Dark Matter

[PB666]

Not bot, wot.

[mpc755]

Not bot, wot.

Because understanding wave-particle duality is a moving particle and its associated wave is too complicated...

"While the founding fathers agonized over the question 'particle' or 'wave', de Broglie in 1925 proposed the obvious answer 'particle' and 'wave'. Is it not clear from the smallness of the scintillation on the screen that we have to do with a particle? And is it not clear, from the diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the particle is directed by a wave? De Broglie showed in detail how the motion of a particle, passing through just one of two holes in screen, could be influenced by waves propagating through both holes. And so influenced that the particle does not go where the waves cancel out, but is attracted to where they cooperate. This idea seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored." - John Bell

[Z-Man]

That's called weak measurement.

Original article was here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1170

Nope, sorry. I was asking about an experiment that measures which slit the particle goes through (in the best case). That article describes an experiment where they measure the average momentum the particles have as they leave the slits. Totally different thing, perfectly compatible with the standard interpretation and quite easy to calculate using it. Still, a splendid experiment and worth a read; it boils down to them being able to measure the entire waveform, both the amplitude and phase (differential). Using a lot of repeat measurements, of course. Quote from the actual article, by the way:

"For the experimentally reconstructed trajectories for our double slit (Fig. 3), it is worth stressing that photons are not constrained to follow these precise trajectories; the exact trajectory of an individual quantum particle is not a well-defined concept."

Emphasis mine. Those trajectories are the ones you want to be "real".

[mpc755]

Original article was here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1170

Nope, sorry. I was asking about an experiment that measures which slit the particle goes through (in the best case). That article describes an experiment where they measure the average momentum the particles have as they leave the slits. Totally different thing, perfectly compatible with the standard interpretation and quite easy to calculate using it. Still, a splendid experiment and worth a read; it boils down to them being able to measure the entire waveform, both the amplitude and phase (differential). Using a lot of repeat measurements, of course. Quote from the actual article, by the way:

"For the experimentally reconstructed trajectories for our double slit (Fig. 3), it is worth stressing that photons are not constrained to follow these precise trajectories; the exact trajectory of an individual quantum particle is not a well-defined concept."

Emphasis mine. Those trajectories are the ones you want to be "real".

"quite easy to calculate using it" does not describe what is occurring physically in nature.

The following describes what is occurring physically in nature.

A moving particle has an associated wave in the dark mass. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave which passes through both. As the wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave guiding the particle. Strongly detecting the particle causes a loss of cohesion between the particle and its associated wave, the particle continues on the trajectory it was traveling and it does not form an interference pattern. Weakly detecting the particle allows for the particle and its associated wave to maintain some of their cohesion, allowing the particle to still form an interference pattern.

[monstah]

I'm under the impression that I'm talking to a bot.

Not bot, wot.

That's what I used to think of PB666, but its reply just made me certain...

[mpc755]

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE'

http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf

“When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles.â€Â

[mpc755]

"Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines? ...Is not this medium much rarer within the dense bodies of the Sun, stars, planets and comets, than in the empty celestial space between them? And in passing from them to great distances, doth it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the bodies; every body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the medium towards the rarer?" - Newton

Newton is referring to the state of displacement of the dark mass.

[CalculusWarrior]

Newton is referring to the state of displacement of the dark mass.

Okay, this guy is just messing with us now; he's quoting Isaac Newton with regards to dark matter.

You do realize Newton was talking about a 'luminiferous aether' which provided a mechanism for light and gravity to be transmitted through space, something entirely proven false. Look up the Michelson-Morley experiment sometime to see why there is no such thing as an all-permeating aether: we'd see its effects every six months, as the Earth is travelling in the opposite direction throughout space. Same goes for your 'empty space is full of mass' theory.

[mpc755]

Okay, this guy is just messing with us now; he's quoting Isaac Newton with regards to dark matter.

You do realize Newton was talking about a 'luminiferous aether' which provided a mechanism for light and gravity to be transmitted through space, something entirely proven false. Look up the Michelson-Morley experiment sometime to see why there is no such thing as an all-permeating aether: we'd see its effects every six months, as the Earth is travelling in the opposite direction throughout space. Same goes for your 'empty space is full of mass' theory.

MMX looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moves through. The dark mass is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

"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

Matter, quantum solids and fluids, window glass and 'stuff' have mass and so does the dark mass.

[K^2]

Come back when you can explain how it is the particle exits both slits and is only detected by one of the detectors.

Consider a particle located at space-time coordinate x, with two detectors both in un-triggered states labeled as -. The initial state |x--> then needs to propagate to the final location z, passing in transit via one of the two slits at locations y₁ and y₂. Each of the slits is equipped with a detector that triggers if the particle passes through it.

Lagrangian for interaction with detectors is given by:

L = S(z,y)[δ(y-y₁)|y₁+-><y₁--| + δ(y-y₂)|y₁-+><y₁--|]S(y,x)

The target state is labeled as |z>, which is to be understood as particle at z with any combination of possible detector states. We then consider transition amplitudes, given by the following expression (to within phase factors).

<z|exp(∫L dy)|x--> = <z|x--> + <z|∫L dy|x--> + (1/2)<z|(∫L dy)²|x--> + ...

Only first order contributes. Expanding the integral and the propagators:

<z|z>(<y₁|y₁+-><y₁--|y₁> + <y₂|y₂-+><y₂--|y₂>)<x|x-->

The two non-zero components of this amplitude are as follows.

<z+-|z+->(<y₁+-|y₁+-><y₁--|y₁--><x--|x--> and

<z-+|z-+>(<y₂-+|y₂-+><y₂--|y₂--><x--|x-->

Which leaves us with the final detector state |+-> + |-+>. This is a mundane entangled pair. So the particle has passed through both slits, however, the detectors are entangled so that if one of them is triggered, the other is not.

This is the full explanation of the double-slit experiment and results, 100% consistent with observed data and derived using actual theory.

Now it is your turn. I want you to derive an actual physical quantity using your model of the universe. And enough with the excuses. It's getting pathetic. I want to see a derivation, or feel free to get out.

[shynung]

I'm under the impression that I am talking to people who are capable of understanding "No Empty Space in the Universe" means no empty space in the Universe.

Yes, I don't understand. I'm no physicist, just a computer science student.

Though, I once tested a colleague's chatbot for a hack-a-ton. His bot talks much more similarly to a human than you seemed to manage.

[Rakaydos]

Yes, I don't understand. I'm no physicist, just a computer science student.

Though, I once tested a colleague's chatbot for a hack-a-ton. His bot talks much more similarly to a human than you seemed to manage.

To be fair, it successfuly pretended to be a troll for at least 7 pages...

[mpc755]

Yes, I don't understand. I'm no physicist, just a computer science student.

Even as a computer science student you are capable of understanding always observing the boat traveling through a single slit in a boat double slit experiment is evidence the boat always travels through a single slit, correct?

Quantum physicists are not able to understand that in terms of the particle in a double slit experiment.

They are incapable of understanding there is a particle and a wave.

- - - Updated - - -

To be fair, it successfuly pretended to be a troll for at least 7 pages...

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."

if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the dark mass as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that the dark mass consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

- - - Updated - - -

So the particle has passed through both slits,

How? When a C60 molecule is used in a double slit experiment does this mean there are 120 atoms exiting both slits and only 60 are detected or some subset of atoms pass through both slits, say for example 40 atoms through one slit and 20 through the other?

however, the detectors are entangled so that if one of them is triggered, the other is not.

Why? If 60 atoms are exiting both slits then why aren't two C60 molecules detecting exiting both slits? If 40 atoms are exiting one slit and 20 atoms the other why are all 60 detected exiting a single slit?

This is the full explanation of the double-slit experiment and results,

No, its not. You threw a bunch of terms together. You did not explain what is occurring physically in nature.

The following describes what is occurring physically in nature.

A moving particle has an associated wave in the dark mass. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave which passes through both. As the wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave guiding the particle. Strongly detecting the particle causes a loss of cohesion between the particle and its associated wave, the particle continues on the trajectory it was traveling and it does not form an interference pattern. Weakly detecting the particle allows for the particle and its associated wave to maintain some of their cohesion, allowing the particle to still form an interference pattern.

Now it is your turn. I want you to derive an actual physical quantity using your model of the universe. And enough with the excuses. It's getting pathetic. I want to see a derivation, or feel free to get out.

This is getting pathetic. Explain what occurs physically in a double slit experiment, or feel free to get out.

[K^2]

No, its not. You threw a bunch of terms together.

That's all you've been doing. I actually posted a derivation. Mathematics. Care to try? Or were you homeschooled, and never learned how to do fractions?

[shynung]

To be fair, it successfuly pretended to be a troll for at least 7 pages...

Yeah, but it doesn't attempt to hide the possibility of it being a bot. Quick, almost emotionless responses, coupled by intensive quote mining (or it could be fed already-mined quotes from a database of some sort), even when responding to off-topic posts. What's interesting, though, is that it sometimes copy the response of another user, and reworded it for its own use.

So yeah, it's pretty good, it just doesn't wear a human-like skin, so to speak.

Even as a computer science student you are capable of understanding always observing the boat traveling through a single slit in a boat double slit experiment is evidence the boat always travels through a single slit, correct?

Quantum physicists are not able to understand that in terms of the particle in a double slit experiment.

They are incapable of understanding there is a particle and a wave.

Uh, no. I wasn't taught those things at uni.

[mpc755]

That's all you've been doing. I actually posted a derivation. Mathematics. Care to try? Or were you homeschooled, and never learned how to do fractions?

You didn't answer any of the questions.

- - - Updated - - -

Uh, no. I wasn't taught those things at uni.

Exactly, and that is why you are unable to understand what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.

[shynung]

Exactly, and that is why you are unable to understand what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.

Uh, yeah, that was what I was trying to say.

On another note, I managed to make this thing agree with me.

[mpc755]

Uh, yeah, that was what I was trying to say.

Which is why you can't understand in a double slit experiment the particle always travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the dark mass passes through both.

[K^2]

You didn't answer any of the questions.

Neither have you, and I asked first. Then, as a courtesy, I've answered yours. Now, until you give me a derivation of some relevant physical quantity, I see no reason why I should keep answering your questions.

Science is about models and predictions. Until you can demonstrate that you can show some sort of a derivation, all of your blabbering is pointless.

[YNM]

10 mod chrs

Edited August 27, 2015 by sjwt

[shynung]

Which is why you can't understand in a double slit experiment the particle always travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the dark mass passes through both.

LOLWUT? I already said that. Now you're repeating yourself.

[sjwt]

Ok, threads clean and locked now.

If people could not insult others or backset moderate...

Edited August 27, 2015 by sjwt