The double solution theory, a new interpretation of Wave Mechanics

[Russ_Watters]

Why are you unwilling or unable to answer the question?

I asked you first. And quoting but responding with something that has nothing to do with the quote is a trolling tactic that makes the content unworthy of a response. Clearly, you have no interest in actual discussion, you just intend to keep parroting your nonsense. If you want to be treated with respect - treated as if you are not a troll - you will need to stop acting like a troll (note: at this point, I know you have no such intention).

At this point, it is clear that you know exactly what you are doing: if you didn't, you'd be more curious as to why I consider your actions unethical. Ignoring that means either you already know why it is unethical or you don't care. It's too bad: I like to believe people are good and at least if you had a mental disability, your actions could be explained-away. But at this point, I don't think they can be.

Going to such lengths as sabotaging a wikipedia article in support of a troll attack displays a level of depravity I don't think I've seen before on the internet.

 

[cav755]

I asked you first. And quoting but responding with something that has nothing to do with the quote is a trolling tactic that makes the content unworthy of a response. Clearly, you have no interest in actual discussion, you just intend to keep parroting your nonsense. If you want to be treated with respect - treated as if you are not a troll - you will need to stop acting like a troll (note: at this point, I know you have no such intention).

At this point, it is clear that you know exactly what you are doing: if you didn't, you'd be more curious as to why I consider your actions unethical. Ignoring that means either you already know why it is unethical or you don't care. It's too bad: I like to believe people are good and at least if you had a mental disability, your actions could be explained-away. But at this point, I don't think they can be.

Going to such lengths as sabotaging a wikipedia article in support of a troll attack displays a level of depravity I don't think I've seen before on the internet.

What I have posted there is an explanation of what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment according to de Broglie's wave mechanics. I'm not sure why it causes people who consider themselves knowledgeable about physics to go nuts.

 

[Russ_Watters]

What I have posted there is an explanation of what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment according to de Broglie's wave mechanics. I'm not sure why it causes people who consider themselves knowledgeable about physics to go nuts.

Your behavior is despicable. Going to such lengths as sabotaging a wikipedia article in support of a troll attack displays a level of depravity I don't think I've seen before on the internet.

See: I can copy and paste too!

Your behavior is despicable. Going to such lengths as sabotaging a wikipedia article in support of a troll attack displays a level of depravity I don't think I've seen before on the internet.

See: I can copy and paste too!

Your behavior is despicable. Going to such lengths as sabotaging a wikipedia article in support of a troll attack displays a level of depravity I don't think I've seen before on the internet.

See: I can copy and paste too!

 

[Read-Only]

Your behavior is despicable. Going to such lengths as sabotaging a wikipedia article in support of a troll attack displays a level of depravity I don't think I've seen before on the internet.

See: I can copy and paste too!

Your behavior is despicable. Going to such lengths as sabotaging a wikipedia article in support of a troll attack displays a level of depravity I don't think I've seen before on the internet.

See: I can copy and paste too!

Your behavior is despicable. Going to such lengths as sabotaging a wikipedia article in support of a troll attack displays a level of depravity I don't think I've seen before on the internet.

See: I can copy and paste too!

Cav755 is clearly a nut! And I also believe he is a sockpuppet of a banned user.

 

[cav755]

In a double slit experiment it is the aether which waves.

 

[CptBork]

Well, I made a comment on the article's talk page about what cav/Mpc 755 is doing there and left them with links to come see the discussion here in case they have any doubts. It's only been a couple of days so it's possible the regular editors haven't seen my comment yet, but just to be certain, I sent a personal message to the talk page of one of the article's main contributors with all the info and links, so hopefully action will be taken soon to remove the vandalism and apply the appropriate sanctions to deter this kind of behaviour in the future.

 

[wellwisher]

If you look at a point particle creating a wave, there are two different physical sizes/distance involved. We have the small/point particle and a finite sized wavelength connected to it.

For example, say we have a point particle moving at the speed of light, developing a wavelength of 1 meter. After the particle moves 1 cm, the wave has not yet fully developed, since there is still 99 cm to go, at the same speed of light. Do fractional wavelength waves behave differently than a full wavelength wave?

The wave is sort of quantum stepping between full wavelengths, while the particle is following more of a continuous path in the above. The particle can go trough a slit before a full wavelength has time to develop. What might happen is a previous full wavelength (wake) following the particle, then goes through both slits?

 

[cav755]

Well, I made a comment on the article's talk page about what cav/Mpc 755 is doing there and left them with links to come see the discussion here in case they have any doubts. It's only been a couple of days so it's possible the regular editors haven't seen my comment yet, but just to be certain, I sent a personal message to the talk page of one of the article's main contributors with all the info and links, so hopefully action will be taken soon to remove the vandalism and apply the appropriate sanctions to deter this kind of behaviour in the future.

Responded.

In a double slit experiment it is the aether which waves.

 

[cav755]

If you look at a point particle creating a wave, there are two different physical sizes/distance involved. We have the small/point particle and a finite sized wavelength connected to it.

For example, say we have a point particle moving at the speed of light, developing a wavelength of 1 meter. After the particle moves 1 cm, the wave has not yet fully developed, since there is still 99 cm to go, at the same speed of light. Do fractional wavelength waves behave differently than a full wavelength wave?

The wave is sort of quantum stepping between full wavelengths, while the particle is following more of a continuous path in the above. The particle can go trough a slit before a full wavelength has time to develop. What might happen is a previous full wavelength (wake) following the particle, then goes through both slits?

If the wake follows the particle then the interference caused by the wake exiting both slits will occur after the particle exits the slit and it will not alter the direction the particle travels. The particle's associated aether displacement wave needs to be out ahead of and alongside the particle.

It needs to be more analogous to the bow shock wave created by stars as they move through and displace the aether.

 

[RJBeery]

The double slit experiment sees quantum weirdness at it's most weird.
The particle goes through both slits......
No waving of an aether has ever been seen. In fact experiemnts throughout the ages have shown the aether not to exist in the manner you present.

Folks need to settle down. Wikipedia is a medium to be editable by everyone, and eventually "an accepted truth" is agreed upon by the community. Any one of us could edit it right now in any manner we wanted, and that doesn't make it despicable (but it certainly doesn't make it factual!). That being said, the aether has NOT been disproven, merely shown to be unneeded for most interpretations. It's perfectly valid to invoke the aether if an interpretation requires it.

 

[paddoboy]

Folks need to settle down. Wikipedia is a medium to be editable by everyone, and eventually "an accepted truth" is agreed upon by the community. Any one of us could edit it right now in any manner we wanted, and that doesn't make it despicable (but it certainly doesn't make it factual!). That being said, the aether has NOT been disproven, merely shown to be unneeded for most interpretations. It's perfectly valid to invoke the aether if an interpretation requires it.

The aether as our friend presents, has never been detected.We can logically presume it doesn't exist.
Wiki is helpful in most cases, but if available, better references should be given. For the very reasons you have stated.

 

[AlexG]

That being said, the aether has NOT been disproven, merely shown to be unneeded for most interpretations.

Not only unneeded, but never detected.

 

[BlackHoley]

Here we go again... posters who don't actually know what they are talking about... RJ seems to be closest to the truth.

Before everyone here runs off their mouth and start saying silly uneducated things like ''we've never detected an aether,'' and ''an aether is superfluous,'' please understand you are talking about a highly technical and complicated subject - for instance, what aether are you talking about?

If you are talking about the luminiferous aether, then that was disproven by Michelson and Morley. Do you know any other aether theories any of you?

There is a quantum aether for instance, which almost all physicists would have to agree on. Einstein realized when the luminiferous aether was proven to be the wrong interpretation, he realized quantum theory predicted a new kind of quantum aether.

 

[paddoboy]

If you are talking about the luminiferous aether, then that was disproven by Michelson and Morley. Do you know any other aether theories any of you?

There is a quantum aether for instance, which almost all physicists would have to agree on. Einstein realized when the luminiferous aether was proven to be the wrong interpretation, he realized quantum theory predicted a new kind of quantum aether.

Maybe you need to read all pertinent posts more carefully, instead of running off the mouth as you so kindly put it.
In all my posts I have always referred to the aether as that presented by cav755.
In any respect, the only thing we are certain of, is the existence of space/time.

 

[AlexG]

'we've never detected an aether,

We haven't. If you think we have, please direct us to the peer reviewed experiment.

Otherwise, stop shooting off your mouth.

 

[cav755]

Here we go again... posters who don't actually know what they are talking about... RJ seems to be closest to the truth.

Before everyone here runs off their mouth and start saying silly uneducated things like ''we've never detected an aether,'' and ''an aether is superfluous,'' please understand you are talking about a highly technical and complicated subject - for instance, what aether are you talking about?

If you are talking about the luminiferous aether, then that was disproven by Michelson and Morley. Do you know any other aether theories any of you?

There is a quantum aether for instance, which almost all physicists would have to agree on. Einstein realized when the luminiferous aether was proven to be the wrong interpretation, he realized quantum theory predicted a new kind of quantum aether.

What the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to detect is an absolutely stationary space.

The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. Aether is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

 

[cav755]

We haven't. If you think we have, please direct us to the peer reviewed experiment.

Otherwise, stop shooting off your mouth.

There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.

 

[AlexG]

There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.

This is mpc755's favorite mantra. He seems to feel that he's provided an answer.

 

[cav755]

This is mpc755's favorite mantra. He seems to feel that he's provided an answer.

"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

As in the results of a double slit experiment. It's the aether which waves.

 

[AlexG]

Cut and paste. mpc755 has been doing this for years.