In a double slit experiment it is the dark matter that waves

[mpc755]

"... as perhaps a yet unmeasurable change to this volume occurs, and also why quantum entanglement works."

Wait, what? Please clarify your perceived reasoning supporting how Quantum Entanglement works? ...I have to hear this...if successful, you easily qualify for review for The Nobel Prize...

'The pilot-wave dynamics of walking droplets'

At the 2:00 minute mark it discusses walking droplets as an exposed variable theory.

I think the whole notion of non-locality and hidden variables is a red herring.

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

Each of the downconverted photons "knows" their own position and momentum from the time of their creation. With this information, and due to conservation of momentum, they are able to determine the position and momentum of the pair.

It doesn't matter what is hidden, or not, to us.

What is important is, due to conservation of momentum, at the time of detection of one of the pair the position and momentum of the other is "knowable".

They are not physically or superluminally connected.

They are connected as at the time of their detection, each of the pair "knows" the position and momentum of the other.

 

[bnjohanson]

'The pilot-wave dynamics of walking droplets'

At the 2:00 minute mark it discusses walking droplets as an exposed variable theory.

I think the whole notion of non-locality and hidden variables is a red herring.

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

Each of the downconverted photons "knows" their own position and momentum from the time of their creation. With this information, and due to conservation of momentum, they are able to determine the position and momentum of the pair.

It doesn't matter what is hidden, or not, to us.

What is important is, due to conservation of momentum, at the time of detection of one of the pair the position and momentum of the other is "knowable".

They are not physically or superluminally connected.

They are connected as at the time of their detection, each of the pair "knows" the position and momentum of the other.

I see what you are saying...and I understand from the measurement/observational standpoint the results....but what and how is "it knowable" to the particles themselves and how is it their spin corresponds instantaneously despite their distance....and 100% of the time? ...and if what you are saying, this is preconceived at the point of them becoming defined as pairs, ...how is this preconceived? If I am missing something i.e. via your point of this being supported by the conservation of momentum, I apologize; but I have been stirring over this forever and have up to this point "fear" that this principal of Quantum Entanglement opens-up an entirely new Pandora's Box not only in terms of the affect of consciousness from the point of observation/measurement, but the plethora of potential other sources that cause for these affects, whether inter-dimensional, something to do with "God', etc.....

 

[bnjohanson]

I see what you are saying...and I understand from the measurement/observational standpoint the results....but what and how is "it knowable" to the particles themselves and how is it their spin corresponds instantaneously despite their distance....and 100% of the time? ...and if what you are saying, this is preconceived at the point of them becoming defined as pairs, ...how is this preconceived? If I am missing something i.e. via your point of this being supported by the conservation of momentum, I apologize; but I have been stirring over this forever and have up to this point "fear" that this principal of Quantum Entanglement opens-up an entirely new Pandora's Box not only in terms of the affect of consciousness from the point of observation/measurement, but the plethora of potential other sources that cause for these affects, whether inter-dimensional, something to do with "God', etc.....

...or maybe I am over-complicating this and must accept this as features of the pairs at the point when they are created with opposite angular momentums.

 

[bnjohanson]

...or maybe I am over-complicating this and must accept this as features of the pairs at the point when they are created with opposite angular momentums.

...but wait a second, this also has to support their change in spin and corresponding instantaneously regardless of distance and this "knowable" feature is transmitted faster than the speed of light as well.

 

[mpc755]

I see what you are saying...and I understand from the measurement/observational standpoint the results....but what and how is "it knowable" to the particles themselves and how is it their spin corresponds instantaneously despite their distance....and 100% of the time? ...and if what you are saying, this is preconceived at the point of them becoming defined as pairs, ...how is this preconceived? If I am missing something i.e. via your point of this being supported by the conservation of momentum, I apologize; but I have been stirring over this forever and have up to this point "fear" that this principal of Quantum Entanglement opens-up an entirely new Pandora's Box not only in terms of the affect of consciousness from the point of observation/measurement, but the plethora of potential other sources that cause for these affects, whether inter-dimensional, something to do with "God', etc.....

The spin corresponds due to conservation of momentum.

 

[mpc755]

...but wait a second, this also has to support their change in spin and corresponding instantaneously regardless of distance and this "knowable" feature is transmitted faster than the speed of light as well.

Nothing is transmitted. Due to conservation of momentum they are created with opposite angular momemtums. This "knowledge" does not have to be transmitted. It is already known by each of the pair. Each of the pair know their state so they know the state of each other.

The pair are not superluminally or physically connected. They are connected as they know each others state. They know each others state due to conservation of momentum and their knowing of their own state.

You have a pair of quarters. They are always detected as opposite. You toss the quarters. It doesn't matter if those quarters spin for the next 100 light years. If you detect one as a head that quarter "knows" the other will be a tail.

 

[bnjohanson]

The spin corresponds due to conservation of momentum.

...am I incorrect in that if one of the particle's spin of the pair is reversed than the other particle reverses instantaneously as well...all of this post its original corresponding to the pair's conservation of momentum?

 

[bnjohanson]

...am I incorrect in that if one of the particle's spin of the pair is reversed than the other particle reverses instantaneously as well...all of this post its original corresponding to the pair's conservation of momentum?

thanks.

...I am the typical sad story that wishes I had the insight to study this early on instead of striving to do so now at 43-years old and as a mere hobbyist.

 

[mpc755]

...am I incorrect in that if one of the particle's spin of the pair is reversed than the other particle reverses instantaneously as well...all of this post its original corresponding to the pair's conservation of momentum?

No, if you reverse the spin of one it does not reverse the spin of the other. They are not physically or superluminally connected. Due to conservation of momentum they are created with opposite polarizations. They are propagating as exact opposites. The mathematics of quantum mechanics applies to the pair as they are propagating with opposite angular momentums.

 

[bnjohanson]

No, if you reverse the spin of one it does not reverse the spin of the other. They are not physically or superluminally connected. Due to conservation of momentum they are created with opposite polarizations. They are propagating as exact opposites. The mathematics of quantum mechanics applies to the pair as they are propagating with opposite angular momentums.

well now all of a sudden, I have learned quite a bit here just via this page...thanks again.

 

[mpc755]

well now all of a sudden, I have learned quite a bit here just via this page...thanks again.

This is my understanding of entanglement and downconverted photon pairs. It is not the mainstream physics understanding.

 

[mpc755]

What you see in the following image is the state of displacement of the aether.

What you see in the following image is deformed spacetime.

The caption in the image is incorrect.

 

[Steevo]

I'm sure you know more than NASA.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis

And so you understand completely, when the double slit experiment is performed, with sensors on, but no recording of the event takes place interference patters still emerge, wholly refuting your weak detection.

http://phys.org/news/2014-08-duality-principle-safe-apparent-violation.html#inlRlv

 

[mpc755]

I'm sure you know more than NASA.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis

No one said anything about aether drag.

In the following video what is referred to as frame dragging is the state of displacement of the aether.

What is referred to as honey in the following article is the aether. What is referred to as the swirl in the honey is the state of displacement of the aether.

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."

And so you understand completely, when the double slit experiment is performed, with sensors on, but no recording of the event takes place interference patters still emerge, wholly refuting your weak detection.

http://phys.org/news/2014-08-duality-principle-safe-apparent-violation.html#inlRlv

'1st place: Shifting the morals of quantum measurement'
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article...rld-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/a...-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.

 

[Steevo]

If you look at the date, 2011, and now peer review of their experiments, result in, they used biased data. Congratulations, many scientists bias data to fit their hypothesis, they have their few moments of glory and then when reviewed by intellectually equal peers it all falls apart.


Logic dictates that if a particle, or particles interact with "aether" such as you have hypothesized, the aether will gain momentum, the same as a wave will, so the exchange of energy must be able to be calculated, and would cause a slowing of all light after it leaves its origin, but we know this not to be the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect

I use gyroscopes with accelerometers to perform inertial guidance, and if aether altered the state of the photons traveling in the ring instead of frame reference we wouldn't be able to use such a simple device to perform such accurate calculations.

 

[mpc755]

If you look at the date, 2011, and now peer review of their experiments, result in, they used biased data. Congratulations, many scientists bias data to fit their hypothesis, they have their few moments of glory and then when reviewed by intellectually equal peers it all falls apart.

Point to an article which says they used biased data. And the article you referred to has nothing to do with the Steinberg experiments.

 

[Steevo]

Point to an article which says they used biased data. And the article you referred to has nothing to do with the Steinberg experiments.

"In their 2012 version of the famous Young two-split experiment, Ralf Menzel and his colleagues at the University of Potsdam simultaneously determined a photon's path and observed high contrast interference fringes created by the interaction of waves from the two slits"

"This phenomenon, called biased sampling, occurs when certain measurements of a system are selected with a higher probability than others, and that subset of measurements is mistakenly taken to be representative of the entire system. In this case, the high visibility photon subsystem was more likely to be sampled. When Boyd's team "fairly" sampled each variable—giving each subsystem an equal opportunity to be detected and sampled—the problem went away and the results were consistent with the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics.

So, same experiment, same result, difference is the biased selection, or conditioned data.


You are seriously inept if you can't read and understand these basic words. Plus, color. If photons were merely particles, we wouldn't have color. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ems1.html#c1 unless....we have billions of different photon particles for each color of light, and billions of them all travel together so close, like a bromance of particles, and then when they hit a prism they all split up into their happy gay colored groups and continue to all be guided by non-interfering guide waves that (have no mass and no interaction of energy except the part where it appears and travels at the speed of light and influences the photon thus violating the conservation of momentum) allow them to segregate, since that is what all photons want, color segregation, it has been deemed so by the alpha Photon, Phitler. Its black.

 

[mpc755]

"In their 2012 version of the famous Young two-split experiment, Ralf Menzel and his colleagues at the University of Potsdam simultaneously determined a photon's path and observed high contrast interference fringes created by the interaction of waves from the two slits"

"This phenomenon, called biased sampling, occurs when certain measurements of a system are selected with a higher probability than others, and that subset of measurements is mistakenly taken to be representative of the entire system. In this case, the high visibility photon subsystem was more likely to be sampled. When Boyd's team "fairly" sampled each variable—giving each subsystem an equal opportunity to be detected and sampled—the problem went away and the results were consistent with the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics.

So, same experiment, same result, difference is the biased selection, or conditioned data.


You are seriously inept if you can't read and understand these basic words. Plus, color. If photons were merely particles, we wouldn't have color. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ems1.html#c1 unless....we have billions of different photon particles for each color of light, and billions of them all travel together so close, like a bromance of particles, and then when they hit a prism they all split up into their happy gay colored groups and continue to all be guided by non-interfering guide waves that (have no mass and no interaction of energy except the part where it appears and travels at the speed of light and influences the photon thus violating the conservation of momentum) allow them to segregate, since that is what all photons want, color segregation, it has been deemed so by the alpha Photon, Phitler. Its black.

Steinberg and his group is in Canada.

 

[Steevo]

So the key is maple syrup and being jewish.


No wonder different results were found by those damn Germans!!! Jew haters!!!!! Quick make a Hitler reference before someone critically critiques his work and finds flaws.......

 

[mpc755]

So the key is maple syrup and being jewish.


No wonder different results were found by those damn Germans!!! Jew haters!!!!! Quick make a Hitler reference before someone critically critiques his work and finds flaws.......

When you have evidence which refutes the Steinberg experiments, which are the ones I am referring to, then post it.

 

[Steevo]

When you have evidence which refutes the Steinberg experiments, which are the ones I am referring to, then post it.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...nbergs-uncertainty-principle-is-proven-false/

"Don't get too excited: the uncertainty principle still stands, says Steinberg: “In the end, there's no way you can know [both quantum states] accurately at the same time.” But the experiment shows that the act of measurement isn't always what causes the uncertainty. “If there's already a lot of uncertainty in the system, then there doesn't need to be any noise from the measurement at all,” he says." 2012

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=9ecdb02c4e40ce048e3550ac189596e3&t=280132

Plus all the information posted here. Cause you know, I read it and you just keep posting the same shit over and over, without actually showing a understanding of how and what is happening to the photon. Which has to interact with the aether, but can;t due to it being a violation of known laws, and the aether either being a particle soup and if it interacts it has to move, but if it isn't moving it can;t be interacting.

But you know, I will watch as people probably smarter, much smarter than I continue to learn new things and you are stuck on this.

 

[mpc755]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...nbergs-uncertainty-principle-is-proven-false/

"Don't get too excited: the uncertainty principle still stands, says Steinberg: “In the end, there's no way you can know [both quantum states] accurately at the same time.” But the experiment shows that the act of measurement isn't always what causes the uncertainty. “If there's already a lot of uncertainty in the system, then there doesn't need to be any noise from the measurement at all,” he says." 2012

Which doesn't refute weak measurement.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=9ecdb02c4e40ce048e3550ac189596e3&t=280132

Plus all the information posted here. Cause you know, I read it and you just keep posting the same shit over and over, without actually showing a understanding of how and what is happening to the photon. Which has to interact with the aether, but can;t due to it being a violation of known laws, and the aether either being a particle soup and if it interacts it has to move, but if it isn't moving it can;t be interacting.

But you know, I will watch as people probably smarter, much smarter than I continue to learn new things and you are stuck on this.

In the following article the aether has mass and is what waves in a double slit experiment.

'From the Newton's laws to motions of the fluid and superfluid vacuum: vortex tubes, rings, and others'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3900

 

[D007]

I tried to understand this but all I did was end up doing one of these. .

I get the gist though I think. DM is a wave, not a particle?
I've always thought about all things that exist, in more of a fluid world, rather than a particle world.
Like how a lot of people think air is a gas, when it is technically a liquid.

Kind of like that?
I tried..lol

Neat topic anyway.

And when it is observed it does what to the aether waves? Creating a theory means looking for reasons its wrong, not, how can we make the data fit our theory.

Lol tell that to string theory. XD

 

[mpc755]

I tried to understand this but all I did was end up doing one of these. .

I get the gist though I think. DM is a wave, not a particle?
I've always thought about all things that exist, in more of a fluid world, rather than a particle world.
Like how a lot of people think air is a gas, when it is technically a liquid.

Kind of like that?
I tried..lol

Neat topic anyway.

An analogy would be a boat and its bow wave. In a boat double slit experiment the boat travels through a single slit and the bow wave passes through both. If the bow wave were far enough in front of the boat it would exit both slits prior to the boat exiting a single slit. As the bow wave exited both slits it could alter the course the boat travels. This would be the bow wave guiding the boat. If you placed a bunch of pilings at the exits to the slits in order to detect the boat the boat would get knocked around by the pilings, lose its cohesion with its bow wave, and continue on the trajectory it was traveling.

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path through a single slit and 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. The particle will create an interference pattern when its associated wave is allowed to guide it. Strongly detecting the particle exiting a single slit destroys the 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.

In the following article aether has mass and is what waves in a double slit experiment.

'From the Newton's laws to motions of the fluid and superfluid vacuum: vortex tubes, rings, and others'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3900

Watch the following video starting at 2:40 to see a double slit experiment. It's not a great example of a double slit experiment as it is not the associated wave exiting both slits which guides the particle. However, it is a good example of a double slit experiment where the particle always travels through a single slit and the particle has an associated physical wave.

 

[mpc755]

'Pilot-Wave Hydrodynamics
John W.M. Bush'
http://math.mit.edu/~bush/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Bush-ARFM-2015.pdf

"Finally, as concerns my alignment vis-a-vis quantum interpretations, I remain steadfastly agnostic; however, if forced to choose, I would be inclined to back, by virtue of its inclusivity, the logical extension of the Many-Worlds interpretation (Everett 1957), the Many-Many-Worlds interpretation, according to which each quantum interpretation is realized in some edition of the multimultiverse, and there is even one world in which there is only one world, a world in which quantum statistics are underlaid by chaotic pilot-wave dynamics, there is no philosophical schism between large and small, and beables be."

'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 [wave-funciton 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 space"."