

Because our present QM and physics has not much
degree of freedom to explain telepathy, clairvoyancy,
etc. That's why I know it is either incomplete or wrong.

Err, why don't you consider the possibility that
it might be telepathy etc. which is wrong?

Oh, most physicists ignore this? I would say that *you*
conveniently ignore something here: that several different
interpretations of QM were devised in the last decades, and
that research on "hidden variable" proposals is still going on.

True, most physicists don't bother and take a "shut up and
calculate" approach - but so what? The crucial point is that
these topics are *not* simply totally ignored.

I think 95% of physicists are totally sold to the idea
that QM is just mathematics, probability and all.

And what's your basis for thinking that?

Ask
Uncle Al or Old Man about Everett Many World
Interpretations and they would reply "crap, all hidden
variable theories have been discredited".

Err, Many Worlds is not a hidden variable theory.

Now what the heck made them create the ideas of
virtual particles??

The math says that they exist. They weren't dreamt up out
of thin air.

But not all math may hold up to reality.

Yes, obviously. But QFT is the best-tested theory of
physics ever, so we can be quite confident that its
description of reality is relatively trustworthy, don't
you think?

For example.
The name "Bill Gates" ascii equivalent is 666. Does
that mean he is the anti-Christ?

No. But what has this to do with the predictions of a
well-tested physical theory?

Now what QED does is applying Uncertainty
Principle to the Vacuum

Wrong. Where did you get that idea from?

The creation of virtual particles has nothing to do with
"borrowing energy from the vacuum", although it is often
explained this way in popular science accounts (and even
in some books on experimental particle physics).
And, BTW, even if this "borrowing energy from the vacuum"
were true, that still would not have anything to do with
"applying Uncertainty Principle to the Vacuum".

You may argue it is
the property of the particles themselves. Come on.\
I thought it is consensus.

Then you think wrong. Crack open a book on QFT, and you
will see that energy is fully conserved at every vertex.

If you will search
"virtual particles" in goggle. You can come up with
a lot of university material like "in quantum field
theory, the vacuum is not empty, but rather filled
with virtual particles:"

Indeed. But that has still nothing to do with "borrowing
energy from the vacuum".

You are saying it is the
properties of the particles themselves.

I do not even know what you mean here, so no, I did
not say that.

But not completely. See:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_04.htm

I do not disagree with anything said on that page. If
you think I do, you misunderstood what I wrote.

About Uncertainty Principle. It affects the lifetime
of the virtual particles. See.

http://www.upei.ca/~physics/p221/pro99/virtualparticles/virtual.htm

A pop science explanation of virtual particles. See my
comments above.

http://pdg.web.cern.ch/pdg/cpep/unc_vir.html

A pop science explanation of virtual particles. See my
comments above.

Aether concept demonstrated that the 4 fundamental forces
can be derived by Aether dynamics as shown conceptually
and mathematically in the incomplete work of Thomson
and Boraussa.

Reference, please.

See their site www.16pi2.com

Even the front page already screams "cranks".
This is the same David Thomson as here in sci.physics, right?
If yes, why didn't you notice that that man is quite insane?

What do you mean with "ran initial error"?

I analyzed their site and found some errors in the
concept.

Only some? Then you had not looked very hard.

But I don't want to get into it because
theirs is just initial work and therefore errors
are normal.

Then they shouldn't boast that this is such a big
achievement and "the next greatest scientific advancement for the human
species" etc.

And don't want to wipe them out before they go public.

Well, David Thomson already came here. I think that
counts as "go public".

I want their work to spread first before I attack it.

Their work won't spread among any people who understand
physics.

If works of fictions such as
Mark Mccutcheon "Final Theory" can become
bestsellers in amazon.com Why not David Thomson
book when it makes more sense than Mccutcheon and
people can gain new ideas from Thomson that they
won't do with Mccutcheon.

The only things which ignorant people can gain from Thomson are
a lot of misconceptions, and the only things which knowledgeable people
can gain from him are some good laughs.

Now Quantum Gravity. Here's where the problem
really begin officially. In the microscopic Planck realms...
spaces are in turbulence.

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

See:

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Physics/Mathematical/SuperstringTheory/Superstring/Superstring.htm

http://www.astronomytoday.com/cosmology/superstrings.html

Nothing new there; but also nothing there which even
remotely looks like "spaces are in turbulence".

This is what scientists meant when they say that General
Relativity is not compatible with Quantum Mechanics.

No, it isn't.

What do you mean it isn't.

I mean that what scientists mean when they say that General
Relativity is not compatible with Quantum Theory, they do
not mean that "spaces are in turbulence in the microscopic
Plank realms".
The problems are totally different. They are mainly mathematical,
not conceptual.

You mean all the references
like the above are wrong?? Pls. elaborate.

No, I mean that you misrepresented them badly.

This is why some went to M-Theory or Superstring
theory.. to explain Quantum Gravity.

So M-theory is based on Quantum Mechanics and
General Relativity.

No, it isn't.

Come on. I've read Brian Greene book "The Elegant
Universe" M-Theory is supposed to reconcile
Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity to make
them compatible.

Yes, it is supposed to reconcile them. But it is not
*based* on General Relativity (as far as I know).

But methinks if there is something
wrong with QM and GR, how can they make a complete
M-theory out of it.

Indeed - *if*.

Therefore the best approach is
to take apart QM, GR and start anew with a model
that can explain other stuff too.

Good luck.
A small advice: learn the existing theories and the evidence
first before starting.

Question as long as you want - as long as you are ignorant
about these theories, no one will take you seriously.

I'm not ignorant. Just explained it above.

You have some popular science accounts of the theories.
That does not make you qualified at all to comment on
possible flaws of the theories. You don't know the
real theories, just some dumbed-down descriptions of them,
and you don't know most of the evidence supporting them.

And backed
up by serious books, etc. Don't say Brian Greene is
crackpot too.

No. I merely point out that it's a bad idea to rely on
popular science only when one wants to attack physical
theories.

Why don't you first present evidence that these things
even exist?

Oh... don't want to go over it.. again.

If you went over it already, it's sufficient to provide
a link.

I can show proof that telepathy, ESP. exist but it will
be time consuming. I'm categorical they exist and can
accept a $20,000 challenge to anyone. Too bad I
don't have visa to visit the US.

Where do you live? In many countries, organizations exist
which are willing to check your "proofs".

Anyway. I don't want to spend on the details of ESP,
etc. I'd rather spend my time trying to see how physics
can include them.

Then crack open some textbooks and learn physics. I recommend
the Feynman lectures.
If you want other people to do the work for you, you
first have to convince them that ESP etc. exist.

Well. I just want to have an idea
how the true and real Theory of Everything will be
based on.. like what really is Gravity and how it
relates to the other forces. Once I know what makes the
universe tick, I'm satisfied and I'm outta here.

You can't really know that without thoroughly studying
the theories. Pop science accounts give only a vague
idea - they don't describe the theories in enough detail.
Bye,
Bjoern
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	20 Jan 2005 05:48:49 AM

an up and coming crackpot in sci.physics. charming... simply charming.
.

User: "Landle"
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	20 Jan 2005 07:20:08 AM

wrote:

an up and coming crackpot in sci.physics. charming... simply

charming.
I'm anti-crank. I listen to reasons. Cranks or crackpots don't
Can anyone demonstrate that the concept of virtual particles
is so solid and true that there is no possibility of
misrepresentations. I'm looking for proof that strong force,
em force, etc. are really caused by virtual particles. You can
use all perturbation maths, etc. But if it doesn't represent
reality. It doesn't mean a thing.
Physics said the forces were created within the time limit
imposed by the Uncertainty Principle. What gives the vacuum
the power to give cause virtual particles (even on borrowed
time). What gives the vacuum the power to give point particles
magnetic properties. Can't one just call the vacuum aether?
What is really the meaning of Aether. It is very loose word
nowadays that can meant anything. So let me define the way
I see it. By Aether is meant any pre-space or more primary existence
that give matter and energy their identities. Physics said they
are caused by the particles intrinsic characteristics. Can't one
just say that a pre-space or more primary existence such as
Aether directly manifest the particles intrinsic nature??
Also what does the wave function truly represent? The
mathematic may describe the experiments but physics need
to understand what goes on behind the scene (as Einstein
emphasized in the remaining 30 years of his life).
Landle
.

User: "Franz Heymann"
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	20 Jan 2005 04:43:47 PM

"Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106227208.272502.90700@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[snip]

What is really the meaning of Aether.

The real meaning of the word is that whenever I see some nerd using
it, I know that I am dealing with either a dumbcluck or a pedant.
Do you know that the word "aether" is obsolete? I have just checked
in 6 general dictionaries and 1 physics dictionary, and the word does
not occur in any of them. What does occur in *all* of them is the
word "ether". One of the two meanings of this word is in fact that it
refers to the word you amateur philosophers persist in calling
"aether".
[snip]
Franz
.

User: "Gregory L. Hansen"
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	20 Jan 2005 08:15:04 PM

In article <cspc73$klr$3@hercules.btinternet.com>,
Franz Heymann <franz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:

"Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106227208.272502.90700@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

[snip]

What is really the meaning of Aether.

My official reason for preferring the archaic spelling is to distinguish
it from C2 H5 O C2 H5. My unofficial reason is that if the physics hasn't
advanced in a hundred years, why should the spelling?
But it's not just a private pejoration. Look up the two versions at
www.dictionary.com, and "ether" has varied definitions while "aether" has
only the two definitions as the clear upper air breathed by the
Olympians, and the medium of electromagnetic propagation. The clear
upper air breathed by the Olympians is really more in keeping with the
idea of a substance that passes through solid objects and etc.
--
"Is that plutonium on your gums?"
"Shut up and kiss me!"
-- Marge and Homer Simpson
.

User: "Franz Heymann"
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	21 Jan 2005 01:36:58 AM

"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:cspoj8$ul8$2@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...

In article <cspc73$klr$3@hercules.btinternet.com>,
Franz Heymann <franz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:

"Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106227208.272502.90700@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

[snip]

What is really the meaning of Aether.

The real meaning of the word is that whenever I see some nerd using
it, I know that I am dealing with either a dumbcluck or a pedant.
Do you know that the word "aether" is obsolete? I have just

checked

in 6 general dictionaries and 1 physics dictionary, and the word

does

not occur in any of them. What does occur in *all* of them is the
word "ether". One of the two meanings of this word is in fact that

refers to the word you amateur philosophers persist in calling
"aether".

My official reason for preferring the archaic spelling is to

distinguish

it from C2 H5 O C2 H5. My unofficial reason is that if the physics

hasn't

advanced in a hundred years, why should the spelling?

That's a good point!
Franz

But it's not just a private pejoration. Look up the two versions at
www.dictionary.com, and "ether" has varied definitions while

"aether" has

only the two definitions as the clear upper air breathed by the
Olympians, and the medium of electromagnetic propagation. The clear
upper air breathed by the Olympians is really more in keeping with

the

idea of a substance that passes through solid objects and etc.

--
"Is that plutonium on your gums?"
"Shut up and kiss me!"
-- Marge and Homer Simpson

User: "Creighton Hogg"
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	20 Jan 2005 05:30:04 PM

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Franz Heymann wrote:

"Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106227208.272502.90700@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

[snip]

What is really the meaning of Aether.

Yeah, but the extra "a" makes it Science!
.

User: "Franz Heymann"
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	21 Jan 2005 01:36:57 AM

"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0501201729340.9457-100000@erodium.hep.wisc.edu...

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Franz Heymann wrote:

"Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106227208.272502.90700@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

[snip]

What is really the meaning of Aether.

The real meaning of the word is that whenever I see some nerd

using

it, I know that I am dealing with either a dumbcluck or a pedant.
Do you know that the word "aether" is obsolete? I have just

checked

in 6 general dictionaries and 1 physics dictionary, and the word

does

not occur in any of them. What does occur in *all* of them is the
word "ether". One of the two meanings of this word is in fact

that it

refers to the word you amateur philosophers persist in calling
"aether".

Yeah, but the extra "a" makes it Science!

As in aequator and aequilibrium, two words which occur in a 202 year
old popular science book on my bookshelf,
or
Phaenomena, as used by Newton in "Opticks".
Franz
.

User: "Gregory L. Hansen"
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	20 Jan 2005 08:07:08 PM

In article <1106227208.272502.90700@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Landle <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote:

bryant_...@yahoo.com wrote:

an up and coming crackpot in sci.physics. charming... simply

Virtual particles come from the representation of fields in quantum
mechanics. Popular accounts of virtual particles are, in my opinion,
uniformly horribly, giving the reader the impression of little billiard
balls that appear from nowhere, fly to the left and hit a particle,
causing it to go right. Virtual particles are the representation of the
field in the basis of momentum eigenstates, and are a conceptual picture
to give the physics. But quantum field theory is fundamentally a theory
of fields. Even particles like the good ol' electron is a mode of the
Dirac field. I don't have a good way to explain that to the
non-specialist, which must mean I don't understand it myself very well.
But that doesn't make the popular accounts I've seen any better.
If you can get Wald's "Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black
Hole Thermodynamics", look up "virtual particle" and he'll give you an
eyeball full, making clear his opinion that the concept of particle
doesn't generalize to arbitrary spacetimes. Not a layman's book, but
there's enough plain English in it to catch his opinion.

What is really the meaning of Aether. It is very loose word
nowadays that can meant anything.

"The main, if not the only, function of the word aether has been to
furnish a nominative case to the verb 'to undulate'."
-- the Earl of Salisbury, 1894

So let me define the way
I see it. By Aether is meant any pre-space or more primary existence
that give matter and energy their identities. Physics said they
are caused by the particles intrinsic characteristics. Can't one
just say that a pre-space or more primary existence such as
Aether directly manifest the particles intrinsic nature??

Aether is a fluid or dust of ultrafine particles. Whether it be
Descarte's swirling whirlpools, LeSage's ultramundane corpuscles, the two
electrical fluids, or otherwise, that's what's been meant since the
ancient Greeks discussed it.
20th century physics has seen two new fundamental entities. The first is
the field, but not in the sense of a velocity field or temperature field,
meaning simply something that has a unique value at every point in space.
One difference between the field and the aether is that the aether, being
composed of ultrafine particles or at least some fluid, has a rest frame
at any point, just like water or air does. It might not be a universal
rest frame-- it could swirl around or support vortices-- but at each point
it has some average velocity. The electromagnetic field doesn't have a
rest frame. E.g. if you have a uniform electric field pointing towards x,
and you boost towards x, it's the same field. If you boost in the
direction of y it becomes an electromagnetic field, but that's not more or
less fundamental. (I haven't decided about massive fields like the weak
force.)
The other difference is that a field can be zero, the aether would be
simply quiescent.
The other entity is the curvature of space or spacetime itself.
For some reason, some people want to say the spacetime of general
relativity is the aether. Or the quantum foam is the aether. I object to
that on a few grounds. First, if you can't, e.g., show that
electromagnetism is an aspect of curved spacetime (and Einstein died
trying), then don't identify it with the lumeniferous aether, that's
getting way ahead of yourself. And second, there's already a perfectly
good meaning to the worth "aether", which distinguishes that concept from
the field or other concepts. If you try to overlap the definitions the
words lose their usefulness. A word is only useful if there are things
that aren't it.
I've only seen the mingling of the definitions on usenet and
self-published web pages. I don't think it would be accepted by, e.g.
philosophers of science.
--
"Yes, I revere you much, honored ones, and wish to fart in response." --
Aristophanes, Clouds
.

User: "kenseto"
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	21 Jan 2005 09:21:50 AM

"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:cspo4c$ul8$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...

In article <1106227208.272502.90700@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Landle <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote:

That's the problem. Mainstream physicists has this bogus picture of the
ether and reject all ether theories with this bogus picture. The following
link gives a correct description of an ether that is completely compatible
with the idea of a field. In fact a field is a stress or distortion in this
ether and the interaction of virtual particle with the real particle is the
reaction of the real particle to the waves or distortion in the ether.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
Ken Seto
.

User: "robert j. kolker"
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	21 Jan 2005 10:44:56 AM

kenseto wrote:

Aether, as a substance, has never been detected or measured. Aether has
a substance has as much chance of being true as heat as a substance. See
what has become of Caloric and Phlogiston. The same has become of
Aether. As a substance, rather than a mathematical abstraction, it is a
looser concept.
Tell me, Grasshopper. Why should I believe in -substance- that is immune
to the law of action and reaction?
Bob Kolker
.

User: "kenseto"
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	21 Jan 2005 01:29:17 PM

"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:35cpsaF4jdd4sU2@individual.net...

kenseto wrote:

That's the problem. Mainstream physicists has this bogus picture of the
ether and reject all ether theories with this bogus picture. The

following

link gives a correct description of an ether that is completely

compatible

with the idea of a field. In fact a field is a stress or distortion in

this

ether and the interaction of virtual particle with the real particle is

the

reaction of the real particle to the waves or distortion in the ether.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf

That's because the correct experiemnt has not been performed. The above link
contain such an experiment.
Ken Seto
.

User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	21 Jan 2005 04:13:32 AM

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

In article <1106227208.272502.90700@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Landle <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote:

bryant_...@yahoo.com wrote:

an up and coming crackpot in sci.physics. charming... simply

Well said!
[snip]

What is really the meaning of Aether. It is very loose word
nowadays that can meant anything.

"The main, if not the only, function of the word aether has been to
furnish a nominative case to the verb 'to undulate'."
-- the Earl of Salisbury, 1894

Nice quote. How did you find it?
[snip]

First, if you can't, e.g., show that
electromagnetism is an aspect of curved spacetime (and Einstein died
trying),

So trying to unify gravitation and electromagnetism is
lethal? ;-)

then don't identify it with the lumeniferous aether, that's
getting way ahead of yourself. And second, there's already a perfectly
good meaning to the worth "aether", which distinguishes that concept from
the field or other concepts. If you try to overlap the definitions the
words lose their usefulness. A word is only useful if there are things
that aren't it.

I've only seen the mingling of the definitions on usenet and
self-published web pages. I don't think it would be accepted by, e.g.
philosophers of science.

Einstein himself said in a speech that spacetime
is the aether. A really unfortunate equivocation...
See the post "The Aether" in s.p.r by Edward Green,
dated 1997/02/16.
Bye,
Bjoern
.

User: "Gregory L. Hansen"
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	21 Jan 2005 09:10:10 AM

In article <csqkkd$1je$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>,
Bjoern Feuerbacher <bfeuerba@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

What is really the meaning of Aether. It is very loose word
nowadays that can meant anything.

"The main, if not the only, function of the word aether has been to
furnish a nominative case to the verb 'to undulate'."
-- the Earl of Salisbury, 1894

Nice quote. How did you find it?

I honestly don't know. I'm sure I must have found it when I was Googling
for something. There was a peak in that sort of discussion on sci.physics
at the time, so it caught my eye.

[snip]

First, if you can't, e.g., show that
electromagnetism is an aspect of curved spacetime (and Einstein died
trying),

So trying to unify gravitation and electromagnetism is
lethal? ;-)

No matter how many times you warn them, they never listen. Don't drink
and derive.
--
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it. "
-- Gene Spafford, 1992
.

User: "Justin"
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	20 Jan 2005 07:44:44 AM

Landle <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote:
: What is really the meaning of Aether. It is very loose word
: nowadays that can meant anything. So let me define the way
: I see it. By Aether is meant any pre-space or more primary existence
: that give matter and energy their identities.
Sure, that straightens it all out!
Back to the books with you!
Justin
.

User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	20 Jan 2005 11:02:12 AM

Landle wrote:

bryant_...@yahoo.com wrote:

an up and coming crackpot in sci.physics. charming... simply

charming.

I'm anti-crank.

Only partly.

I listen to reasons.

You listen apparently only to the reasons which fit
your pre-conceived notions.

Cranks or crackpots don't

Can anyone demonstrate that the concept of virtual particles
is so solid and true that there is no possibility of
misrepresentations.

The concept of virtual particles follows directly from the
math of QFT.

I'm looking for proof that strong force,
em force, etc. are really caused by virtual particles.

We don't deal with proof in physics.

You can
use all perturbation maths, etc. But if it doesn't represent
reality. It doesn't mean a thing.

And why do you think you are qualified to judge if it
represent reality or not?

Physics said the forces were created within the time limit
imposed by the Uncertainty Principle.

No, it doesn't. Where did you get that from?

What gives the vacuum
the power to give cause virtual particles (even on borrowed
time).

Err, virtual particles which mediate forces between particles
are not created by the vacuum. They are created by the
particles themselves.

What gives the vacuum the power to give point particles
magnetic properties.

Again, the magnetic properties of the particles have
nothing ot do with the vacuum.

Can't one just call the vacuum aether?

No. That would be equivocation.

What is really the meaning of Aether. It is very loose word
nowadays that can meant anything.

Not in physics. There, "Aether" still means the same thing
which it meant to MM over 100 years ago.

So let me define the way
I see it. By Aether is meant any pre-space or more primary existence
that give matter and energy their identities.

Utterly vague.

Physics said they
are caused by the particles intrinsic characteristics.

*What* is caused? Matter and energy?

Can't one
just say that a pre-space or more primary existence such as
Aether directly manifest the particles intrinsic nature??

Sounds like word salad to me.

Also what does the wave function truly represent?

AFAIK, the probability density amplitude.

The mathematic may describe the experiments but physics need
to understand what goes on behind the scene (as Einstein
emphasized in the remaining 30 years of his life).

And how do you know that there *is* something behind the
scence?
Bye,
Bjoern
.

User: "kenseto"
Title: Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc.	20 Jan 2005 01:46:06 PM

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:csoo6l$in1$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

Landle wrote:

bryant_...@yahoo.com wrote:

an up and coming crackpot in sci.physics. charming... simply

charming.

I listen to reasons.

You listen apparently only to the reasons which fit
your pre-conceived notions.

So do you crackpot.

Cranks or crackpots don't

Can anyone demonstrate that the concept of virtual particles
is so solid and true that there is no possibility of
misrepresentations.

The concept of virtual particles follows directly from the
math of QFT.

The Model mechanical interpretastions of the QFT math just as valid. Perhaps
even more valid

I'm looking for proof that strong force,
em force, etc. are really caused by virtual particles.

We don't deal with proof in physics.

IOW, don't ask these questions to which we don't have answers.

You can
use all perturbation maths, etc. But if it doesn't represent
reality. It doesn't mean a thing.

And why do you think you are qualified to judge if it
represent reality or not?

Why do you think you are qualified to judge that it represents reality??

Physics said the forces were created within the time limit
imposed by the Uncertainty Principle.

No, it doesn't. Where did you get that from?

What gives the vacuum
the power to give cause virtual particles (even on borrowed
time).

Err, virtual particles which mediate forces between particles
are not created by the vacuum. They are created by the
particles themselves.

So how do the particles create virtual particles? and how do they know what
kind of virtual particle to create??

Can't one just call the vacuum aether?

No. That would be equivocation.

You are brain washed and you are not qualified to make such assertion.

What is really the meaning of Aether. It is very loose word
nowadays that can meant anything.

Not in physics. There, "Aether" still means the same thing
which it meant to MM over 100 years ago.

This is proof that you keep on rejecting the old MM aether. The modern
aether theory is vastly different than the MM aether.

Physics said they
are caused by the particles intrinsic characteristics.

*What* is caused? Matter and energy?

All the processes of nature are the result of matter reacting with the waves
or distortions in the aether.

Ken Seto
.