Wave-particle duality is a moving particle AND it's associated wave

[mpc755]

This is where my issue lies, not that you have a different interpretation, but that you say everyone else is definitely wrong. My only question is how do you know I am wrong?

I am capable of understanding in a boat double slit experiment the boat travels through a single slit even when I close my eyes. Are you?

In a double slit experiment I am capable of understanding the particle travels through a single slit even when it is not observed. Are you?

And if your response is how do I know the particle traveled through a single slit when it is not observed my response is I am able to deduce it. I am able to understand the particle always detected traveling through a single slit is evidence the particle always travels through a single slit just like the boat always detected traveling through a single slit is evidence the boat always travels through a single slit.

Are you able to deduce the boat traveled through a single slit in a boat double slit experiment even when you close your eyes?

I am able to understand there is a boat and a bow wave.

I am able to understand there is a particle and a wave.

In wave-particle duality the particle is always a particle and the wave is always a wave, just like the boat is always a boat and the bow wave is always a wave.

Edited October 14, 2015 by mpc755

[Steel]

Equally I can deduce that planes fly using magic and the Illuminati controls what colour the sky is, but it doesn't necessarily make it true. To make bold claims that everyone else is wrong you need proof.

[mpc755]

Equally I can deduce that planes fly using magic and the Illuminati controls what colour the sky is, but it doesn't necessarily make it true. To make bold claims that everyone else is wrong you need proof.

The boat always detected traveling through a single in a boat double slit experiment is evidence the boat always travels through a single slit.

The particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment is evidence the particle always travels through a single slit.

Are you able to deduce which slit the boat entered if you close your eyes at the beginning of a boat double slit experiment and then open them up to see the boat exiting a slit?

[KSK]

Matter, quantum solids and fluids, a piece of window glass and 'stuff' have mass and so does the space unoccupied by particles of matter.

You can call 'it' whatever you want. The space unoccupied by particles of matter has mass and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

OK then. If this aether (for want of a better word) is being displaced by the particles moving through it, then it must be interacting with those particles in some way. That interaction must be a two-way interaction because otherwise the aether waves would not be able to guide the particles as you've suggested.

But that idea doesn't scale very well. Double slit experiments have been done with photons, electrons, buckyballs and some pretty large molecules. We're not talking about isolated particles here, we're talking about (relatively) sizeable chunks of matter.

So if the aether is capable of interacting with 810 atoms at a time, why not larger chunks of matter? Why not the Earth?

Now if the Earth is displacing the aether, I would have thought we'd have seen some evidence of this. Variations in satellite orbits perhaps? For that matter, why is the Earth still in orbit? Why hasn't it lost all it's kinetic energy to 'aether drag' and crashed into the sun?

[K^2]

The boat always detected traveling through a single in a boat double slit experiment is evidence the boat always travels through a single slit.

You again? Boat detected traveling through single slit is evidence that boat interacted at just one of the two locations. It says nothing about boat's actual location. And you need to learn basic logic before trying to argue about quantum mechanics.

[mpc755]

OK then. If this aether (for want of a better word) is being displaced by the particles moving through it, then it must be interacting with those particles in some way. That interaction must be a two-way interaction because otherwise the aether waves would not be able to guide the particles as you've suggested.

Exactly.

But that idea doesn't scale very well. Double slit experiments have been done with photons, electrons, buckyballs and some pretty large molecules. We're not talking about isolated particles here, we're talking about (relatively) sizeable chunks of matter.

So if the aether is capable of interacting with 810 atoms at a time, why not larger chunks of matter? Why not the Earth?

It scales all the way up to galaxies and galaxy clusters.

'The Milky Way's dark matter halo appears to be lopsided'

http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3802

"the emerging picture of the dark matter halo of the Milky Way is dominantly lopsided in nature."

The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter traveling along with the Milky Way. The Milky Way's halo is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the aether, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.

'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'

http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1475

"Our data strongly support the idea that the gravitational potential in clusters is mainly due to a non-baryonic fluid, and any exotic field in gravitational theory must resemble that of CDM fields very closely."

The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether. The analogy is a submarine moving through the water. You are under water. Two miles away from you are many lights. Moving between you and the lights one mile away is a submarine. The submarine displaces the water. The state of displacement of the water causes the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water to be offset from the center of the submarine itself. The offset between the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water displaced by the submarine and the center of the submarine itself is going to remain the same as the submarine moves through the water. The submarine continually displaces different regions of the water. The state of the water connected to and neighboring the submarine remains the same as the submarine moves through the water even though it is not the same water the submarine continually displaces. This is what is occurring physically in nature as the galaxy clusters move through and displace the aether.

Now if the Earth is displacing the aether, I would have thought we'd have seen some evidence of this. Variations in satellite orbits perhaps? For that matter, why is the Earth still in orbit? Why hasn't it lost all it's kinetic energy to 'aether drag' and crashed into the sun?

Frame Dragging effect:

EPIC: Einstein's 4-D Time Theory Confirmed by NASA

'NASA's Gravity Probe B Confirms Two Einstein Space-Time Theories'

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html

"Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey. As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it's the same with space and time," said Francis Everitt, GP-B principal investigator at Stanford University."

Honey has mass and so does the aether.

Frame dragging is the state of displacement of the aether.

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid, which is described in the following article as the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. The article describes a 'back reaction' associated with the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. This is the displaced aether 'displacing back'.

'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction'

http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3458

"We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide further evidence of the “fluidic†nature of space itself. This "back-reaction" is quantified by the tendency of angular momentum flux threading across a surface."

- - - Updated - - -

You again? Boat detected traveling through single slit is evidence that boat interacted at just one of the two locations. It says nothing about boat's actual location. And you need to learn basic logic before trying to argue about quantum mechanics.

The particle only interacts with just one of two locations. It's the associated wave which passes through both slits.

[mpc755]

The aether is the mass which fills the space unoccupied by particles of matter and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

Wave-particle duality is a moving particle and it's associated wave in the aether.

[K^2]

The particle only interacts with just one of two locations. It's the associated wave which passes through both slits.

That's a violation of Bell's Inequalities. Id est, experimentally proven to be wrong.

[mpc755]

That's a violation of Bell's Inequalities. Id est, experimentally proven to be wrong.

In order for there to be conservation of momentum the downconverted photon pair are created with opposite angular momentums.

Each of the pair can determine the position and momentum of the other based upon their own position and momentum.

Entanglement is each of the pair being able to determine the state of the other.

They are not physically or superluminally connected.

Their ability to determine each other's state is non-local.

A better term to describe this is as an 'exposed variable theory'. Each of the pair's state is exposed to one another.

I recommend watching all of the following video. The part which discusses an 'exposed variable theory' starts at the 2:08 mark.

Edited October 15, 2015 by mpc755

[p1t1o]

There is a lot of "I read something that seems to make sense to me therefore it must be fact." going on, its making my head hurt.

[mpc755]

There is a lot of "I read something that seems to make sense to me therefore it must be fact." going on, its making my head hurt.

To summarize:

In a boat double slit experiment the boat always travels through a single slit and the bow wave passes through both.

In a double slit experiment the particle always travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

Details:

When the wave in the aether exits the slits it creates wave interference. When 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 exiting a single slit destroys the cohesion between the particle and its associated wave and the particle is no longer guided by the wave at that moment. That's why when you detect the particle exiting a slit it no longer creates an interference pattern. The particle will eventually regain its cohesion with its associated wave, however, by this point there is no wave interference to alter its course.

Edited October 15, 2015 by mpc755

[mpc755]

okaaaaay

Just trying to help get the big picture across.

The following is the big picture:

The aether is the mass which fills the space unoccupied by particles of matter and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

Wave-particle duality is a moving particle and it's associated wave in the aether.

What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment, the aether.

Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality, both are waves in the aether.

Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.

[problemecium]

This is relevant:

[mpc755]

This is relevant:

That video does not discuss wave-particle duality correctly.

[Z-Man]

You are able to understand in a boat double slit experiment the boat travels through a single slit even when you close your eyes.

It's no different for the particle in a double slit experiment.

Wrong. Very different. In your boat experiment, you do not observe an interference pattern. * In the particle experiment, you usually do. Unless, as Starhawk points out, you modify the experiment to find out which slit the particle went through, then the interference pattern vanishes.

*: It is, of course, in principle possible to set up a double slit experiments with boats where you do observe an interference pattern. But not if your setup includes a warm human standing by the slits who chooses to observe the boat go through or not by having his eyes open or closed.

[mpc755]

Wrong. Very different. In your boat experiment, you do not observe an interference pattern. * In the particle experiment, you usually do. Unless, as Starhawk points out, you modify the experiment to find out which slit the particle went through, then the interference pattern vanishes.

*: It is, of course, in principle possible to set up a double slit experiments with boats where you do observe an interference pattern. But not if your setup includes a warm human standing by the slits who chooses to observe the boat go through or not by having his eyes open or closed.

It's an analogy. The main point being the boat always travels through a single slit and the bow wave passes through both. If the boat was made such that it was pushing its bow wave out ahead of it and the bow wave exited the slits before the boat did the waves exiting both slits could change the direction the boat is traveling. If you place a bunch of pilings at the exits to the slits in order to detect the boat the boat is going to get knocked around by the pilings and it won't matter what the waves exiting both slits do as the pilings are going to have a bigger impact on the boat than the waves do.

The point about closing your eyes is also just to re-iterate that the boat travels through a single slit whether you observe/detect it or not. The boat always travels through a single slit. It is the bow wave that passes through both.

The particle in a double slit experiment travels through a single slit whether you observer/detect it or not. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether that passes through both.

In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path which takes it through one slit. The associated wave in the aether 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. Detecting the particle strongly exiting a single slit destroys the cohesion between the particle and its associated wave in the aether, the particle continues on the trajectory it was traveling and does not form an interference pattern.

The double slit experiment in the following video is not ideal as the direction the particle travels is not being altered by the associated wave exiting both slits. If the particle were moving faster it would have a larger associated wave. It's just a matter of time before the interference pattern associated with walking droplets matches those of particles in double slit experiments.

I recommend watching all of the following video. The part having to do with the double slit experiment is at the 2:43 mark.

[K^2]

In order for there to be conservation of momentum the downconverted photon pair are created with opposite angular momentums.

Each of the pair can determine the position and momentum of the other based upon their own position and momentum.

Entanglement is each of the pair being able to determine the state of the other.

They are not physically or superluminally connected.

Their ability to determine each other's state is non-local.

A better term to describe this is as an 'exposed variable theory'. Each of the pair's state is exposed to one another.

In other words, you've opened up the Wikipedia page on Bell's Inequalities, didn't understand any of it, rambled on with some key words, and decided that it passes for an explanation.

Bell's inequalities were designed specifically to probe whether there is such a thing as "actual location" of a particle, or if QM is actually correct in treating a particle as existing in both states at the same time. They are precisely the way to use statistics between distinguishing particle going through just one slit or both slits.

And we have carried out a great deal of these experiments. And guess what? Particle actually goes through both slits. As verified by actual experiments. This isn't new. We've had theoretical framework for nearly a century, and actual experiments confirming it for at least a couple of decades.

Everything you claim comes from ignorance and total refusal to sit down and actually learn how things work. We have considered possibility of actual particle and wave working together. We have discarded it as incompatible with experiments. Experiments specifically designed to test this sort of thing.

Fact that you don't understand even the theoretical background behind these experiments does not excuse you. In fact, it makes it worse. Your claims have been verified to be false. Please stop pretending that you know something that far better qualified people don't.

[mpc755]

In other words, you've opened up the Wikipedia page on Bell's Inequalities, didn't understand any of it, rambled on with some key words, and decided that it passes for an explanation.

Bell's inequalities were designed specifically to probe whether there is such a thing as "actual location" of a particle, or if QM is actually correct in treating a particle as existing in both states at the same time. They are precisely the way to use statistics between distinguishing particle going through just one slit or both slits.

And we have carried out a great deal of these experiments. And guess what? Particle actually goes through both slits. As verified by actual experiments. This isn't new. We've had theoretical framework for nearly a century, and actual experiments confirming it for at least a couple of decades.

Everything you claim comes from ignorance and total refusal to sit down and actually learn how things work. We have considered possibility of actual particle and wave working together. We have discarded it as incompatible with experiments. Experiments specifically designed to test this sort of thing.

Fact that you don't understand even the theoretical background behind these experiments does not excuse you. In fact, it makes it worse. Your claims have been verified to be false. Please stop pretending that you know something that far better qualified people don't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

"No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics"

Entanglement in de Broglie's double solution theory is non-local, more correctly it's not even a hidden-variable theory, it's an exposed variable theory.

Due to conservation of momentum each of the pair can determine the other's state.

Each of the pair's state is exposed to one another.

'1st place: Shifting the morals of quantum measurement'

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/dec/16/physics-world-reveals-its-top-10-breakthroughs-for-2011

"Using an emerging technique called "weak measurement", the team is the first to track the average paths of single photons passing through a Young's double-slit experiment – something that Steinberg says physicists had been "brainwashed" into thinking is impossible."

'Quantum mechanics rule 'bent' in classic experiment'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13626587

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

'New 'Double Slit' Experiment Skirts Uncertainty Principle'

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-experiment-skirts-uncertainty-principle

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

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. 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.

What waves in a double slit experiment is the aether.

[K^2]

You do have a local hidden variable. Location of a particle. If it's non-local, there is no problem for that location to be both slits. If you insist that it passes through just one slit, it's a local hidden variable. You can't have it both ways.

Of course, if you don't understand what "local" means, it problably doesn't tell you much, huh?

[mpc755]

You do have a local hidden variable. Location of a particle. If it's non-local, there is no problem for that location to be both slits. If you insist that it passes through just one slit, it's a local hidden variable. You can't have it both ways.

Of course, if you don't understand what "local" means, it problably doesn't tell you much, huh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory#Bohm.27s_hidden_variable_theory

"The currently best-known hidden-variable theory, the "causal" interpretation of the physicist and philosopher David Bohm, originally published in 1952, is a non-local hidden variable theory."

In Bohmian mechanics the particle always travels through a single slit and the associated pilot-wave passes through both.

De Broglie's double solution theory is also a non-local hidden variable theory.

In Bohmian mechanics the pilot-wave is the wave-function wave.

In de Broglie's double solution theory there are two waves. There is the wave-function wave which is statistical, non-physical and is used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments. There is also a physical wave in a hidden subquantic medium which guides the particle.

[K^2]

This model was bad when it was proposed, for reasons cited. Since then, it has been thoroughly discredited. The view of pilot wave being the non-local hidden variable only works if you presume measurements to be these magical state collapses that the original, 1930's formulation of QM had. In modern QM, interaction is part of the Hamiltonian. It's the only way to properly describe the measurement. So the only way you get results identical to experimental observation is if pilot-wave interacts with the detector, not the particle. In which case, the position of the particle goes back to being a local hidden variable.

If this was not the case, interference would NOT disappear when you take the measurement in one of the slits. The detector HAS to change the pattern of the pilot-wave for interference to disappear. And now we're back to the theory breaking Bell's Inequality.

You really can't have it both ways. Either particle is the observed object, and pilot-wave is hidden, in which case interference pattern will show up regardless of whether you make the measurement. Or particle is hidden and local, violating Bell's Inequalities. Feel free to choose either option, since they both tell you the hypothesis is completely wrong and inconsistent with experimental evidence.

[mpc755]

Which is why I'm not discussing pilot-wave theory. I'm discussing de Broglie's double solution theory.

Pilot-wave theory: wave-function wave is pilot-wave.

De Broglie's double solution theory: wave-function wave is statisical non-physical and used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments. There is a physical wave in a hidden subquantic medium which guides the particle.

[K^2]

You can call it whatever you like. If it is responsible for interference pattern on the screen, it has to be the thing that interacts with the detector. Particle has nothing to do with this interaction, and is just a hidden parameter in your hypothesis. A totally unnecessary one, I might add, since it never interacts with anything, and just happens to go to where the interaction happened.

Either way, the delocalized portion is not hidden. It's the actual thing that interacts with the detector. Again, if this wasn't the case, the interference patterns caused by non-local interactions would not disappear. And you are back to two options, either you aren't replicating the double-slit experiment, or the local information about "actual particle" location is the only hidden variable, and you are violating Bell's Theorem.

We have decades of experiments specifically designed to demonstrate that the only physical, interacting representation of the "particle" is non-local. That it is a field. No local component can exist. Hidden or otherwise. Which means that it is absolutely impossible for particle to go through just one slit.

[mpc755]

You can call it whatever you like. If it is responsible for interference pattern on the screen, it has to be the thing that interacts with the detector. Particle has nothing to do with this interaction, and is just a hidden parameter in your hypothesis. A totally unnecessary one, I might add, since it never interacts with anything, and just happens to go to where the interaction happened.

Either way, the delocalized portion is not hidden. It's the actual thing that interacts with the detector. Again, if this wasn't the case, the interference patterns caused by non-local interactions would not disappear. And you are back to two options, either you aren't replicating the double-slit experiment, or the local information about "actual particle" location is the only hidden variable, and you are violating Bell's Theorem.

We have decades of experiments specifically designed to demonstrate that the only physical, interacting representation of the "particle" is non-local. That it is a field. No local component can exist. Hidden or otherwise. Which means that it is absolutely impossible for particle to go through just one slit.

NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION by LOUIS DE BROGLIE

“Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of [the wave-function wave], arise from the interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium†which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty spaceâ€Â.â€Â

The “subquantic medium†is the aether.

‘Fluid mechanics suggests alternative to quantum orthodoxy’

http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/fluid-systems-quantum-mechanics-0912

“The fluidic pilot-wave system is also chaotic. It’s impossible to measure a bouncing droplet’s position accurately enough to predict its trajectory very far into the future. But in a recent series of papers, Bush, MIT professor of applied mathematics Ruben Rosales, and graduate students Anand Oza and Dan Harris applied their pilot-wave theory to show how chaotic pilot-wave dynamics leads to the quantumlike statistics observed in their experiments.â€Â

A “fluidic pilot-wave system†is the aether.

‘When Fluid Dynamics Mimic Quantum Mechanics’

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729111934.htm

“If you have a system that is deterministic and is what we call in the business ‘chaotic,’ or sensitive to initial conditions, sensitive to perturbations, then it can behave probabilistically,†Milewski continues. “Experiments like this weren’t available to the giants of quantum mechanics. They also didn’t know anything about chaos. Suppose these guys  who were puzzled by why the world behaves in this strange probabilistic way  actually had access to experiments like this and had the knowledge of chaos, would they have come up with an equivalent, deterministic theory of quantum mechanics, which is not the current one? That’s what I find exciting from the quantum perspective.â€Â

What waves in a double slit experiment is the aether.

[K^2]

Who cares what you call the thing that "waves"? Is it local? No, because it has interference properties. Is that the thing that interacts with detector? Yes, because otherwise interference wouldn't go away when detector detects the particle passing through it. So really, what we are detecting is the passage of that wave. The "particle"? We don't even care. It doesn't interact with anything, but if you insist that it's there, it's a violation of Bell's Inequalities. Again, you can't have it both ways.

And if you spend just a little bit of time actually studying the subject, instead of parroting quotes from all sorts of sources without understanding as much as a single formula, maybe then you'd have a chance to understand some of it. But you're not even making an effort. Sit down and derive interference, at least. With any model. Something other than just throwing around quotes you don't understand.