The double solution theory, a new interpretation of Wave Mechanics

[Russ_Watters]

A measurement can be the same thing as an observable in physics. A measurement is the act of observing a system to collect data...

Agreed.

...in quantum mechanics, the only things which can be measured in the quantum sense are observables... which are any physical attributes about a system.

That would seem axiomatic based on the above, yes.

But the interesting thing, is that time is not an observable...

Do you have a reference for that? Given that you can read the time off a clock just as easily as you can read the mass of an object from a scale, it is tough to see why you don't believe that time is observable.

...it's not defined as a real physical thing.

What do you mean by "physical thing"? Time isn't an object like a rock, it is a dimension, like length. It's physicality is very much like that of length. And it most certainly is clearly defined.

If it was, it would need to be represented as a Hermitian matrix to prove it is a real thing and that it can be measured.

Why would that prove it? I use the equation d=s*t every day (most people do even if they are unaware of it) without representing it as a Hermitian matrix. It doesn't seem to me like that has any relevance here.

No because global time evolution isn't described in general relativity by a time-parameter. It is in fact subject to diffeomorphism invariance and General Covariance which leads to evolution arising as a symmetry of the theory. It's not a true time evolution, it doesn't have time in it.

What is "global time evolution" and how is it described in GR? That sentence really appears self-contradictory: like you are saying that time is described without time.

The link I provided shows GR-based equations with "time" terms (such as proper [elapsed] time, coordinate time, etc.). It doesn't seem to make any sense to me to say there is no time in GR when it sure looks like is all over the place in GR.

 

[cav755]

Agreed.

That would seem axiomatic based on the above, yes.

Do you have a reference for that? Given that you can read the time off a clock just as easily as you can read the mass of an object from a scale, it is tough to see why you don't believe that time is observable.

What do you mean by "physical thing"? Time isn't an object like a rock, it is a dimension, like length. It's physicality is very much like that of length. And it most certainly is clearly defined.

Why would that prove it? I use the equation d=s*t every day (most people do even if they are unaware of it) without representing it as a Hermitian matrix. It doesn't seem to me like that has any relevance here.

What is "global time evolution" and how is it described in GR? That sentence really appears self-contradictory: like you are saying that time is described without time.

The link I provided shows GR-based equations with "time" terms (such as proper [elapsed] time, coordinate time, etc.). It doesn't seem to make any sense to me to say there is no time in GR when it sure looks like is all over the place in GR.

What you are discussing has nothing to do with this topic. Start your own thread.

If you want to understand what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment then read the following.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#de_Broglie.27s_wave_mechanics

 

[CptBork]

What you are discussing has nothing to do with this topic. Start your own thread.

If you want to stifle scientific discussions, then you should post your stuff in the alternative theories section that's meant for the kinds of conversations you prefer.

 

[CptBork]

What ever you say. Your decision to believe that is fine with me. But my take on it is that there is an explanation for the latest experiments based on local reality, and somehow I doubt that you have read as much on that topic as I have.

Bell's theorem states and proves that any local hidden variable theory will make testably different predictions from results that have since been experimentally confirmed. So if you want to maintain your contention, you need to either demonstrate that Bell's theorem is incorrect, or that your local hidden variable theory somehow skirts the simple base assumptions involved in deriving the theorem. Pffft, that's like proving the real number system is self-contradictory, good luck with that.

 

[cav755]

If you want to stifle scientific discussions, then you should post your stuff in the alternative theories section that's meant for the kinds of conversations you prefer.

Have you figured out the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is incomplete yet?

From 2:10 in the video, "Whatever the case may be in quantum mechanics, the statistics are an incomplete description of our fluid system and emerge from an underlying pilot-wave dynamics"

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

"XII. Conclusion
Such is, in its main lines, the present state of the Wave mechanics interpretation by the double-solution theory, and its thermodynamical extension. I think that when this interpretation is further elaborated, extended, and eventually modified in some of its aspects, it will lead to a better understanding of the true coexistence of waves and particles about which actual Quantum mechanics only gives statistical information, often correct, but in my opinion incomplete."

The Copenhagen interpretation is statistical and incomplete.

 

[Russ_Watters]

What you are discussing has nothing to do with this topic. Start your own thread.

Oh, I thought we were done? If you want to discuss the aether some more, then by all means respond to the questions I asked yesterday that you spent all day avoiding.

If you want people to discuss your topics, YOU have to discuss them too: parrots get boring after a while.

 

[cav755]

Oh, I thought we were done? If you want to discuss the aether some more, then by all means respond to the questions I asked yesterday that you spent all day avoiding.

If you want people to discuss your topics, YOU have to discuss them too: parrots get boring after a while.

I keep asking you to re-post your questions so I don't have to go through 366 posts looking for them. I guess this is too much to ask of someone who can't understand particles are particles and waves are waves.

If you want to understand what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment then read the following.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#de_Broglie.27s_wave_mechanics

 

[brucep]

Not at all...In fact I'm quite smart enough to treat with complete disdain the rantings of an arrogant troll with delusions of grandeur.

Now that should be clear enough...


""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity

http://preposterousuniverse.com/spacetimeandgeometry/
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~lambert/SGGR.pdf

Spacetime Geometry and General
Relativity

Gravitational Redshift and Time Dilation

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/universe/questions_and_ideas/general_relativity
General relativity, or the general theory of relativity, is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1916 and the current description of gravitation in modern physics. General relativity generalizes special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations.

Some predictions of general relativity differ significantly from those of classical physics, especially concerning the passage of time, the geometry of space, the motion of bodies in free fall, and the propagation of light. Examples of such differences include gravitational time dilation, gravitational lensing, the gravitational redshift of light, and the gravitational time delay. The predictions of general relativity have been confirmed in all observations and experiments to date. Although general relativity is not the only relativistic theory of gravity, it is the simplest theory that is consistent with experimental data. However, unanswered questions remain, the most fundamental being how general relativity can be reconciled with the laws of quantum physics to produce a complete and self-consistent theory of quantum gravity."
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""



Got it?

Now go away and think about it.

Something to add to the argument. In GR they're several ways to model time. The cosmological metric uses a global time coordinate. It should be obvious why. Look at section 4.6 Comoving coordinates. Easy to understand how the time coordinate is modeled for the FRLW cosmological solution to the EFE.
4 Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Metric
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/phys5770_08/frw.pdf

 

[cav755]

Something to add to the argument. In GR they're several ways to model time. The cosmological metric uses a global time coordinate. It should be obvious why. Look at section 4.6 Comoving coordinates. Easy to understand how the time coordinate is modeled for the FRLW cosmological solution to the EFE.
4 Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Metric
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/phys5770_08/frw.pdf

What you are discussing has nothing to do with this topic. Start your own thread.

If you want to understand what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment then read the following.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#de_Broglie.27s_wave_mechanics

 

[brucep]

What you are discussing has nothing to do with this topic. Start your own thread.

If you want to understand what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment then read the following.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#de_Broglie.27s_wave_mechanics

How would you know what the topic is. I wouldn't bet you could tie your shoe laces. Everybody is trying to end this thread along with your latest sock puppet reign.

 

[cav755]

How would you know what the topic is. I wouldn't bet much that you could tie your shoe laces.

I created the thread.

If you want to understand what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment then read the following.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#de_Broglie.27s_wave_mechanics

 

[Russ_Watters]

I keep asking you to re-post your questions so I don't have to go through 366 posts looking for them. I guess this is too much to ask of someone who can't understand particles are particles and waves are waves.

Lol, I suppose, Cav. I gave you the post # where you responded to me and quoted the questions. I'm sure you have no more interest in responding to them now than you did when I first posted them. But it's a new day and I'm sure this will reveal (reinforce) where/what you are, so sure, I'll bite. Here they are:

1. You claim a separate particle and wave traveling through the aether at the same time....so does that mean you think they travel at the same speed?
2. Do you think the waves should be detectable perpendicular to the direction of motion?
3. Show attenuation due to the mass?
4. Have a rest frame?

 

[cav755]

Lol, I suppose, Cav. I gave you the post # where you responded to me and quoted the questions. I'm sure you have no more interest in responding to them now than you did when I first posted them. But it's a new day and I'm sure this will reveal (reinforce) where/what you are, so sure, I'll bite. Here they are:

1. You claim a separate particle and wave traveling through the aether at the same time....so does that mean you think they travel at the same speed?

The following is an image of the aether displacement wave associated with a star. It is the same physical phenomenon as a particle's associated aether displacement wave.

2. Do you think the waves should be detectable perpendicular to the direction of motion?

As de Broglie described it, the aether is a hidden medium. You can detect the effect it has on particles which are moving through it and displacing in.

3. Show attenuation due to the mass?

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid. Particles do not slow down when moving through it and displacing it.

You are in a bowling alley filled with a supersolid. You roll the bowling ball. The bowling ball displaces the supersolid. The supersolid displaces the bowling ball as it fills-in where the bowling ball had been. By definition, there is no loss of energy in the interaction of the bowling ball and the supersolid and the bowling ball rolls forever through the supersolid.

Q. Is the bowling ball displacing the supersolid or is the supersolid displacing the bowling ball.
A. Both are occurring simultaneously with equal force.

A boat has a bow wave.
A surfer rides the ocean wave.

Watch the following video to see a particle behaving as both boat and surfer.

[video=youtube;nmC0ygr08tE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmC0ygr08tE[/video]

4. Have a rest frame?

"The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

 

[CptBork]

You know what would be really awesome? I'd love to see cav755 and Alex Jones get into a disagreement about something. It would last for hundreds of years, and only finally end with the utter extermination of someone's bloodline.

 

[cav755]

You know what would be really awesome? I'd love to see cav755 and Alex Jones get into a disagreement about something. It would last for hundreds of years, and only finally end with the utter extermination of someone's bloodline.

Have you figured out the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is incomplete?

From 2:10 in the video, "Whatever the case may be in quantum mechanics, the statistics are an incomplete description of our fluid system and emerge from an underlying pilot-wave dynamics"

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

"XII. Conclusion
Such is, in its main lines, the present state of the Wave mechanics interpretation by the double-solution theory, and its thermodynamical extension. I think that when this interpretation is further elaborated, extended, and eventually modified in some of its aspects, it will lead to a better understanding of the true coexistence of waves and particles about which actual Quantum mechanics only gives statistical information, often correct, but in my opinion incomplete."

The Copenhagen interpretation is statistical and incomplete.

 

[paddoboy]

Something to add to the argument. In GR they're several ways to model time. The cosmological metric uses a global time coordinate. It should be obvious why. Look at section 4.6 Comoving coordinates. Easy to understand how the time coordinate is modeled for the FRLW cosmological solution to the EFE.
4 Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Metric
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/phys5770_08/frw.pdf

Yep, good stuff brucep. It's obvious we have another alternative theorist plying his crap.
Time exists as a reality and part of the Universe...and that includes GR...Time cannot under any circumstances, be avoided.
Time dilation, constant finite speed of light and FoR's, show us we have no universal now.
In SR/GR, time is more correctly thought of as part of a four dimensional network in which the Universe exists, and which we call space/time.

No amount of pedantic rubbish and twisted semantics will admonish the obvious fact that time exists and is part and parcel of the BB, SR, GR and the Universe.

 

[CptBork]

Have you figured out the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is incomplete?

From 2:10 in the video, "Whatever the case may be in quantum mechanics, the statistics are an incomplete description of our fluid system and emerge from an underlying pilot-wave dynamics"

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

"XII. Conclusion
Such is, in its main lines, the present state of the Wave mechanics interpretation by the double-solution theory, and its thermodynamical extension. I think that when this interpretation is further elaborated, extended, and eventually modified in some of its aspects, it will lead to a better understanding of the true coexistence of waves and particles about which actual Quantum mechanics only gives statistical information, often correct, but in my opinion incomplete."

The Copenhagen interpretation is statistical and incomplete.

That settles it, proof by repetition it is then. We definitely need to get this guy into an argument with Alex Jones, and then quickly make strategic investments in the popcorn industry to capitalize on the "controversy".

 

[cav755]

That settles it, proof by repetition it is then. We definitely need to get this guy into an argument with Alex Jones, and then quickly make strategic investments in the popcorn industry to capitalize on the "controversy".

Just asking a question.

Have you figured out the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is incomplete?

From 2:10 in the video, "Whatever the case may be in quantum mechanics, the statistics are an incomplete description of our fluid system and emerge from an underlying pilot-wave dynamics"

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

"XII. Conclusion
Such is, in its main lines, the present state of the Wave mechanics interpretation by the double-solution theory, and its thermodynamical extension. I think that when this interpretation is further elaborated, extended, and eventually modified in some of its aspects, it will lead to a better understanding of the true coexistence of waves and particles about which actual Quantum mechanics only gives statistical information, often correct, but in my opinion incomplete."

The Copenhagen interpretation is statistical and incomplete.

 

[OnlyMe]

The following is an image of the aether displacement wave associated with a star. It is the same physical phenomenon as a particle's associated aether displacement wave.

As de Broglie described it, the aether is a hidden medium. You can detect the effect it has on particles which are moving through it and displacing in.



The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid. Particles do not slow down when moving through it and displacing it.

You are in a bowling alley filled with a supersolid. You roll the bowling ball. The bowling ball displaces the supersolid. The supersolid displaces the bowling ball as it fills-in where the bowling ball had been. By definition, there is no loss of energy in the interaction of the bowling ball and the supersolid and the bowling ball rolls forever through the supersolid.

Q. Is the bowling ball displacing the supersolid or is the supersolid displacing the bowling ball.
A. Both are occurring simultaneously with equal force.

A boat has a bow wave.
A surfer rides the ocean wave.

Watch the following video to see a particle behaving as both boat and surfer.

[video=youtube;nmC0ygr08tE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmC0ygr08tE[/video]



"The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

Did I miss something or did he actually address each question, one at a time, without answering any of them?

 

[CptBork]

Just asking a question.

Have you figured out the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is incomplete?

Herp derp herp derp?

You can't figure something out without testing it, and you don't have a single test showing that quantum mechanics is missing anything other than gravity. That includes the Steinberg experiments you keep linking to without knowing what the guy actually does.