Masses of common quarks are revealed

..so why these huge ratios between masses?..it is unclear why quarks have mass at all.

The question is, why they shouldn't - if vacuum density is some 10e+92 kg/m^3 (approximately the third power of Planck constant) by quantum mechanics. In some theories universe is formed by interior of black hole - such huge density of vacuum could explain mass of whatever observable particles/fluctuation in it.

Of course they have mass. pretty much everything has mass; if you can name it, it should have mass. If you can't name it, then it does not exist. How would a black hole be possible unless this is true.
If there are particles not affected by gravity floating around, would we not be looking at a large discrepancy??? hmm...

hard2grep: photons and gluons are massless.

Well, we can ask, if something massive (like you or me) could even observe/interact with something non massive (Simmillia simillibus observatur). Gluons cannot have zero rest mass, because strong nuclear force is not of infinite distance scope. If I remember well, rest mass of gluons is estimated to 0.14 GeV.

A value of about 1.5 +-0.3GeV for rest mass of gluons was derived from experimental value of a gluon condensate in a recent calculation of dynamical mass generation in QCD.

http://www.iop.or...23/1/004

What are you guys (Alizee and hard2grep) ? Theoretical physics professors ? :-)

Zero rest mass of photon is very speculative. Special relativity has nothing to say about it, because it doesn't recognize/predict photons at all - photon is concept of quantum mechanics. Speed of harmonic light waves shouldn't be confused with speed of photons, i.e. particle quanta. The ability of photons to mediate EM interaction is usually limited to few hundred meters due the decoherence. I'm ninja of physics.

Special relativity does say that a particle with non-zero rest mass can never reach the speed of light. So light can't have mass. Einstein described the duality of light in 1905, which he got the Nobel prize for in 1919

Blah blah blah if photons have no mass how can they exist yadda yadda yadda...

I love it when high school drop-outs with no background in physics try to explain what the real scientists should have said.

So light can't have mass.

Only pure, harmonic light wave (which is infinite in size) cannot have mass. The rest mass of photon could be estimated by using of quantum mechanics under assumption, the de Broglie wavelength of photon is so large, then the photon cannot move in visible Universe. This value is incredibly low, though and it can be estimated by using of E=h*ny formula to some 10E-61 kg. It can still result into observable violation of Compton law at Planck scale (pair formation) and into light speed invariance violation at cosmic scale (for example by polarization of microwaves by vacuum and by dispersion of gamma rays, as observed by GZK limit or by MAGIC telescope during Mkn 501 flash, for example).

TheWalrus: does energy have mass?
Why couldn't EMR have a rest mass but no mass when traveling at the speed of light?

The experimental evidence for non-zero rest mass of photons is quite extensive today. For example, if photons would be completely massless, they couldn't interact mutually like particles. But from high-power laser experiments follows, the crossection of mutual photon-photon interactions is nonzero.

http://adsabs.har...96h3602L

The effective rest mass of photon could become even higher (~10E-17 kg), if we consider, the photons, whose wavelength is longer then human scale would disappear in the noise of cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, where only entangled light waves can spread effectively. In addition, photons of wavelength larger the CMB wavelength scale (~1.9 cm) are behaving rather like weak holes in the ocean of CMB photons, so they should be expelled by them in gravity field, instead like tachyons. This is why photons of TV or radio waves cannot exist, for example - the photons of CMB noise would disintegrate them. Only photons of cosmic microwave radiation follows relativity well, because they cannot be distinguished from CMB background field - so that microwave light always spreads like harmonic wave through it.

Therefore the rest mass of photon is rather complex question in advanced theories.

So light can't have mass.

If you excite atom nuclei by X-ray photon, then the excited atom would become heavier by E=mc^2 equation, which can be detected for example by atomic mass spectrometry. This could serve as an experimental evidence, photon really transfers mass (i.e. matter) - not just momentum.

The most commonly quoted upper limit on the photon mass is ~10^-14eV (~10^-50kg), though other considerations place an upper limit of 3*10^-27eV (10^-63kg).

Please also note that there is a difference between rest mass and effective mass. Rest mass is the mass (energy) that an object takes on when it is not moving. Effective mass is E/c^2=[m^2+(p/c)^2]^(1/2). Photons, as far as we can tell have energy E=pc, and if you have a non-moving photon, you don't actually have a photon.

The question you should be asking about photons and mass is whether or not photons can have a gravitational effect on matter?

For example if you have two one kilo mirrors separated by one meter, and a bunch of photons bouncing between them with an energy equivalent to one kilo of matter, how much does the whole thing weigh when put on a scale?

2 kilos or 3 kilos?

Alternatively if you have a super laser emit 1 kilogram worth of photons, your laser just decreased in mass by one kilo, resulting in a change in the curvature of spacetime.

Did the laser just emit a buttload of gravitons along with the photons? Or did the photons emit gravitons as they were escaping the laser? Did a strong gravity wave just leave the laser along with the light? Or is the "gravity wave" trapped inside the photons?

Maybe one of you guys can give me an adequate explanation.

Einstein didn't get the Nobel prize for relativity. He got it for the photoelectric effect

All this talk about "mass", though obviously none of the talkers has a clue, what it really represents..

Mass can be looked upon as "energy density". And therefor - anything that has energy potential, has a "mass potential" aswell.

A photon is an energy carrier (eg. has energy potential), so in this regard, it has to have "mass", sort of..

A gluon is a "virtual particle", virtualized (postulated) to fill a gap. So wether it has mass or not, is - at least for now - just subject of mere speculation.

This should answer a couple of the questions posted above aswell :)

The question you should be asking about photons and mass is whether or not photons can have a gravitational effect on matter?

Yes. Photon energy is part of the gravitational energy-stress tensor, and induces gravitational effects on matter as well as on other photons.

All this talk about "mass", though obviously none of the talkers has a clue, what it really represents..

Err... I clearly went to lengths to differentiate between rest mass (which photons do not have) and effective mass (m=E/c^2).

If you excite atom nuclei by X-ray photon, then the excited atom would become heavier by E=mc^2 equation, which can be detected for example by atomic mass spectrometry. This could serve as an experimental evidence, photon really transfers mass (i.e. matter) - not just momentum.

Only the part of the photon(s) which gets "captured", eg. not reflected/radiated, etc. :)

Only the part of the photon(s) which gets "captured", eg. not reflected/radiated, etc. :)

This is an obtuse way of putting it. Photons are, by their very definition, quantized with respect to their interaction with charged particles. A photon isn't made up of 'parts,' so to speak, and can't get 'partially absorbed.'

Err... I clearly went to lengths to differentiate between rest mass (which photons do not have) and effective mass (m=E/c^2).

Yea yea.. You are clearly one of the "brighter ones" in here :) Though, you are partially wrong with that statement aswell :-P

Even though photons do not directly exhibit rest mass, they still have what I would call a "rest-mass potential". As soon as they get captured (by space-curvature, eg. black hole), this potential will automaticaly and directly contribute to the rest mass of the captor.

And apart from that, I don't really like definitions based on the "planck stuff", as they tend to (quite literally) "break apart" at small enough scales :-P

A photon isn't made up of 'parts,' so to speak, and can't get 'partially absorbed.'

That's the planck stuff I was talking about above ^^ Funny :)

Photons are, by their very definition, quantized with respect to their interaction with charged particles.

Guess we both would be quite surprised, how far that "very definition" is, from what the very definition will be in a couple of decades/centuries :)

But even this definition has allready some very truth to it - it means, that if you have an infinitesimally small "charged particle", then you would have infinitesimally small photons/quanta as well :)

Zero rest mass of photon is very speculative. Special relativity has nothing to say about it, because it doesn't recognize/predict photons at all - photon is concept of quantum mechanics.

Of course special relativity cannot predict it's postulates : http://en.wikiped...ativity, that the speed of light is absolute.
Also, since there is no rest frame of the photon, you cannot define a rest mass in the same sense.

The photon is not just a concept of quantum mechanics. The photon concept is a result of the combination of the classical equations of electrodynamics with quantization. Also, with just classical electrodynamics, you CAN show that the statistics of light trapped in a box is the same as that of trapped particles of some average energy.

Speed of harmonic light waves shouldn't be confused with speed of photons

A harmonic wave is equivalent to a delocalized photon.
they both obey maxwell's equations and hence have the same speed

The experimental evidence for non-zero rest mass of photons is quite extensive today. For example, if photons would be completely massless, they couldn't interact mutually like particles. But from high-power laser experiments follows, the crossection of mutual photon-photon interactions is nonzero.

http://adsabs.har...96h3602L

The standard model demands that carriers of forces with infinite range have a zero rest mass. This includes photons( carriers of the the electromagnetic force), and gravitons. While its possible that the standard model is incorrect, it has been experimentally verified to so many decimal places, its pretty unlikely in such a fundamental assumption.

Simmillia simillibus observatur

Which textbooks have you been reading? Not only is your understanding of physics a Greek catastrophe but also your Latin. "Similia similibus curentur" (yes, it's a Latin plural) is the credo/slogan of homeopathy, i.e. of pseudoscience, quackery, and "cruel deception".
http://en.wikiped...meopathy

What are you guys (Alizee and hard2grep) ? Theoretical physics professors ? :-)

Obviously one guy with several accounts - formerly seneca/broglia, now shockr/hard2grep. Have a look at those who permanently rate him high.

The only scientists I do respect is the ones that believe in Christ!!!

A light wave can only have mass when it has inertia. Inertia means that there must be an inertial reference frame within which a light wave is stationary. Thus, the stationary light waves within a cavity (black-body radiation) all add mass to the cavity: This mass cannot come from "photon-particles" flying around with speed c within the cavity, since such entities do not have inertia.

When an atomic electron absorbs a "photon-wave", this wave collapses and its speed becomes zero relative to the inerial refrence frame of the atom. The "photon-wave" thus entangles and add mass to the original electron wave, which then has to morph into a higher energy wave. This morphing has erroneously been called a quantum jump.

This mechanism also happens when a light pulse is stopped within Bose-Einstein Condensate; and can only happen when the matter wave is a single holistic wave that is in instantaneous contact with itself over its whole intensity distribution in three-dimensional space.

is the credo/slogan of homeopathy

The fact, something follows from Google in the same query doesn't mean, it's the same thing. It's different slogan, which has nothing to do with homeopathy. For example alchemists used the slogan "Similia similibus solvuntur", which is used in organic chemistry up to this day.

The Standard Model has nothing to do with such difference, as it deals with much higher energies inside of atom nuclei, for which some subtle difference in photon rest mass is completelly neglibible (QCD QED).

"ZeroX" stands for zero-day account, I assume? Obviously, you shared your physics (and English) textbooks with the seneca-broglia complex.
On topic: No, the standard model of particle physics does not deal exclusively with higher energies.

P.S.: Well, he just deleted his comment. :)

So many comments posted, I have a hard time even to scroll down the page. Guys, We are yet to perform and analyse the experiments proposed in LHC. Wait for the results. Please. Higgs Boson, the mass giving god particle is yet to reveal itself.

..the photon is not just a concept of quantum mechanics. The photon concept is a result of the combination of the classical equations of electrodynamics with quantization...

Well, and the quantization is just a concept of quantum mechanics... again. The photon concept doesn't require classical electrodynamics at all, it can be derived solely from quantum mechanics as a particle mediating quanta of energy.

A harmonic wave is equivalent to a delocalized photon

Delocalized photon is an oxymoron, as such photon would fill whole observable universe. And vice-versa: when wave is confined into limited space, it cannot be harmonic anymore. You're just confusing well understood concepts.

..the standard model of particle physics does not deal exclusively with higher energies..

I didn't say, it deals EXCLUSIVELLY with high energies, I just said, the rest mass of photon at range 10-62 kg cannot affect Standard Model predictions in measurable way, so such assumption cannot be interpreted as a fundamental flaw of SM. Such rest mass could affect the photon behavior at cosmic scales, for example.

In adition, the estimation of the rest mass of photon would depend on the fact, whether you're assuming vacuum as a flat 4D space-time or space-time filled by CMB noise (which is effectivelly slightly higher-dimensional). Such curved space-time has non-zero mass/energy density, so that even the photon of rest mass in 10E-17 kg range would spread through it as effectivelly massless particle.

The free quark exists?

Only the heaviest ones and they're unstable - the lifetime of top quark is only in 5E-25 second range.

http://www.scienc...1725.htm

srikkanth kn:

Higgs Boson, the mass giving god particle is yet to reveal itself.

It does not exist but they will probably find it after $20 billion, just as they found the vector bosons.
ZeroX:

Delocalized photon is an oxymoron, as such photon would fill whole observable universe. And vice-versa: when wave is confined into limited space, it cannot be harmonic anymore. You're just confusing well understood concepts.

A harmonic wave's momentum has no uncertainty so that p=k. This is true of all "photons" no matter what their length seems to be to an observer. It is possible because a "photon" has no inertia. Therefore it is in effect infintely long even though it can collapse to seem smaller within the inertial refrence frame of the observer.
Neodim:

The free quark exists?

Not even a confined quark exists. Just like the Higg's boson does not exist. All these "particles" are derived by using nonsense like order parameters and spontaneous symmetry breaking!

A harmonic wave's momentum has no uncertainty so that p=k.

Correction: I meant a COHERENT harmonic wave

No infinite set is compact. If closed and bounded sets (intervals)in a space work for the non-communicative Standard Theory of Particle Physics community, more power to them. :)

Particles that have a lot of mass have a lot of motion at very high velocities. Interesting manifestation of the paradox principle. Very little motion means very stable configuration. Very much high-velocity motion means a great struggle for survival. Less presence - more stable. More presence - less stable.

That works for the higher order elements in the periodic table as well. The most massive elements have the shortest shelf-life.

Particles that have a lot of mass have a lot of motion at very high velocities. Interesting manifestation of the paradox principle. Very little motion means very stable configuration. Very much high-velocity motion means a great struggle for survival. Less presence - more stable. More presence - less stable.

Please stop confusing mass with REST MASS. When talking about the mass of a "particle" it is its rest mass. Any mass above that is a relativistic effect relative to an observer who is not moving with the "particle". It is a kind of REAL illusion; just like the slowing of a clock which does not REALLY happen within the refrence frame within which the clock is actually stationary.

What are you guys (Alizee and hard2grep) ? Theoretical physics professors ? :-)

No, it's one guy/girl with access to a lot of physics papers and a large clipboard by which to copy and paste excerpts that it thinks agree with it's philosophical view of the universe.

Wanna see a trick, ask it to do math.

History learns us, we can develop many math models of the same thing (heliocentric vs. geocentric model of epicycles, for example). I'm just interested about that thing - I don't want to pile another grains into huge landscape of various meaningless math models.

After all, most of people are generally more interested about explanation of reality - just after then about regressions of it (this is the job for small group of specialists). To avoid blind regressions, we are forced to understand the Universe first.

Without it our approach would be similar to attempts to solve homework by random guessing of various combinations of equations - which is the stance, which is usually punished in schools. A good teacher learns the kids to understand problem first.

Scientists who are payed for time rather for real advance in understanding aren't very motivated in such approach in general, because it enables them to maintain their jobs & secrets longer. They're like priests of modern era.

The more math models and various theories about it, the more money of tax payers the privileged members of physical community could ask and share as a whole. No wonder, physicists aren't very motivated in mutual reconciliation of their pet theories - especially when they're not directly involved in it.

Frankly, what these mainstream physicists could really get from introduction of some Theory Of Everything? Most of them would only risk their jobs. This is why they're adhering to their math models so much - it keeps them separated them from the feedback of publicity in similar way, like the usage of Latin words between doctors and lawyers.

Frankly, what these mainstream physicists could really get from introduction of some Theory Of Everything? Most of them would only risk their jobs. This is why they're adhering to their math models so much - it keeps them separated them from the feedback of publicity in similar way, like the usage of Latin words between doctors and lawyers.

Amen. The theoretical physics church-sect has since 1927 become worse than any fundamentalist religion can EVER hope to be. The time has come to clean the rot!

Well, mainstream opponents should reconcile their theories first - or there will be any objective reason for change of situation.

Well, mainstream opponents should reconcile their theories first - or there will be any objective reason for change of situation.

I have done so for 10 years and reconciled my theories to the point of being self-consistent (see my website) but the "practioners" block everything that is not mainstream. They have not learned what Einstein meant when he reponded to the book "100 authorities against Einstein" by saying "why 100 authorities when a single small fact should have been sufficient!"

Try and get these knuckleheads to discuss the single small fact that according to Born's interpretation of the intensity of a wave function the most "probable position" to find an electron is usually where the wave function has zero intensity! No ways will they even consider the implications of such a single small fact!

So stop spouting claptrap XeroX

I have done so for 10 years and reconciled my theories to the point of being self-consistent (see my website) but the "practioners" block everything that is not mainstream. ...

Try and get these knuckleheads to discuss the single small fact that according to Born's interpretation of the intensity of a wave function the most "probable position" to find an electron is usually where the wave function has zero intensity!

? One can construct wavefunctions without ever bringing them into a spatial representation. And this is no less legitimate a way of doing physics so long as one can still make predictions that are testable. What a thing `is, in and of itself,' is not the fundamental question in physics. The fundamental question is how to create the most complete and objective (in the sense of being quantitative) description of the universe. How one interprets those descriptions is a matter of preference.

Though I would like to see your website, if you want to post it or PM a link.

..according to Born's interpretation of the intensity of a wave function the most "probable position" to find an electron is usually where the wave function has zero intensity..

Really? Can you demonstrate it?

Really? Can you demonstrate it?

It is simple to do it by yourself. The simplest calculation is to derive standing Schroedinger waves in a box. The lowest energy one (n=1) has a maximum which corresponds to the most probable position (mpp) of the electron. But when calculating the mpp for n=2 you will find it is at a node where the intensity distribution is zero. This is so for all the solutions for which n is even. Another interesting calculation is to calculate the mpp for n=3. It corresponds to a maximum: BUT there are now THREE maxima with the same intensity: So why should only one of them be the mpp? It is of course a mockery to derive Heisenberg's "uncertainty" for position around a mpp of zero or one for which there are equal probabilities at other positions. Why this simple fact has not been picked up over the past 80 years astonishes me.

What mortifies me is that I have accepted it for many years myself!

The fundamental question is how to create the most complete and objective (in the sense of being quantitative) description of the universe. How one interprets those descriptions is a matter of preference.

Unfortunately this is the inheritance the Copenhagenists left us, with which I disagree fully. Why would you follow this route if you can interpret your description of the universe to be comaptible with cause and effect and classical mechanics?

Though I would like to see your website, if you want to post it or PM a link.

A clue: Note that my e-mail is at cathodixx (note the double x, which means two surfaces)

there are now THREE maxima with the same intensity: So why should only one of them be the mpp?

It doesn't - in quantum mechanics all three maxima together have the same probability of particle - from this the various shapes of orbital lobes follow. The same result follows from time independent Schroedinger equation, which you told us, you're respecting - or not?

http://tinyurl.com/2wr64fq

I'm not a physicist so please don't ridicule me for asking the following question.

The article states that the quarks measured were those comprising protons. At the same time, it states (third paragraph from the end) that "Quarks have an astonishingly wide range of masses. The lightest is the up quark, which is 470 times lighter than a proton. The heaviest, the t quark, is 180 times heavier than a proton -- or almost as heavy as an entire atom of lead."

My question is therefore how a quark can have a greater mass than a proton, much less an entire atom of a heavy element.

The article states too, the question of these huge ratios between masses is one of the big mysteries in theoretical physics right now.

Dense aether theory considers vacuum as a sort of dense supercritical fluid, so it can explain such question at least conceptually: inside of such fluid a nested density fluctuations can be observed and the strange and top quarks correspond the various levels of nesting.

http://tinyurl.com/33cvqv6

You can imagine, the density of vacuum is so high, that even vortices of such fluid are behaving like solid particles (a tiny 3D gyroscopes, or something similar) - so these vortex particles can form another generation of fluid with density fluctuations in it and so on, thus forming the three known generations of particles.

These heavy nested vortices are the less stable, the higher the nesting level is, though. We can imagine formation of more stable heavier particles at the core of massive neutron stars, for example.

Another way, how to imagine the formation of nested generations of particles is the concept of elastic urethane mattress at the role of vacuum. If we would jump on such mattress, we create a torsion undulations of it, which are similar to vortex rings in fluid. Such deform explains well the duality of electromagnetic field, because when such mattress collapses, it expand in perpendicular direction.

But when the intensity/frequency of jumping increases, a parasitic vortices are formed, so called Widnall's instability:

http://tinyurl.com/32q5nwl

This is because the inertia of environment, which is rotating in torsion deform, cannot be neglected anymore. If the frequency/energy density of fluctuations increases even more, the another generation of deformations could be formed, which accumulates even higher energy.

So I presume, the particle generations of quarks could be modeled by nested vortex fluctuations of sufficiently dense elastic fluid, supercritical vapor in particular.

It doesn't - in quantum mechanics all three maxima together have the same probability of particle - from this the various shapes of orbital lobes follow. The same result follows from time independent Schroedinger equation, which you told us, you're respecting - or not?

Yes I respect the concept of a time-independent matter-wave but not three or more "uncertainties" per wave. It violates Heisenberg's original postulate. Neither do I respect an "uncertainty" in position around a position at which the wave has ZERO intensity. All harmonic waves have their intensities equal to their energies. So why should a matter-wave be different? The energy of a matter-wave is its mass and its "most probable position" is OBVIOUSLY ITS CENTRE OF MASS.

Please can you for once use your own brain and not post irrelevant references to websites! Or is this just too much for you?

My question is therefore how a quark can have a greater mass than a proton, much less an entire atom of a heavy element.

Congratulations! This is a brilliant question and further proof that we need people like you with common sense to prod the physics community. Except that "quarks" are nonsense the fact is that all so-called "fundamental particles" are excited states of fundamental waves: They are light waves, electron-waves. proton-waves and neutrino-waves. Excited states are NOt fundamental "building" blocks of matter and never will be!

So I presume, the particle generations of quarks could be modeled by nested vortex fluctuations of sufficiently dense elastic fluid, supercritical vapor in particular.

Anybody who can understand this gobblydook needs help.

.all so-called "fundamental particles" are excited states of fundamental waves..

Waves of what? Wave is artifact, which is causally connected with presence of some elastic inhomogeneous environment, which exhibits an inertia, compressibility and so on... Why such wave could form "excited states"? Can we observe such behavior at the case of normal waves? Etc...

Some people consider, the Universe is formed by interior of dense star or black hole - so we can just speculate, how such extremely dense particle stuff should appear and behave. Even subtle density fluctuations of such extremely dense fluid or gas would behave like distinct particles.

Surprisingly, a very little is known about behavior, geometry and appearance of extremely dense phases of matter.

...excited states are NOT fundamental "building" blocks of matter and never will be! ..

I didn't talk about "excited states", in the connection with fundamental blocks of matter the less. You're fighting with ghosts...

IMO we could never understand the Universe by pilling of abstract concepts like "excited states". In notion of Aether theory the observable reality is simply random inhomogeneous stuff. It's minimalistic description of reality, which follows from geometrical perspective: whatever complex object could be reduced into pinpoint colliding particle of spherical symmetry. If objects wouldn't collide, they would penetrate mutually and we couldn't observed them. Therefore, at sufficiently distant space-time scale we can reduce the reality to infinitely dense Boltzmann gas of hypothetical particles and we could ask, how such stuff would appear from perspective of some limited fluctuation of it. Random system is never completely homogeneous, it's density fluctuations have Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution and we could apply some math to it. It's evident, we can model it by common sufficiently dense particle fluids/gases - it's the physically most relevant way, how to model randomness. And so on...

Currently I have only rough idea, what the quarks really are. The density fluctuations of dense fluids appear like elementary vortices, which are similar to fragments of 3D spirals. We can observe them like fine reams during final stage of mixing fluids of different density, like streaks of hot air above camp fire or like vortices inside of condensing supercritical fluid.

These elementary vortices aren't formed by close loops, so they're unstable - but they could stabilize itself by their mutual merging into close loops in various ratio. We can imagine them as a sort of spiral LEGO kit.

http://tinyurl.com/34d9qpx

The animation above illustrates the schematic formation of proton and neutrons from up and down quarks. We can see, how fractional charge (1/3 and 2/3) is represented in this knot model by various degrees of loop convolution. In addition, we can see the fixed mixing ratios of individual quarks, which are described by fixed mixing angles of Cabbibo matrix in Standard model.

In my non-educated view, I find that there are particles, and waves. Particles have mass. Waves are the transmission of information. If you can detect a particle, then it is a mass.

Judging by the resposes to this article, I would say that this is important research that needs to be done to resolve all the conflicts above. forgive my simplicity, but I am new.

..anybody who can understand this gobblydook needs help...

IMO the understanding of physic follows dual tracks. Theorists are developing more and more complex models of reality, but its intuitive understanding has some evolution, too. Currently we are able to imagine many complex phenomena and connection just by using of various real life analogies and both these trends will converge.

From this perspective, the aether model is just an attempt to explain most relevant mainstream theories in simple, consistent and intuitively understandable way, which is enabled for more exact particle simulations later.

Why? Simply because we collected many indicia, such explanation is possible.

My feeling is, the attitude of yours is exactly as opposite. You're not trying to explain existing theories, but to deny them. I'm not saying, mainstream physicists are very happy, when some layman proposes his own interpretation of their theories - but it's still better, then to deny them completely.

..Particles have mass. Waves are the transmission of information. If you can detect a particle, then it is a mass.

Well, this is apparently correct stance, but we should move further and attempt to explain, why is it really so?

The concept of inhomogeneous environment similar to condensing supercritical fluid explains it well. Due the partial condensation of gas into fluid such system appears like dynamic foam or sponge, which could serve as a model of quantum foam, forming the vacuum.

In such system the energy spread in both transverse waves along surfaces of density fluctuations like light, both in longitudinal waves like gravitational waves. Light waves are relatively slow, but they transfer high energy density. Gravitational waves are much faster in this model, but they spread only subtle energy density.

The trick here is, vacuum appears so huge, because of large ratio between speed of both kinds of waves due the immense density of environment.

In my non-educated view, I find that there are particles, and waves. Particles have mass. Waves are the transmission of information. If you can detect a particle, then it is a mass.

A matter-wave has an intensity which is equal to its mass; since mass is energy: Therefore it has a centre-of mass. A body with a centre of mass moves as if it is a particle: Thus a wave with mass-energy can also move as if it is a "particle" which it is NOT. When such a wave encounters boundary conditions which forces it change its shape and size, wave properties, as we know it, appear. The fact is that it has all along been a wave. There is NO "wave-particle duality" or complementarity since "particles" just do not exist.
It is really so simple: CAN NOBODY UNDERSTAND THAT JUPITER MOVES AS IF IT IS A POINT PARTICLE WITH ALL ITS MASS AT ITS CENTRE OF MASS? EVEN ARCHIMEDES KNEW THAT THIS WOULD BE THE CASE! WHAT HAS BEEN WRONG WITH BOHR?

Dear Alizee,
You do not really think one should waste time trying to engage you in logical discourse, do you?

Note the resemblance of this model to quantum gravity, the LQG theory in particular, in which vacuum appears like dynamic mesh of foam composed of spin loops, so called spin network.

We can model the behavior of vacuum for example by careful cooling of supercritical fluid into point of condensation, where such system appears like intimate mixture of foamy droplets of gas and fluid and to measure the speed and energy density of sound waves, which are passed through such mixture (so called quantum critical point, i.e. Lifshitz point).

In this moment the maximal energy density is reached, so we can say, we got the physical model of vacuum, in which energy could spread as intensively, as possible. Note the connection of this model to another modern theory of quantum gravity - the Horava-Lifshitz theory, which models vacuum as an anistropic mixture of space and time in its quantum critical point.

http://tinyurl.com/35tx6ne

..mass is energy: therefore it has a centre-of mass. A body with a centre of mass moves as if it is a particle..

This is indeed true but the detailed understanding of this matter-wave duality is more subtle. In realm of dense aether theory the behavior of quantum foam forming the vacuum doesn't differ very much from common soap foam, which gets more dense during shaking reversibly (especially when we shake it inside of evacuated vessel).

As the result, every energy wave spreads through such environment like less or more dense blob of foam, i.e. like wave packet, which has a center of mass due its positive surface curvature / gravity field around it. This explains, why light wave spreads through vacuum like stream of blobs, i.e. like shower of photons, too. The particle character is the more pronounced, the higher frequency the energy wave has - as the result, photons of gamma ray are forming sparks in scintillators like true particles.

In another words - it's easy to say "energy is matter, so it has a center of mass" - but to explain it by Einstein's grandma you're expected to have deeper insight into reality then just Einstein's equation E=mc^2.

And the concept of center of mass is not so trivial too - for example, if photon is localized particle in spinthariscope or spark chamber, it would mean, it has finite surface curvature, center of mass and it behaves like real massive particle, transferring matter - not only momentum or energy. This is conceptual shift.

If photon would transfer only momentum and not mass, the hot glowing object or excited atom nuclei wouldn't lost it mass during cooling and/or de-excitation in accordance to E=mc^2 equation.

My question is therefore how a quark can have a greater mass than a proton, much less an entire atom of a heavy element.

According to the standard model of particle physics, there are six different quarks. Protons (and neutrons) are formed of three quarks each of which is either an "up" or a "down" quark. The masses of these "up" and "down" quarks are considerably smaller than the masses of the remaining four quarks ("strange", "charme", "top", "bottom"). Thus, the four heavy quarks are not constituents of the proton (or the neutron).

The concept of gravity field of photons appears strange, but it could explain the mysterious gamma ray flashes, which can travel across whole Universe without dispersion. The explanation of such stability is much easier, if we imagine such flash as a dense swarm of photons, which travel in collective way like boids or like individual vortices in vortex ring.

We should realize, during gamma ray burst of active galactic nuclei the energy corresponding mass of whole sun is released in single moment. Such giant burst of energy has its own gravity field too, so it tends to propagate like single body or even trap some random photons into it from outside.

Well - and if we can explain the gravity of energetic photons, we can explain the mass of heavier bosons, too.

There is NO "wave-particle duality" or complementarity since "particles" just do not exist.

If concept of blob, density gradient or center of mass exist - then the concept of particle exist too. You should realize, the wave concept is atemporal - harmonic wave has no end or beginning - it's just infinite stream of energy. To introduce concept of wave packet or whatever spatially limited object you would need to consider some nonlinearity, which is not contained in wave concept itself.

After all, everyone can see, you are appearing rather like particle, then the wave. And the particle-wave duality is simply experimentally proven stuff. In notion of dense aether model every particle appears like less or more dense blob of quantum foam, which could be considered as a tiny fuzzball of strings. The stable cluster of photons rolling across whole universe could be considered as a good prototype (mirror matter) of particle at Planck scale.

..it could explain the mysterious gamma ray flashes, which can travel across whole Universe without dispersion. The explanation of such stability is much easier,if we imagine such flash as a dense swarm of photons,which travel in collective way like boids or like individual vortices in vortex ring.

Thats all nice and dandy, but in the case of photons, we are talking about EM radiation. We can "imagine" all we want, but thinking that photons are like individual particles, which at the moment of their release (radiation) are shot in a specific direction, is just plainly wrong. Photons are RADIATED.

In this regard, it's much propper to imagine the photonic "wave-front" as the surface of an expanding baloon, where the wall thickness coresponds to radiation intensity. No matter how big the balloon is, there will allways be a trace of the radiation, just with dropping intensity as the distance from centre increases. So perfectly non-dispersive propagation of G-rays is simply not real

There is NO "wave-particle duality" or complementarity since "particles" just do not exist.

..the particle-wave duality is simply experimentally proven stuff.

Yes, it indeed is.. And it describes how stuff BEHAVES, and not what it exactly IS, nor what it is made of. Though I think the problem might lie rather in the definition of what a "particle" actually is..

..no matter how big the balloon is, there will allways be a trace of the radiation, just with dropping intensity as the distance from center increases..

This would be true in completely homogeneous environment, but inside of vacuum full of streaks of dark matter and CMB fluctuations the spherical envelope will get fragmented less or more lately like bursting soap bubble into foamy brane composed of strings and even later from isolated particle cluster.

The problem of many abstract theories is just the fact, they don't reflect observable reality at sufficiently global scale. We simply cannot observe a pure radiation in the same way, like we cannot have a well defined pin-point particle.

I think the problem might lie rather in the definition of what a "particle" actually is..

Dense Aether theory leads to unparticle concept, in which particles appear like fractal foamy clouds or Perlin's noise without apparent structure and geometry. The statistical Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution corresponding random walk or Brownian noise is the only structure, which we can assume on both extremely small scale, or extremely large scales.

http://arxiv.org/.../0703260

If we can see some objects more regular, it's the consequence of the fact, we are objects limited in size and energy density, so that most of extremities remains hidden before our eyes and most of fractal objects are quantized and equalized into limited number of categories.

We should always distinguish the description of infinitely random reality from abstract exsintric perspective and from perspective, which is really observable by some limited creatures and their just a bit less limited devices.

@Alizee,
All I can say after reading your ideas which are all based on unproven speculation is to quote Mark Twain: "Today I have met a man who knows more things that are not so than any other man I have ever met".

Light in vacuum does not have rest mass while an electron-wave has. Therefore a "free electron" MUST be able to be stationary within its own inertial refrence frame. This in turn demands that it MUST have a centre of mass which is stationary within this same inertial refrence frame; or else all the laws of physics have to be re-invented: Also the Schroedinger equation. Since the centre-of-mass MUST be stationary there cannot be any uncertainty relationship between position and momentum. Heisenberg's uncertainty relationship for position and momentum is just the normal relationship for ANY harmonic wave since such a wave exists within both position and k-space. Therefore Planck's constant appears on both sides of Heisenberg's relationship: And therefore it cancels out.

... your ideas which are all based on unproven speculation...

These ideas are just based on removal of all aditional speculations by using of Occam's razor principle. All observable objects appear like pin-point particles from sufficiently distant perspective and universe is a random gas of these objects.

..electron-wave has rest mass ...therefore a "free electron" MUST be able to be stationary within its own inertial refrence frame..

This still doesn't say, this inertial reference frame must remain stationary too. Because vacuum is particle gas, every particle in it is attacked by collisions of surrounding particles like pollen grain in water excerting Brownian motion. We can observe it at the case of lightweight atoms, like those of liquid hellium - such liquid never freeze at room pressure, even at absolute zero. It can serve as a tangible evidence, reference frame of particles isn't complete stationary.

This still doesn't say, this inertial reference frame must remain stationary too.

This remark is incontrovertible proof that you do not understand the most important foundation stones which had been laid by Galileo, Newton and Einstein, and on which ALL physics MUST be based.

An inertial reference frame is defined as a reference frame within which one CANNOT perform ANY physics-experiment to determine whether the reference frame is moving or not. If your physics requires that it must be moving, as you have just indicated that it must, it is wrong: Unless you have new laws that can replace those of Galileo, Newton and Einstein.

I see - you're just mixing insintric perspective of relativity and exsintric perspective of quantum mechanic. Now you're trying to refute uncertainty postulate by theorems of SR - and some halfeducated forum troll even upvotes you for this. This is simply funny...:-)

It's just the accidental story of yours (extrapolation of your figth against BCS theory, I presume), you're fighting against QM by using of SR postulates. I could refute special relativity by strict adherence to quantum mechanics postulates instead without problem.

I indeed know, special relativity is deterministic theory, so it violates indeterminism of special relativity and vice-versa - but such insight is just a trivial finding. Sorry, but you simply CANNOT extrapolate SR theorems to QM phenomena and vice-versa. These two theories aren't consistent and one violates the another one.

Sorry, but you simply CANNOT extrapolate SR theorems to QM phenomena and vice-versa. These two theories aren't consistent and one violates the another one.

The only reason why you find them not consistent is because the Copenhagen interpretation of QM violates all the equations ever derived in physics. Even Schroedingere's equation accepts that an electron has a rest mass: Rest mass means that such an entity must have an inertial reference frame within which it is stationary. And such a body CANNOT have uncertainties in the position and momentum of its centre-of-mass. Schroedinger's equation and SR are totally consistent as soon as one drops the "probability-interpretation" for QM. In fact the wave-equation for mater-waves is then also consistent with Einstein's gravity.

The "troll" who upvoted me obviously understands far more than you are capable of understanding!

some halfeducated forum troll even upvotes you

You don't use your real name. You change your nick every fortnight. You don't understand physics or mathematics. But you're calling someone names because he downrates you. What a miserable sight.

you don't use your real name

Can you prove, "Frajo" or "JayK" is your real name?

.because he downrates you..

Nope, because he upovotes crackpot ideas without any experimental evidence.

Copenhagen interpretation of QM doesn't care about center of mass at all - it's probabilistic interpretation of QM and as such it fits all the observations, which fall into realm of QM. It was confirmed by experimental tests of Bell's inequality. And it fits dense aether model of vacuum well.

Schroedinger's equation and SR are totally consistent as soon as one drops the "probability-interpretation" for QM

This is nonsense, as the probability interpretation itself is just an intepretation of Schroedinger's equation. The consistency of some equations with another ones doesn't depend on their intepretations.

the wave-equation for mater-waves is then also consistent with Einstein's gravity

I doubt it, because from Schroedinger's equation of free particle wave follows, this particle wave would expand into infinity - whereas from Einstein's relativity follows, it should collapse into singularity like geon.

In fact, QM doesn't recognize "Einstein's gravity" at all and the existence of gravity cannot be derived from it - until you demonstrate the opposite (and deserve Nobel price in such way).

You don't use your real name. You change your nick every fortnight. You don't understand physics or mathematics. But you're calling someone names because he downrates you. What a miserable sight.

Typical is it not!

openhagen interpretation of QM doesn't care about center of mass at all

Exactly! This is why it is based on virtual reality!

it's probabilistic interpretation of QM and as such it fits all the observations, which fall into realm of QM.

It most certainly does not. As I have already pointed out on this forum, this interpretation leads to the conclusion that the "most probable position" for an electron is at a position where the probability to find an electron is excatly ZERO!

It was confirmed by experimental tests of Bell's inequality. And it fits dense aether model of vacuum well.

It was NOT confirmed by tests of Bell's inequality at all. How? Of course it fits your aether model since this model is also virtual reality.

The consistency of some equations with another ones doesn't depend on their intepretations

Of course it does. If you interpret a wave-intensity as a "probability" instead of a mass-energy you will obviously have a contradiction!

In fact, QM doesn't recognize "Einstein's gravity" at all and the existence of gravity cannot be derived from it

Only because of the stupidity of the probability interpretation. When you accept that the intensity of a harmonic matter wave is its energy, as is the case for ALL harmonic waves ever discovered; you will realise that this intensity represents the mass of the wave-entity AND the curvature of space around the mass. (the latter curvature is wrongly interpreted in terms of probability as "tunnelling tails)

- until you demonstrate the opposite (and deserve Nobel price in such way

Are you going to nominate me? Thanks!

This is why it is based on virtual reality!

It's formal regression of experiments and it has no meaning to discuss, whether it's correct or not, because from aether theory follows, virtually every theory becomes violated outside of validity scope of its postulates. This is why I'm avoiding to consider about universe everything, which is not absolutely necessary.

."most probable position" for an electron is at a position where the probability to find an electron is excatly ZERO!..

This is quite common situation in other theories, too. For example the center of mass of Jupiter-Sun (or whole solar system) lies outside of surface of Sun. Which basically means, with respect to Newtonian physics all planets are revolving just an empty place of space. Even with respect to relativity theory such result is "strange", because the center of gravitational lensing lies at the empty space. Statistically most of asteroids or comets would fall into empty point of space outside of Sun

..are you going to nominate me? Thanks!..

Why not - for finding of new mechanism of HT superconductivity. But not for your ideas about quantum mechanics, which are apparently biased toward relativity. You should realize, the quantum mechanics has virtually no way, how to mimic attractive force of gravity. And relativity has no build-in mechanism, how to avoid evaporation of every particle by intrinsic pressure of radiation. It's not so difficult to recognize, each theory is incomplete in its own dual way, because real objects around us are stable.

How to reconcile theories, which apparently predict quite opposite results? Aether theory proposes one of the ways: I believe, it could be possible to demonstrate by solution of wave equation in sufficient number of dimensions, the 4D slice of such solution representing our space-time fulfills both theories at least approximately. If you can derive it in formal way, you could visit Stockholm for Nobel price about quantum gravity.

Only because of the stupidity of the probability interpretation.

I doubt it, as the relativity violates observable reality in many ways by itself - it doesn't require to consider some quantum mechanics for it, some probabilistic interpretation of QM the less...

Probabilistic interpretation of QM is quite OK, simply because our Universe IS of probabilistic nature. Even simple water droplet demonstrates it - you cannot derive the behavior of water molecules inside of droplet just by careful observation of droplet's surface. The molecules inside are dancing in extradimensions with respect to droplet surface - so that the substantial part of information about their motion is unavoidably "lost" there (i.e. widespread over large area of CMB noise).

The probabilistic character of QM is a logical consequence of hypergeometry from this perspective.

Copenhagen interpretation of QM doesn't care about center of mass at all

Aswell as it doesn't care about physical reality.

- it's a probabilistic interpretation of QM and as such it fits all the observations, which fall into realm of QM.

It fits observations about as much as the 50:50 probability "rule" fits the "coin-throw" experiments.. Statisticaly speaking, it indeed fits (surprise surprise), but sadly has little to nothing to say about what's really going on..

The probability interpretation was allways just a crude placeholder - sufficient for basic calculaions and statistics - but we are nearing a breaking point in physics, where it either will need to go and make room for something more "sophisticated", or we stay in caves for some longer.

Though we will never be able to predict the outcome of infinite-complexity systems with a 100% certainity, we at least need to push the probability approach into "deeper levels", somewhat..

Aswell as it doesn't care about physical reality.

It indeed does. The particle-wave duality was proposed just on the background of famous double-slit experiments. It's correspondence principle is even very insightful. And Heisenberg's uncertainty principle can be extended to infinite set of non-commuting, still perfectly well measurable quantities. It basically says, "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality".

After all, it was just Albert Einstein again, who once said, "reality is merely an illusion, albeit a quite persistent one".

we at least need to push the probability approach into "deeper levels", somewhat

Why not, aether theory is about it. But it doesn't disprove this interpretation, but it explains it in wider context.

This is quite common situation in other theories, too. For example the center of mass of Jupiter-Sun (or whole solar system) lies outside of surface of Sun. Which basically means, with respect to Newtonian physics all planets are revolving just an empty place of space.

So you agree with me that the "most probable position" of a matter wave is really its centre of mass! Thanks this is exactly what I am trying to say all along. It has NOTHING to do with probability!

Aether theory proposes one of the ways: I believe, it could be possible to demonstrate by solution

Please stop punting a ridiculous theory under different names: Alizee, Seneca? Xerox? and what have you!!!

As usually, we can met with uncertainty principle and particle wave duality at the water surface. The surface waves are never pure transversal or longitudinal ones. If we would observe the neighboring 2D reality at water surface just by using of surface waves, we would see, our observations are always of dual nature - we could see the same thing both in transverse waves, both in longitudinal waves (albeit in quite subtle way). Simply because energy spreads and bounced both via surface waves, both through extradimensions of underwater.

As the result, we would see, all observations are blurred by omnipresent noise of Brownian motion of particles of underwater. We couldn't see such particles though, because just the water molecules are mediating surface waves and no object can serve both as a object, both the subject of the same observation.

But we could observe tiny density fluctuations of water surface, which are 2D analogy of cosmic microwave background. This analogy works perfectly.

the "most probable position" of a matter wave is really it's centre of mass! Thanx this is exactly what I am trying to say all along. It has NOTHING to do with probability!

This is just a dilemma: how the location of probability distribution, which is the center of mass can not have nothing to do with probability? I'm afraid, you're trapped in semantic tautology.

In the system Jupiter - Sun above mentioned, most of asteroids would fall into center of mass of this system, i.e. even from Newtonian mechanics the center of mass correspond the maximal probability of gravitational activity of that system. In notion of dense aether theory the whole quantum mechanics is just about probabilistic description of many body systems.

As we know, formal math cannot describe even the motion of three gravitating bodies reliably - but it can describe the probabilistic distribution of their center of mass.

Probabilistic interpretation of QM is quite OK, simply because our Universe IS of probabilistic nature. Even simple water droplet demonstrates it

Please STOP deliberately to confuse "normal probability" used when modelling many bodies with QM probability involving a SINGLE entity. You are not REAALY as stupid as this, ARE YOU?

It indeed does. The particle-wave duality was proposed just on the background of famous double-slit experiments. It's correspondence principle is even very insightful

Nonsense: The fact that the double slit diffraction pattern disappears when a moren tries to measure through which slit the "particle" came proves that there was a wave which moved through both slits which is then modified when being measured behind the slits. This is the way ALL waves react: When you change the boundary conditions the wave morphs into a new cofiguration.

This is just a dilemma: how the location of probability distribution, which is the center of mass can not have nothing to do with probability? I'm afraid, you're trapped in semantic tautology

I wish you would take a course in simple logic and stop throwing words around which have nothing to do with the experimental facts!

..stop punting a ridiculous theory under different names..

Names aren't important - the ideas are. And what is ridiculous on dense aether theory? I'm just trying to describe Universe in least abstract, i.e. ridiculous way possible. My theory relies only to well understood concepts: colliding particles and their common life analogies.

I never proposed anything, which couldn't be modeled at least conceptually by using of few trivial tools: water surface, soap foam, supercritical fluid, mercury droplets... did I forget something? If something remains ridiculous here, then it's only the fact, nobody has attempted to use it before. For me the whole theoretical physics is just a sort of kindergarten - if you don't care about exact numbers, everything is clean, simple and transparent here.

As we know, formal math cannot describe even the motion of three gravitating bodies reliably - but it can describe the probabilistic distribution of their center of mass.

If you are not able to realise that this probability has NOTHING in common with QM probability, then the time has come for you to find a job as a street sweeper!

I never proposed anything, which couldn't be modeled at least conceptually by using of few trivial tools: water surface, soap foam, supercritical fluid, mercury droplets... did I forget something?

Yes you have: It it is known as "common sense"!

the time has come for you to find a job as a street sweeper

My real job is not so different, after all. But how did u come into it? In context of aether theory, virtually all objects are dense clusters of many other objects, i.e. many body systems. One experiment demonstrating it clearly is the famous Couder-Fort's experiment:

http://www.physor...511.html

I presume, in near future these experiments will become as iconic, as the M-M experiment, for example. They're giving a "common sense" to abstract theories.

I presume, in near future these experiments will become as iconic, as the M-M experiment, for example.

It is an obtuse demonstration that individual waves can form a macro-wave by entangling to, in the process, lose their individual existences. This is exactly what i have achieved with the electron-waves I have extracted from a diamond, which then form a superconducting holistic wave through which electron-charges are teleported. It has NOTHING to do with your concepts on so called aether theory. Sorry to disappoint you!

..this probability has NOTHING in common with QM probability..

You can imagine common massive objects as a miniature galaxies. Such galaxies interact & collide mutually like single bodies - the intriguing aspect there is, the cosmic space between stars is so vast, the collisions of individual stars are quite rare there.

So you can send some star into galaxy, for example - there will be only very subtle probability, your star would collide with some star inside of galaxy. After then you could replace the action of individual stars by their collective gravitational field, which has center of mass well outside of real massive bodies.

As we know, due the dark matter content, the whole galaxy behaves like giant piece of solid jelly. You could use the whole galaxy as a rigid optical lens for focusing of path of isolated stars in similar way, like optical lens for photons, for example.

Try to imagine, you're omnipotent God who is able to play with whole galaxies full of brown dwarfs and dark matter, which are basically invisible for this God. Such galaxies would penetrate easily like transparent fields, while their centers of mass will be roughly equivalent the position of central black holes.

Such God could easily obtain a feeling, the only real particles in his toys are just these central black holes - the whole rest of their matter remains invisible for Him and it manifests only by force fields "at distance". Of course, all these fields are still full of invisible stars, which are mediating these forces at proximity.

Richard Feynman: "There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom"

http://en.wikiped...e_Bottom

superconducting holistic wave through which electron-charges are teleported. It has NOTHING to do with your concepts

Of course not, until you could explain it to Einstein's grandmother. My theory is using only analogies of observable reality. I presume, we could still model your superconductivity by single particle, which basically disproves the "holistic wave teleportation" mechanism of yours.

I presume, we could still model your superconductivity by single particle, which basically disproves the "holistic wave teleportation" mechanism of yours.

I am not even going to waste my time to try and argue with you over "galaxies" and what have you. Nonetheless, "single particles" do not exist: ONLY waves where matter waves have rest masses and centres of mass and light waves in vacuum have no rest masses. Only when a light wave moves through a material does it acquire inertia and thus part of its energy becomes rest mass. That is why these waves are also modelled in terms of complex wave amplitudes; just like matter waves!

Bye until tomorrow!

Try to imagine the solid & very robust nonconductive pipe, onto inner wall of which the unmovable electrons are attached. Such pipe could be prepared at least conceptually by shotting (injection) of free electrons from betatron accelerator into Plexiglas pipe.

What will happen, if you achieve a sufficient electron density at the walls of pipe and put a single electron into it? Well, this electron will be repelled by most of surrounding electrons at the distance. It would refute to pass the pipe obstinately.... But when we push it by sufficiently strong force into pipe, we could observe, this electron travels through pipe freely, like electron through empty vacuum - while it still remains perfectly localized. We could use such pipe as a superconductive device, if we put some wires into both ends of it.

I presume, we could model similar device by careful arrangement of magnetized spheres, for example.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle can be extended to infinite set of non-commuting,still perfectly well measurable quantities. It basically says, "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality".

That's a nice Einstein quote, which I can only agree with.

I have no issues with "uncertainity" aswell, because as I have wrote before allready, you can not be 100% certain in a system with infinite-complexity. Any attempt to precisely pin-point a physical property of an entity by the means of mathematics is bound to fail - as there will allways be a margin of error.

I think that is exactly what Einstein was trying to express with the above quoted sentence, and it fits nicely with the basic Heisenberg interpretation.

Though problems arise when this kind of concept gets interpreted in a (certainly) wrong way, and one tries to build physical reality based on statistical "principles".

..one tries to build physical reality based on statistical "principles".

These principles are the most fundamental ones. Compare the latest Verlinde's model of gravity by entropy flux.

http://en.wikiped...ic_force

F = T dS / dx =
= T . 2.pi.m = (spherical field should be produced by mass at the origin (Birkhoff theorem)
= 2E/N . 2.pi.m = ("T" expressed by using of the equipartition theorem (E = N kT/2).
= 2MG/A . 2.pi.m = ( "E" expressed as "M" by using (E=Mc^2) for the mass inside of sphere
= 2MG/(4.pi.R2) . 2.pi.m = ( area "A" expressed as "4.pi.R^2" for sphere surface.
= MmG/R2 (which is Newton's gravitational law

Compare the few minutes old article

Statistical Physics Offers Insight Into Moral Behavior

http://www.physor...642.html

From perspective of Aether theory the amoral people are like individualistic particles, whereas the moralists are like density fluctuations, following some laws or ethical principles. When the system is low of energy, then the need for mutual cooperation prevails and the people will start to behave cooperatively and morally.

So that the emergence of morality in human society is simply the phase transition of dispersed matter, like many others. For this purpose I'd considered morality as a tendency/ability of individuals to cooperate with the interests / follow established energy density gradients of society, which are serving like predefined paths for spreading of information/energy/material objects like gradient at water surface or space-time branes of string theory.

Here you can find whole dedicated web in Java, which illustrates, what it is possible to compute just by using of particle, statistical and LBM models. In most cases, these situations couldn't be modeled by using of formal math at all because of their complexity and low stability of formal solution.

With compare to formal models, numerical models are very stable, robust and sufficiently fast in most cases. Because particle concept is singular by its very nature, it can handle situations like vortex and singularity formations, where formal models tend to become poorly conditioned and unstable.

http://mike1336.web.fc2.com

The main point of particle models is, you're not required to derive and discretize differential equations, if whole observable reality is composed of particles anyway. So it can be modeled by particle simulations from scratch. If you don't know, how to model some phenomena, then the particle models are usually the most robust way, how to achieve at least some result

In addition, the particle models of reality have great future in the time of parallel computers, because they're inherently parallelized. Whereas parallelization of discretized formal models is often quite difficult.

Now we have a great parallel processors on the market, based on GPU vertex processing units used in common PC, for which such multibody particle simulations involving millions of particles are the piece of key.

http://www.youtub...=related

Why not to model the quarks by nested density fluctuations of nuclear fluid? I've no time for such stuff, but some experienced programmer could have.

@ Alizee,
Stop overwhelming this forum with irrelevant nonsense. When talking about Copenhagen uncertainty, it is the so-called "inbuilt" uncertainty for a single electron according to which a measurement of its position, even if it could be done with 100% certainty, causes an infinite uncertainty in its momentum; and vice versa. It is the latter interpretation that violates the most fundamental law on which ALL physics has been formulated: namely Galileo's inertia; This concept has been quantified by Newton as rest mass. Thus any entity with rest mass cannot have such inbuilt uncertainty in position and momentum. It is this misinterpretation which makes it impossible to reconcile QM with Einstein's gravity. The statistical parameters and uncertainties, which you are obfuscating the argument with, are what one normally expects when one cannot measure with 100% accuracy and when working with many entities. The latter HAS NOTHING to do with Born's and Heisenberg's wrong interpretation

My question is therefore how a quark can have a greater mass than a proton, much less an entire atom of a heavy element.

According to the standard model of particle physics, there are six different quarks. Protons (and neutrons) are formed of three quarks each of which is either an "up" or a "down" quark. The masses of these "up" and "down" quarks are considerably smaller than the masses of the remaining four quarks ("strange", "charme", "top", "bottom"). Thus, the four heavy quarks are not constituents of the proton (or the neutron).

Thank you.

..stop overwhelming this forum with irrelevant nonsense..

But particle-wave duality, probability wave and uncertainty principle are all well established mainstream physics. Your arguments against it aren't very convincing for me. It's apparent, the dense aether model would be rather friendly to these ideas naturally.

This concept has been quantified by Newton as rest mass.

It's evident, quantum mechanics would violate the Galieo inertia in simmilar way, like the Galileo transform violates the relativity. Why only the relativity should violate Newtonian physics and quantum mechanics not? In aether model the Newtonian physics sits somewhere between relativity and quantum mechanics at distance and energy density scale. In water surface analogy the quantum mechanics manifests for wery short waves, which are affected by Brownian noise, whereas relativity manifests for very long waves, where compressibility of watter gets taken into account.

it is the so-called "inbuilt" uncertainty for a single electron according to which a measurement of its position, even if it could be done with 100% certainty, causes an infinite uncertainty in its momentum

This uncertainty is not "inbuilt", but experimentally observed. When we collimate stream of electrons or photons in an effort to localize them, a well known interference phenomena occurs, which are blurring result. On the picture bellow you can see quantum mechanics waves, which are blurring edges during STM observation.

http://www.almade...stm6.jpg
http://www.physic...img4.jpg

The later image illustrates the particle-wave duality too - the virtual "atom" at the center of quantum coral is formed just by interference of quantum waves from surrounding atoms. Such virtual atom is behaving like real one: for example it can exhibit a charge, which repels another particles, which are spreading around it.

This uncertainty is not "inbuilt", but experimentally observed

What is observed is proof that an electron is NEVER a particle but ALWAYS a wave with a centre-of mass. An extended body with a centre-of-mass can move like a particle even though it is not a particle. A wave with a centre-of-mass does NOT violate Galileo's inertia nor Newtons definition of rest mass. Thus it is fully consistent with ALL physics from Galileo to Schroedinger! It is not necessary to invoke inane concepts like "wave-particle duality" or "complementarity".

This is merely a semantical problem, Johan: we cannot imagine particle without wave packet concept and we cannot consider wave without some particle environment on the background, which is mediating these waves.

Dense aether theory doesn't solve this symmetry too, it just makes it central to its philosophy. For human observer every object larger then the wavelength of CMB noise would appear like particle in wave environment, whereas all smaller objects would appear rather like waves in particle environment. Such conclusion follows from geometry of inhomogeneous unparticle environment.

Of course, you can build a formally relevant theory just by using of wave concept, for example by considering of wave equation in infinite number of dimensions in the same way, like to explain everything just by particle collisions - but it seems for me, we cannot explain everything just by waves or just by particles, so I gave my theory a mixed name to avoid easily predictable controversies.

The particle wave duality is valid, until the Euler's identity is valid

http://en.wikiped..._formula

This identity essentially maps every wave motion to circular vorticity in extradimensions of conjugated complex plane. For example for ripples at 2D water surface each particle does a circular motion in 3D space there, which could be assigned to the intrinsic vorticity (a spin density) of water surface (gradient). Vorticity is indeed a concept of particle environment (a fluid) - so you cannot have wave without particles in the same way, like you cannot have gradient without inhomogeneous environment.

Many attributes of electron (spin or charge) could be explained more easily by its vorticity, some other fits better the wave concept and I can live comfortably with it, because I can imagine, how these two concepts are related mutually in complex 4D geometry. So I wouldn't waste my time by convincing people about relevancy of only one concept from the above, being You.

a wave with a centre-of mass..

This is just what the particle concept means: an object with center of mass defined - even Einstein defined it so. You cannot have object with center of mass, which is not formed by gradient of space-time curvature, i.e. by nonzero rest mass.

I've absolutely no problem with the definition of yours - I'm just saying, the wave concept is unbound, atemporal, spatially unlimited object without beginning or end. So for considering of something like "wave with center of mass" you're required to introduce a new condition of extradimensions on background, which is not contained in wave equation by itself and which makes such wave spatially localized like particle.

In dense aether theory the particle is every object, which is substantially smaller then the local space-time, in which such object resides.

Please note, the wave equation itself is the same abstract reduction of reality, like the particle concept. We can never have a pin-point singular particle in the same way, like we can never have pure wave equation in completely flat space-time , because the dependence of energy density to amplitude for every real undulating system is always nonlinear inside of our Universe.

Therefore no object could become a pure wave or pure particle - with exception of the whole Universe, indeed. Without these nonlinearities we would have nothing to observe in it. Even Einstein was avare of it when he talked about the stress-energy of space:

"This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions.., has, I think, disposed of the view that space is physically empty.

The only scientists I do respect is the ones that believe in Christ!!!

Yeah, flat earth, with four corners, 6000 years old.

This is merely a semantical problem, Johan: we cannot imagine particle without wave packet concept and we cannot consider wave without some particle environment on the background, which is mediating these waves

I do not have the time to read through the rest of your meanderings: So I will only read what I have quoted and try to get you to reason logically for a change.

How and from what do you construct your "wave packet"? Schroedinger's equation for a free electron (V=0) does NOT give a wave packet but a time-independent wave with the same intensity which fills an infinite space. Such an electron is obviously nonsense.

Quantum mechanics cannot explain, why all particles doesn't evaporate, general relativity cannot explain, why all particles will collapse into black holes. This is why scientists are combining postulates of relativity and quantum mechanics into various hybrid theories (Dirac theory, string theory, LQG theory) for to get more realistic predictions...

Wave packet (a soliton) is formed in spreading of wave through inhomogeneous environment, which becomes more dense under influence of energy wave like soap foam during shaking. There you can see simulation in Java..

http://tinyurl.com/y383ol3

You can solve dAlambert's wave equation in environment, which is becoming more dense by E=mc^2 equation (mass density of environment is proportional energy density of wave in each time and space interval). Such environment could be faked by metamaterial foam into certain extent.

When normal wave introduces such environment, it spreads in less or more dense blob, which automatically balances the energy density of the wave inside. If it becomes more dense, then the wave spreading is slowed, frequency goes down and wave packet expands. When this blob becomes too sparse, the speed of wave increases, which increases the frequency of wave inside and energy density increases accordingly.

In this way, the resulting wave traveling inside of soliton maintains its energy density into fixed value like photon, transferring defined quantum of energy and the resulting blob of undulating foam remains stable.

Because general relativity is dual theory to quantum mechanics in certain extent, the same approach could be used for saving relativity before annoying singularities. In mid of the last century J.A.Wheeler proposed concept of geons: every material object is composed of dense cluster of gravitational waves, which could be solved only by using of Einstein's equations.

This insightful approach had a trivial problem, though - when gravitational wave collapses, then the space-time curvature increases in it, which results in larger gravity field, which increases the collapse even more. This result could be avoided though, if we consider, the curvature of space-time has not only energy density assigned by Einstein's equations, but it's own mass density by E=mc^2 equivalence - again!

This additional mass density surrounds every collapsing object like dark matter field, thus balancing gravity of the matter, which has created it, thus prohibiting the collapse of this matter into singularity.

E=mc^2 equivalence is generally believed as a byproduct of relativity, because Einstein plagiarized its derivation at the beginning of the last century - but in fact it could be derived easily from energy & momentum conservation law during particle collisions

E = F . v = (m . v) . v

In this way the classical mechanics could save both quantum mechanics, both relativity before singular solutions.

hey "johanfprins" sounds like you wanna blow Alizee...hey "johanfprins" why dont you just get over it, you strike me as the type of "hay-seed", dull red Crayola Crayon.. that wishes he was just a litte brighter, and hates bright red at the top of the box.....hey "johanfprins" get over it.... your not the brightest in the box...BOO HOO BOO HOO..big cry baby..hey Alizee, thanks for keeping it real...hey johanfprins..GET A LIFE...Then a clue..D-BAG!

I value prof. Prins much for his pioneering work in room temperature superconductivity and I can even understand his "all is a wave" approach - but dense aether theory is just about balanced approach to every established truth. We can observe/understand nearly everything from both sides.

Sometimes the second perspective is more abstract or even nonsensical (geocentric model over heliocentric one, for example) - but particle-wave duality appears quite symmetric and well motivated for me.

Quantum mechanics cannot explain, why all particles doesn't evaporate, general relativity cannot explain, why all particles will collapse into black holes.

Alizee, you see why one cannot have an intelligent conversation with you. You start of with general statements that you cannot prove; and then proceed to confuse the issues. "Quntum mechanics " cannot explain is a nonsense statement. It can mean that it will never be explainable or that the present crop of theoretical physicists are just incapable of getting their act together. I believe it is the last and that you are part of this confusion.

This is why scientists are combining postulates of relativity and quantum mechanics into various hybrid theories (Dirac theory, string theory, LQG theory) for to get more realistic predictions...

Correct! Because they do not understand what is really going on. Therefore they paddle along with impossible concepts like "dense ether theory"!

Wave packet (a soliton) is formed in spreading of wave through inhomogeneous environment, which becomes more dense under influence of energy wave like soap foam during shaking. There you can see simulation in Java..

So electrons consist of "soap foam". Please become real and talk sense. I have NEVER seen soap foam used to model bound electrons. The Schroedinger equation is the best approximation we have at present. So I am asking you how this equation can model a "wave packet" in free space and then you avoid it by blowing soap bubbles.

The fact is that the shape and size of ANY wave are determined by its boundary conditions. What are the boundary conditions in space which causes a wave packet? Wave packets only form from many electron waves superposing within conductors when one applies an electric field. The latter causes the boundary conditions which form them. How is this done for a solitary electron-wave obtained from Schr. Eq. (a single wave) in space?

So electrons consist of "soap foam". Please become real and talk sense.

Nope. In notion of dense aether theory vacuum consist of dense particle matter, similar to dense gas or elastic fluid, full of tiny density fluctuation. Such fluctuations can be observed during condensation of supercritical fluid, because they're just density fluctuations of gas, exaggerated into form of dense foam or dynamic sponge.

http://tinyurl.com/y24twwr

The same system is called a "string net liquid" or "spin network" or "protosimplex" in other theories.

http://dao.mit.ed...wen.html

The behavior of such mixture of dense aether and less dense aether is similar to soap foam, because becomes more dense reversibly, like soap foam shaken inside of evacuated vessel. Soap foam is only illustrative model of particular aspect of aether behavior - no less, no more. This aspect of behavior is called a CDT in LQG theory.

http://en.wikiped...gulation

..What are the boundary conditions in space which causes a wave packet?..

The problem of formal math is, it can describe only ready objects with some boundary already created. But when photon is formed from energy wave, such boundary doesn't exist yet, the "flat" foam forms a "blob" inside it - from nothing. The origin of this behavior is in extra-dimensions. Why?

When some wave is formed at 2D wave surface, it can be described by common wave equation. But this wave does surface undulated in context of 3D space and as such larger. As the result, every wave slows down its own propagation, because it virtually "expands" its space-time around it. This effect is the more pronounced, the more water surface becomes curved, i.e. the higher the wave frequency is.

In 2D such behavior cannot be described any boundary condition - it could be described only by solving of wave equation in 3D instead of 2D space, because it's a product of extradimensions.

Because they do not understand what is really going on.

I'd say, scientists are guessing the Universe behavior blindly, because they've no "big picture" before eyes. They just finding coincidences between existing equations and when such coincidence is found, it's generalized and claimed as a new theory, on background of which the existing equations are modified.

It's completely formal, abstract process, which doesn't care about underlying physics at all, thus remaining separated from reality. We should realize, forty years old string theory has no experimental confirmation of it, yet. It's just validated with experiments occasionally and when confirmation is found, then the theory is claimed to be true.

.. impossible concepts like "dense ether theory"..

Dense aether theory is based on idea, Universe is basically random stuff without any intrinsic structure. All structures are formed by exaggerating of statistical fluctuations in it because each gas is behaving so.

With compare to contemporary theories, dense aether theory models Universe from bottom up. It doesn't consider anything about it at the beginning, it doesn't use any known equation. We still have to find some equations for approximation of the behavior of random fluctuations inside of gas.

The motivation of this approach can be understood in the light of some recent ideas, Universe is formed by interior of some black hole. Black hole is formed by collapse of very hot & dense matter, so we can imagine the vacuum as such matter easily.

http://www.physor...839.html

But dense aether theory doesn't require the concept of black hole at all, thus removing this unnecessary postulate from further thoughts. Instead of it, it explains, why every piece of Universe would appear, like if it would be formed by interior of black hole due the omnipresent dispersion of light in the vacuum, which blurs the remote areas into omnipresent noise of CMB fluctuations like foggy landscape.

. "Quantum mechanics " cannot explain is a nonsense statement.

From Schroedinger or Dirac equation simply follows, free particle will expand into infinite volume gradually - this is just a bare fact. Therefore if normal free particle doesn't behave so, the classical quantum mechanic cannot explain it - I don't see anything problematic on that claim. I presume, quantum mechanics could be improved significantly by solving Schroedinger equation in higher dimensional space and considering only 3D slice of that solution as the real result. After all, the general relativity could be repaired with the same approach. These theories aren't fundamentally wrong - they're just low-dimensional extrapolations of higher dimensional reality. If we extend them into infinitely dimensional space-time, they would probable converge into the same random, fuzzy solution. From formal perspective such approach is quite relevant, from practical one is useless, because we coul model resulting noise easier.

From Schroedinger or Dirac equation simply follows, free particle will expand into infinite volume gradually - this is just a bare fact.

The reason why this supposedly happens is because these equations are solved without stipulating boundary conditions. Any such solution is NOT physics. Furthermore by then superposing the possible "boundaryless" solutions as if they are all electrons is obviously nonsensiscal. Both Schr. and Dirac's equations are SINGLE ELECTRON equations so that just ONE of the possible solutions can be the electron! That means that a Dirac electron MUST have an energy of minus infinity!

When stipulating the correct boundary conditions there is no "spreading" whatsoever; just as it must be!

All derivations obtained by ignoring boundary conditions are voodoo. This is why ALL quantum field models are just plain nonsense.

Technically, no partial differential equation involving spatial variable could be solved without boundary conditions. Even Schroedinger equation of free particle is using such a boundary condition: so called Dirichlet condition. Such condition doesn't care about potential, but about derivation of potential with location, which is arbitrarily put zero there.

http://en.wikiped...ondition

Which is basically the main problem of this solution due the omnipresent CMB noise this potential can never remain zero on boundary - it exerts "pressure" to the free particle "from outside", thus keeping it at limited size. But quantum mechanics cannot derive the presence of CMB noise in the same way, like general relativity.

The CMB noise is just the manifestation of extradimensions, which I talked above. String theory proposed existence of extradimensions before thirty years ingeniously and from this time all string theorists are looking for all evidences of extra-dimensions obstinately.

But they weren't clever enough - they didn't realize, extradimensions are all around us - and the CMB noise is manifestation of hyperdimensional nature of space-time, too. Due the presence of CMB our space-time is not plain 3.0 dimensional - but let say 3.00000001 dimensional.

@Alizee,

Why you have to bring in concepts that cannot be tested experimentally to create a virtual reality you WANT to believe in, is beyond my comprehension.

It is just a simple fact that if you have to integrate once you have one constant which mathematics cannot supply, but has to be supplied by common sense. If you have to integrate twice, you have two constants etc. Stipulating these boundary conditions IS physics, avoiding them is "beautiful mathematics' which Dirac propagated, but has NOTHING to do with physics whatsoever. If you derive a solution which requires an infinite space within our universe, which is NOT infinite, as you guys have been doing consistently for 80 years now, you are not doing physics. I do not know what to call it other than pure nonsense!

Schroedinger's wave equation requires THREE integration constants: One for time and TWO for space. So please, do some physics, and give me the two space constants for a solitary erlectron in space.

If you derive a solution which requires an infinite space within our universe, which is NOT infinite, as you guys have been doing consistently for 80 years now, you are not doing physics

This is quite normal, in physics all solutions are approximate. This doesn't mean, all these equations and solutions are "pure nonsense". The Schroedinger equation is approximation too - this is why physicists are developing more complex theories like string theory or LQG.

..Schroedinger's wave equation requires THREE integration constants..

http://tinyurl.com/y9exvon

This applet is all based on Schroedinger equation and its solution is quite rigorous. It is using one initial condition, one Dirichlet condition and one integral condition (Sum(|Phi|^2)=1) - this is enough. You cannot do this solution more exact by adding more constants, which nobody requires.

http://www-teachi.../CO22.pd

This is quite normal, in physics all solutions are approximate. This doesn't mean, all these equations and solutions are "pure nonsense".

They are pure physics nonsense up to the point that one specifies the boundary conditions and check whether it makes physical sense.

A simple example which illustrates this fact is London's first equation for superconductors. The London brothers derived from it that the current must be a constant when the electric-field is zero. This constant is a boundary condition after the equation has been integrated. The conclusion that the current must be a constant is mathematically correct but not yet physics. To derive the physics involved one must specify the boundary condition: i.e. the constant. When doing this for a superconductor between two contacts, one finds that the only physically possible value for this constant is ZERO. But in text books it is argued that the London bros. have given a reason why a non-zero current can flow.

This applet is all based on Schroedinger equation and its solution is quite rigorous.

As usual you are not answering what has been asked, but try and sideline the argument by referring to websites which have NOTHING to do with the original argument.

Let us try again. We have Schroedinger's equation and want to use it to model a solitary electron in space. In all text book it is assumed that one can put the potential energy term equal to zero. It is then derived that the electron can be represented by a single, infinite wave with only one space boundary condition which determines its intensity. This is NOT possible because the space coordinates have to be integrated twice. So I am asking again: Where is the other boundary condition?

..In all text book it is assumed that one can put the potential energy term equal to zero. ...

Not at all - if you would do it, then you would solve particle in potential box actually. But for free particle such condition doesn't exist - there is no boundary or area, where you should put zero potential arbitrarily.

This is why another conditions are used: a combination of Dirichlet condition (which is asumming, potential differential is always zero at the sufficient distance from the center of wave packet) and an integral condition (which is assumming, the probability of the occurence of the wave packet over whole integration interval is unitary - we don't know exactly, where the particle is, but we can be perfectly sure, it will all be there).

You should learn a bit about solving of differential equations - putting constants on the boundary isn't far the only way, how to fit the solution.

The Dirichlet condition is just the biggest trouble in physically relevant solution, because the potential differential can be never zero - even at the infinite distance from particle due the omnipresent fluctuations of vacuum. But this isn't problem of Schrodinger equation, because the potential fluctuations in vaccum cannot be derived from it in any way. And these fluctuations could be extremelly large at short distances, albeit their average value appears zero all the time.

You should learn a bit about solving of differential equations - putting constants on the boundary isn't far the only way, how to fit the solution.

I know about the Dirichlet condition etc. It is a fudge, just like the phase angle used to model superconduction is a fudge. It is an arbitrary boundary condition which cannot be used when you put the potential energy equal to zero. When doing the latter there is NO PHYSICAL reason why the intensity must drop off to zero at large distances. You can just as well assume that you do have a particle in a box. The Dirichlet criterion is just another way of introducing this same inconsistency.

What you should do is to learn basic mathematics and logic.

even at the infinite distance from particle due the omnipresent fluctuations of vacuum.

This is another fudge: There is no exclusive experimental proof whatsoever that it is the vacuum fluctuating. All the arguments and experimental results used to postulate this stupidity can be explained in a better fashion without ending up with an infinite vacuum energy and renormalisation. When you get infinities in your calculations it is mathematics telling you that you are wrong!

Why did you decide to now start posting as ZeroX, Alizee? Have you got a split personality. However, one does need one to believe in your arguments!

..I know about the Dirichlet condition etc. It is a fudge..

LOL - it's the same math, like the Schrodinger equation derivation itself. If you don't believe in logic under which such condition was introduced into math, then you shouldn't believe even in Schrodinger equation itself, because its derivation was based on the same logic.

..there is no exclusive experimental proof whatsoever that it is the vacuum fluctuating. ..

For example liquid hellium never freeze at room pressure, even at zero temperature, because its atoms are moving wildly.

It could be explained in similar way, like the Brownian motion of pollen grain in water, whose fluctuations keep these grains in eternal motion - even at the completelly calm watter surface.

I'm posting like ZeroX, because I'm using a different computer by now and I forget the password. I don't require people to believe in my arguments, only to understand them. This discussion shouldn't be based on belief and religion.

.. there is NO PHYSICAL reason why the intensity must drop off to zero at large distances...

This is just why the Dirichlet condition is used at the case of free particle. We can assume, the probability density of free particle doesn't change in sufficient distance from particle - which is exactly, what the whole Dirichlet condition is about.

If you don't believe in vacuum fluctuations, then there is no objective reason, why just this condition should be violated in some way. Until you demonstrate some counter-example, indeed.

As you can see, just the fact, the free particle doesn't expand in vacuum into infinity could serve as an (indirect) proof of vacuum fluctuations from perspective of steady-state solution of Schrodinger equation. Everything fits perfectly, here.

For example liquid hellium never freeze at room pressure, even at zero temperature, because its atoms are moving wildly.

Where was liquid helium cooled to absolute zero temperature so that you can make such a statement?

The reason why the He-atoms, which by the way are not "atoms" anymore when they form a superfluid (each is a single holistic wave) is that Heisenberg's relationship for energy and time allows such holistic waves to change their energies for short time intervals: i.e. by quantum fluctuations. This is the same way in which superconduction occurs. Thus in a sense you are correct that the energy is supplied by the "vacuum" but not by the "infinitely" large vacuum energy (quantum foam) as modelled by you.

the probability density of free particle doesn't change in sufficient distance from particle - which is exactly....

This is where we will never agree since the intensity distribution of a matter wave is IN MOST CASES not commensurate with a "probability distribution".

As you can see, just the fact, the free particle doesn't expand in vacuum into infinity could serve as an (indirect) proof of vacuum fluctuations from perspective of steady-state solution of Schrodinger equation. Everything fits perfectly, here.

It does not because you are not specifying the reference frame in which you are modelling the electron: Thus violating Einstein's Special Relativity.

The reason why an electron wave does not spread in vacuum is that it MUST be a stationary, time-independent wave which does not change its shape and size with time within its inertial refrence frame.

There exists a non-zero potential energy which ties the wave down within its inertial reference frame.

The reason why the He-atoms form a superfluid.. is that Heisenberg's relationship for energy and time allows such holistic waves to change their energies for short time intervals..

versus

..since the centre-of-mass must be stationary there cannot be any uncertainty relationship between position and momentum. ...

You see - suddenly Heissenberg's uncertainty principle appears good enough for you...;-) Of course, we should ask further, why some uncertainty principle should be valid at all? Which/where is the physical origin of this uncertainty?

..the reason why an electron wave does not spread in vacuum is that it MUST be a stationary, time-independent wave which does not change its shape

This is just an circular reasoning - circulus in probando. Why this wave MUST be a stationary? Because Mr. Prins believes so?

You see - suddenly Heissenberg's uncertainty principle appears good enough for you...;-) Of course, we should ask further, why some uncertainty principle should be valid at all? Which/where is the physical origin

Nice try: But you will note that I have NOT called it an "uncertainty" relationship because that is NOT what it is. It is a resonance- relationship which allows a holistic wave to vary its energy by an interval (del)E as long as it is not for longer than (del)t. You can easily derive this fact from the width's of atomic emission lines. In fact you can apply this to ALL waves when they resonate: Also to a light wave being received by a radio antenna. This is where it comes from: Purely from wave behaviour which has been well-known LONG before quantum mechanics came along.

To proceed:
Similarly Heisenberg's relationship for position and momentum is NOT an uncertainty relationship for the position and momentum of a "particle". It is purely the sizes of the wave in position and k-space when it is a standing wave. This has also been known LONG before quantum mechanics. So why should this be the case FOR ALL harmonic waves EVER KNOWN but not for an electron wave? Furthermore why should the total intensity of ALL harmonic waves EVER KNOWN be equal to their energies, but when it comes to a harmonic electron wave it suddenly is not so? Obviously IT MUST STILL be so so that the intensity is the mass of the wave. It is simple and it shows that their is NO DICHOTOMY between quantum mechanics and classical physics at all!

This is just an circular reasoning - circulus in probando. Why this wave MUST be a stationary? Because Mr. Prins believes so?

Because Galileo said so and Newton quantified the fact that an entity with mass MUST be stationary within its own inertial reference frame. This is why it is so: And this is why the use of mass in any equation (and thus also Schroedinger's wave equation) mmandates that it must be so. This is why interpreting the sizes of a wave in position and k-spaces as "uncertainties" in position and momentum invalidates ALL physics which came before Heisenberg, Born and Bohr touted the absurd probability interpretation. It is also so that when jettisoning the probability interpretation, classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and Einstein's gravity dovetails without any major problems.

..I have NOT called it an "uncertainty" relationship because that is NOT what it is...

But you're using it for explanation of the ethernal motion of atoms in liquid helium. You're saying, quantum wave must always remains stable, but your's saying too, such wave should be able to change their energies for tiny time intervals. And we can find much more semantic controversies in the intepretation of yours.

Because Galileo said so and Newton quantified the fact that an entity with mass MUST be stationary within its own inertial reference frame

As I told you already, uncertainty principle enables to violate the stable position of these reference frames by quantum fluctuations of vacuum. When density of environment around massive object is fluctuating, for light waves, which are affected by such density fluctations such object is moving anyway. You cannot provide stable inertial frame for small object in dynamic vacuum.

This entire discussion can be wrapped up in "there's a force interaction that we're not aware of".

For example, on the macro scale we see black holes have a "small" size and a "large" size. The difference between the two is due to the interactions between the attractive forces of gravity upon matter and the repulsive forces of radiation escape pressure. We very well could be looking at a rehash on the micro scale with a different set of forces, or a corresponding analogy to the large forces on a smaller scale.

The Galileo / Newtonian mechanics is relevant only for time averaged observations of reference frame in simmilar way, like the laws of thermodynamics are valid for bulk environment. Inside of gas the temperature of molecules fluctuates wildly in the same way, like the energy density in vacuum for wave packets. Because you cannot ensure, energy density changes for particle wave packet as a whole, you can observe, the particle effectivelly dances at place - even inside of potential box.

http://tinyurl.com/36fql36

Such dance is nothing special, the same motion exhibit the density fluctuation inside of dense gas. And the above animation is the result of solution of Schrodinger equation inside of potential hole, i.e. with providing all integration constants, which you're requiring. As you can see, the resulting wave not only changes its energy, but the location too. It's actually moving like pollen grain under Brownian noise.

This entire discussion can be wrapped up in "there's a force interaction that we're not aware of".

The quantum motion is observable even by naked eye at the case of Brownian motion and special mixtures of fluid and solids (carbon disulphide and colloid sulphur, for example). We could observe it in fluid hellium even at zero temperature. This is not so minute effect, if you know, where to look for it. If we could use microwave or maybe deep infrared glowes, we could see, even empty vacuum is full of tiny density fluctuations, like hot air above camp fire. In fact, the sensitivity of our sensoric organs is just a one step from observation of quantum phenomena at common life in simmilar way, like from observation of graviational lensing and polarization of CMB at cosmic scales. We aren't separated very much from direct observation of curvature of our Universe on both Planck, both cosmologic scales. It's possible, some animals could observe these effects directly.

The quantum motion is observable even by naked eye

I'm sorry, can you say pseudoscience? Quantum motion is not directly observable, and definitely not by use of base human senses.

I'm sorry, can you say pseudoscience?

Brownian motion is an example of quantum motion. mediated by particle of environment. You can observe it for example by motion of tiny bubbles in superfluid hellium. You can even track & record the wave motion of single electron in such way. And the quantum motion of individual atoms in boson condensate is observable directly, because these atoms are glowing like tiny dots under laser light.

http://www.youtub...aWCXkSC0

But you're using it for explanation of the ethernal motion of atoms in liquid helium. You're saying, quantum wave must always remains stable,

The ability of a wave to resonate when required to do so when the boundray conditions require it to do so has nothing to do with the uncertainty of a point particle which requires it to be described by a wave whose intensity is a probability distribution. That holistic waves can jump around at low temperatures owing to quantum fluctuations does not mean there is any uncertainty involved at all.
There is not a most probable position of the wave around which a particle is fluctuating. The wave has a centre of mass and quantum fluctuations causes the wave to move like any other object with a centre-of-mass when it is vibrated. So there is no uncertainty involved.

As I told you already, uncertainty principle enables to violate the stable position of these reference frames by quantum fluctuations of vacuum.;

It is the centre of mass of the wave that moves when the wave moves NOT the inertial reference frame. So you are again talking nonsense. The Copenhagen interpretation of uncertainties does not come into the picture anywhere!

You are confusing ordinary statistical behaviour like Brownian movement with the statistical behaviour that has been postulated by Bohr, Born and Heisenberg. If you do not understand the difference you should again read a book on elementary quantum mechanics.

If you do not understand the difference you should again read a book on elementary quantum mechanics.

As two scientists who have engaged in these sorts of conversations before, from me to you, you now know that the being known as zerox/alizee/slotin/alexa/etc... is merely a wanna be sophist and woefully ignorant of the reality of quantum mechanics and standard physical concepts. Why have you spent so much time trying to exemplify your addendum to the body of prior work when this slug can't understand the prior work, let alone, the addendum? Is it your love of teaching and knowledge or your want for a good fight that leads you to commit this repeated self insanity mechanism?

Why have you spent so much time trying to exemplify your addendum to the body of prior work when this slug can't understand the prior work, let alone, the addendum? Is it your love of teaching and knowledge or your want for a good fight that leads you to commit this repeated self insanity mechanism?

No not a good fight. What worries me at present is that the physics community is more willing to classify a person as a crank than trying to understand: Yes there are many cranks around and yes since the advent of desktop computers they are flooding the system with wrong insights: However, I believe that it is incumbent on a scientist to argue and explain the science to everybody in as simple a fashion as possible. If we are not willing to do this we might be throwing out the baby with the bathwater in some cases. I have seen this happen too often lately to shirk reponsibilty in the same way. Even a fool can make a point or ask a relevant question from which one can learn.

..woefully ignorant of the reality of quantum mechanics and standard physical concepts...

Currently just the probabilistic interpretation, uncertainty principle and particle wave duality are the "standard physical concepts" and "reality of quantum mechanics", which Prof. Prins is fighting against here all the time. You probably missed the whole point of discussion.

..the physics community is more willing to classify a person as a crank than trying to understand..

It's quite easy to decide it - does your interpretation of quantum mechanics lead into some new testable predictions? Does it violate existing experiments and observations?

If not, then it's useless and the controversy of yours cannot be judged experimentally - end of story. If yes, then just show us the difference.

Currently both probabilistic interpretation of QM, both uncertainty principle, both particle wave duality are concepts well supported by number of experiments. Can you provide some experiment, which violates the above concepts?

You cannot disprove some abstract concept just by another abstract concepts only. From Occam's razor follows, mainstream physics will not accept any concept, which doesn't bring any new prediction or which doesn't decrease the number of existing postulates and/or theories from utilitarian reasons.

which Prof. Prins is fighting against here all the time. You probably missed the whole point of discussion.

No, I evaluate and prefer to not interject when it is unwarranted. It has become warranted.

It has become warranted.

Currently both probabilistic interpretation of QM, both uncertainty principle, both particle wave duality are concepts well supported by number of experiments.

Can you provide some experiment, which violates the above concepts? If not, then you can simply follow Mr. Prins for the assembly point of crackpots.

..you are confusing ordinary statistical behavior like Brownian movement with the statistical behavior that has been postulated by Bohr, Born and Heisenberg...

From perspective of aether theory it's exactly the same stuff. Just the particles of vacuum are tinier, then the particles of ordinary gas.

Currently both probabilistic interpretation of QM, both uncertainty principle, both particle wave duality are concepts well supported by number of experiments. Can you provide some experiment, which violates the above concepts?

This is of course a lie! I have given incontrovertible proof that the probability interpretation is wrong. As already mentioned many times in this forum, a probability distribution for the position of an electron for which the "most probable position" to find the electron is at a position where the intensity of the distribution is ZERO cannot be a probability distribution of an electron's position. As Einstein said: Only a single small fact is required to prove that a theory is wrong.
The proof is incontrovertible!

I have given incontrovertible proof that the probability interpretation is wrong.

Do you mean an experimental proof? Show us...

Every other proof is controvertible, you know...

..a probability distribution .. where the intensity of the distribution is ZERO cannot be a probability distribution of an electron's position..

It isn't. It's a probability distribution of the occurrence of particle.

Every other proof is controvertible, you know...

Give me such an incontrovertible proof. You cannot.

It isn't. It's a probability distribution of the occurrence of particle

I assume that what you are saying is that it does not require a most probable position. If not, around which position do you calculate Heisenberg's "uncertainty" interval for position? Or does this uncertainty not apply for a wave for which the most probable position is zero? Thus Heisenberg's relationship is null and void for most electrons?

Give me such an incontrovertible proof. You cannot.

You said, you have such " incontrovertible proof" before few minutes.

Frankly, did you really spent whole rest of your life in fight for the nonexistence of probability of electron's location at the place, where such probability is zero? I just cannot believe it...

Frankly, did you really spent whole rest of your life in fight for the nonexistence of probability of electron at the place, where such probability is zero?

This is a stupid remark which do not really deserve a response. It seems you are at the end of your tether and is now becoming abusive instead of explaining how an uncertainty interval of position can be present around a position at which one can NEVER find an electron.

..how an uncertainty interval of position can be present around a position at which one can NEVER find an electron..

Have look at this picture .. It illustrates the electron, which revolves atom nuclei along many paths. As the result, a two-lobe orbital is formed, analogous to common p-orbitals.

http://tinyurl.com/35urv4c

As you can see, at the center of orbital is zero probability of electron occurrence, where you can NEVER find an electron.

Have look at this picture .. It illustrates the electron, which revolves atom nuclei along many paths. As the result, a two-lobe orbital is formed, analogous to common p-orbitals

What you have done is to prove my case: i.e. that the wave-intensity cannot be a probability distribution which defines a Heisenberg "uncertainty" interval; or else the highest intensity would have had to be at the position where you can NEVER find an electron. Thanks for proving so eloquently exactly what I am saying.

that the wave-intensity cannot be a probability distribution which defines a Heisenberg "uncertainty" interval

LOL, why not? Such P-orbitals with two lobes are defining the shape of most molecules.

http://www.grandi...tals.gif

Such orbitals are just computed as a solution of electron wave function.

LOL, why not? Such P-orbitals with two lobes are defining the shape of most molecules.

Exactly! This is why the wave-intensities of "electrons" are real waves and the "most probable position" as interpreted by the Copenhagen interpretation is the centre-of mass of the wave. The latter can be at a position where the mass-intensity is zero. The most probable position cannot be at a position where a "probability distribution" has zero-intensity.

You keep on proving me right; Namely that the probability interpretation, wave-particle duality and complementarity are all unphysical: In fact these concepts are just plain nonsense! Thanks again! It is unbelievable that physicists could have believed in such claptrap for nearly 80 years.

This is why the wave-intensities of "electrons" are real waves and the "most probable position" as interpreted by the Copenhagen interpretation is the centre-of mass of the wave.

It isn't. For p-orbital the most probable positions of electrons are at the end of both lobes - this is why elongated molecules are formed. If it would be center of mass, then the resulting molecule would be spherically symmetric - which violates experiments. You can forget some center of mass at the case of p-orbital safely.

you keep on proving me right; namely that the probability interpretation, wave-particle duality and complementarity are all unphysical

LOL - you're unable to face arguments and argument seriously. Now I can understand perfectly, why everybody ignores you.

It isn't. For p-orbital the most probable positions of electrons are at the end of both lobes -

Thus you have TWO uncertainty intervals per electron? WOW!!

this is why elongated molecules are formed. If it would be center of mass, then the resulting molecule would be spherically symmetric - which violates experiments.

Not true. To form bonds from p-orbitals you have hybridisation. Seeing that it is impossible to instruct you in the simple physics of atomic orbitals I will not even try to tell you about chemistry. It is obviously far beyond you capabiliy!

Thus you have TWO uncertainty intervals per electron? WOW!!

Of course they're. There exist many orbitals with even higher symmetry - with three lobes, four lobes, etc. After all, if the probability of electron wave would sit always at the center of mass, then the angled molecules like water molecules would be impossible at all - all molecules would be spherically symmetric!

They're all supported by experiments and observations,

I ask again: Which experiments and observations "support" this nonsense.

Again, you are just proving that you know NOTHING about chemical bonding: So let us not meander into that field which you are obviously unable to EVER understand!

you are just proving that you know NOTHING about chemical bonding

You just proved, you have no better arguments, again. How do you want to explain the existence of angled molecules, if the probability of all electron waves would sit just at the center of their mass, like at the case of spherical wave?

Of course they're. There exist many orbitals with even higher symmetry - with three lobes, four lobes, etc.

You are just wasting everybody's time since two or more uncertainty intervals per electron TOTALLY invalidates the probability interpretation of the wave intensity. If you cannot see this, you should rather stop flooding forums like this one with claptrap.

If you cannot see this, you should rather stop flooding forums like this one with claptrap.

How do you want to explain the existence of angled molecules, if the probability of all electron waves would sit just at the center of their mass, like at the case of spherical wave? Try to draw a picture of such electron wave, which would allow it.

Frankly - I don't think, you could ever get Nobel price with such ideas, sorry... Some people are predestined to remain hidden at the shadows.

You just proved, you have no better arguments, again. How do you want to explain existence of angled molecules, if the probability of all electron waves would sit just at the center of their mass, like at the case of spherical wave?

I told you that I am not going to discuss chemical bonding with you since you clearly are incapable of understanding it. Obviously during cnemical bonding the centre-of-mass of the bond does NOT have to coincide with the nuclei. It is simple to derive that for a covalent bond the centre-of-mass of the boson-wave now fallsmidway between the nuclei. Possibly too difficult for you to compreend! But this does not change the fact that for all electron waves around a nucleus the centre-of-mass must coincide with the centre-of mass of the nucleus.

But this does not change the fact that for all electron waves around a nucleus the centre-of-mass must coincide with the centre-of mass of the nucleus.

Of course not. But the probability of these electron waves will not be at the center of mass of the nucleus, thus allowing a places with zero probability around it. BTW Bellow you have experimentally observed p-orbital of carbon atom. It's not model, but interpretation of real experiment.

http://pipeline.c...m/carbon orbitals.jpg

do you want to explain the existence of angled molecules, if the probability of all electron waves would ...

Can you NOT get it through your skull that the intensity of an electron wave is NOT a probability distribution but the distibution of the wave's mass? And that any mass-distribution has a centre of mass! When an angled molecule is held together by covalent bonds the centre-of mass of each bond is situated at midpoint between the two nuclei it is bonding! Good God man you really cannot be so stupid can you?

Of course not. But the probability of these electron waves will not be at the center of mass of the nucleus, thus allowing a places with zero probability around it.

There is NO PROBABILITY involved whatsoever!!!!!! There is no harmonic wave in the universe which has an intensity distribution which is a probability distribution. The intensities of ALL harmonic waves have ALWAYS been their energies and will ALWAYS be their energies!

Good night! I pray that you try and do some thinking by tomorrow; if you are capabl;e of it.

..the intensity of an electron wave is NOT a probability distribution but the distribution of the wave's mass?

Not just mass, but charge and spin too. In probabilistic interpretation of QM all these properties are delocalized.

The intensities of ALL harmonic waves have ALWAYS been their energies and will ALWAYS be their energies!

Intensity is intensity, energy is energy - these two quantities cannot be mixed. In probabilistic intepretation of quantum mechanics the probability of particle distribution correspond the square of square of the wavefunction.

I'm posting like ZeroX, because I'm using a different computer by now and I forget the password.

And in the discussion of the article "New evidence for quantum Darwinism found in quantum dots" you have written seven comments all of which have been voted on through the Alizee account. Using more than one account in order to get better ratings for oneself is misuse.

..using more than one account in order to get better ratings for oneself is misuse..

The usage of physorg threads for off-topic personal comments is misuse too and in addition it's prohibited in guideline section EXPLICITLY:

http://www.physor...comments

Please, use the private message feature for contacting me regarding this stuff.

Not just mass, but charge and spin too.

Obviously the charge is also distributed within the wave and the charge-centre must coincide with the centre-of-mass. Charge is, however NOT energy but mass is: Therefore the intensity of the wave is its mass distribution. The wave does not have "spin": It has a magnetic moment just like a light-wave has a magnetic component.

Intensity is intensity, energy is energy - these two quantities cannot be mixed.

For ALL fields and wave-fields EVER KNOWN the intensity is the energy of the field. Now you come along and state that they cannot be the same!!! I think you need to read an elementary physics-book on fields.

The usage of physorg threads for off-topic personal comments is misuse too and in addition it's prohibited in guideline section EXPLICITLY

This remark explains a lot about your incapability to argue physics in a logical manner above: It is beneath contempt.

..For ALL fields and wave-fields EVER KNOWN the intensity is the energy of the field.

Quantum mechanics recognizes only total energy Hamiltonian, frequency & amplitude of wave function, and it's square (probability distribution) as a measurable quantities.

Intensity is nothing, what I could define/compare with experiment in conection to Schrodinger equation and some interpretations of it. For example, intensity of radiation flux is flow of energy per unit of time. If intensity is both energy, both mass distribution, then I'm really confused by your terms.

Quantum mechanics recognizes only total energy Hamiltonian, frequency & amplitude of wave function, and it's square (probability distribution) as a measurable quantities.

Not "quantum mechanics" but the Copenhagen interpretation which is only valid in Alice's (or is it Alexa's) wonderland. You are NOT contributing when you just quote dogma which is obviously wrong since it is not based on reality and therefore cannot dovetail with classical mechanics and Einstein's gravity.

These terms are insintric part of Schrodinger equation. You aparently believe, only Copenhagen interpretation is responsible for probabilistic interpetation of Schrodinger equation. But this intepretation is an imanent part of postulates of quantum mechanics. And it doesn't recognize something like "intensity".

http://vergil.che...e20.html

But this intepretation is an imanent part of postulates of quantum mechanics.

Do you want to tell me that the word "imanent" makes these postulates holy dogma which was brought down from Mount Sinai by Moses?
You are wasting my time and everybody's time on this forum. Let us agree to disagree. I maintain that the present interpretation of quantum mechanics is wrong. You maintain that it is correct. You kept on promising that you will quote experimental results to prove your point but you never do. I have better things to do than to argue with a person who never answrs points raised but repeats wrong dogma in a mantra-type fashion.

And it doesn't recognize something like "intensity"

So when you calculate (psi)(psi)* you are not calculating an intensity field. Really if talking nonsense was a spot you would have been a leopard!

Do you want to tell me that the word "imanent" makes these postulates holy dogma

Well, postulates are defining theory. You cannot change postulates of relativity theory, which Einstein invented. You can only propose alternative theory by using of your own postulate set and demonstrate, it's equivalent to the original theory. Do you have done it? I doubt it.

So when you calculate (psi)(psi)* you are not calculating an intensity field?

Intensity of what? Nope, the product (psi)(psi) is probability density.

http://tinyurl.com/3ank6b7

Sorry proffesor - with full respect, it's just you, who didn't understood the rules. You needn't to convince me about postulates of QM, because I didn't invented quantum mechanics, so I cannot change its postulates. If you believe, these postulates are saying something different, then the publicly awailable sources - then it's your problem, not mine and it's you, who is wasting the time of other readers, not me.

I hope, I'm clear by now.

Frankly, I don't see a huge difference between "intensity field" (intensity of what?) and the "probability distribution". With the only exception, the later one is is well defined term, which has an experimental support. You're just confusing well established terms.

Frankly, I don't see a huge difference between "intensity field" (intensity of what?) and the "probability distribution".

That's a really big misunderstanding to have. One that effectively invalidates the majority of what you've said above.

Frankly, I don't see a huge difference between "intensity field" (intensity of what?) and the "probability distribution". With the only exception, the later one is is well defined term, which has an experimental support.

I did not want to respond to your assinine comments anymore. But I am getting tired that you claim experimental support without being able to supply it! PLEASE NOTE that a "postulate" is not an experimental proof!

That's a really big misunderstanding to have. One that effectively invalidates the majority of what you've said above.

Only for those, who want to invalidate it...;-) But my question is the same all the time: if it's so "really big" difference, how the results of existing experiments will change, when we consider this new breakthrough? Which new predictions we get by using it?

Without it it's still just a semantic twaddling. Maybe my comments may sound assinine for someone - but for me they're quite legitimate.

I met with many experts already, who claimed for example, the only acceptable model of reality is universe without time, or the vacuum composed of energy - but when I asked them for the real consequences of their breakthrough, they weren't able to provide any answer, only personal attacks.

http://imgs.xkcd....eory.png

Frankly, such stance is nothing very new even in mainstream science, which Mr. Prins is fighting against so often.

Without it it's still just a semantic twaddling. Maybe my comments may sound assinine for someone - but for me they're quite legitimate.

Semantics? You yourself has said clearly that the probability interpretation cannot be reconciled with classical physics. The interpretation that the intensities of all waves are their energies immediately reconciles quantum mechanics with classiocal mechanics and Einstein's gravity, since one then has that both light and matter only exist of waves AND that one can model all interactions, also the photo-electric effect purely in terms of the known behaviour and interactions of waves. Particle interactions are not at all required. Is this twaddle? The only twaddle in physics has been wave-particle duality, probability waves, and complementarity. And of course your so-called ether models!

You yourself has said clearly that the probability interpretation cannot be reconciled with classical physics.

This is just a sweet dream of yours. What I've said is, it fits dense aether theory well. In addition, I presented a few classical experiments, which are demonstrating it.

http://www.physor...511.html

I presented a few classical experiments, which are demonstrating it.

You fooled me! I have dilligently looked in your comments for experimental evidence to support your ideas and found none to date!

The experiment that you just quoted above proves that "single particles" do not exist: Only waves. To obtain diffraction you must have a holistic wave which can split up into fragments which stay in immediate contact with each other. A particle can never diffract since, by definition of the properties of a particle, it cannot move through two slits simultaneously.

..A particle can never diffract since, by definition of the properties of a particle, it cannot move through two slits simultaneously.

I see - I think I know, where is your problem in understanding by now.

Well, the particles doesn't move through two slits simultaneously. Believe it or not, this doesn't change the result of double slit experiment. What is spreading through both slits is just a deBroglie wave of vacuum, which is created around particles like wave around duck swimming at the river surface.

http://www.tinyurl.cz/oy7

Particle itself indeed remains quite tiny and well localized.

What is spreading through both slits is just a deBroglie wave of vacuum

Pseudoscience again and a telling statement of ignorance on your part.

How exactly have you proven that a "wave of vaccuum" can have the characteristics of photons?

How exactly have you established that by passing through the barrier there is non-localized decay (of light...)?

Lastly, do you know what you're talking about?

What is spreading through both slits is just a deBroglie wave of vacuum, which is created around particles like wave around duck swimming at the river surface.

De Broglie wave of vacuum? Funny wave of vacuum which gives a double-slit diffraction pattern even though Alizee KNOWS that the "duck" only swims through one slit; but then do not interfere to give diffraction when Alizee confirms that the duck only swims through one slit.

..how exactly have you established that by passing through the barrier there is non-localized decay (of light...)?

I didn't use the "decay" word - so I don't understand, why are you asking for it. But it's not difficult to recognize, electron (or whatever else massive particle) doesn't spread through double slit like photons of visible light. If electron would be the wave, like the photon is, it wouldn't create a dots at the target - it would form only diffusive patterns.

the "duck" only swims through one slit; but then do not interfere to give diffraction

The duck doesn't interfere, what's interfering here is the wave, surrounding duck. If you would know dense aether theory, you would know, vacuum behaves like soap foam, which gets more dense under shaking. In this way the vacuum becomes more dense at the place, where deBroglie wave surrounding electron interferes with itself. The flabelliform patterns formed by this interference are serving like waveguides for duck.

In most trivial analogy you can imagine, you're swimming through double slit arranged at the surface of watter pool. The waves spreading around you are advancing you and creating an interference patterns after double slit. At the directions of interference maxima, where the water surface is undulating in most intensive way, the watter surface is elongated like warped carpet. It takes you more time to swim along it and you would swim more slowly in this direction and the probability, you would be found swimming in this direction is the largest one. You will be virtually focused in this direction like light wave spreading along more dense waveguide.

As the result, you would swim along paths of interference maxims preferably. This effect at the undulating watter surface may not be quite minute, as Couder's group has found in somewhat different arrangement.

http://www.physor...511.html

If electron would be the wave, like the photon is, it wouldn't create a dots at the target - it would form only diffusive patterns.

The photon-waves also create dots. The fact is that a wave changes its shape and size when its boundary conditions change. Within a screen the entities which can interact and absorb an impinging wave are of atomic size: This mandates that the impinging wave, no matter what its size before reaching the screen, must "collapse" into a smaller wave which then causes the spot. This happens for for both a photon-wave and an electron-wave. Thus "particles" are not needed to explain "spots" on the screen: They are caused by typical and classically well-known behaviour of waves.

...the photon-waves also create dots..

Yes, but there is a seamless transition from diffusive interference pattern created by low frequency waves to dot pattern of short wavelength photons, which are composed of well distingushed spots. It's evident, we are dealing with two levels of waves - those inside of particles, which are very shortwavelength ones, and diffusive waves of vacuum environment, which surrounds them and which have nothing to do with waves inside (so called deBroglie wave). While wavelength of photon can change in many orders of magnitude, it's quite imposibble, the difraction of photons itself will be responsible for all these difraction patterns at double slit of milimeter size.

There is an interesting point too, gamma ray photons are spreading like massive particles (for example electrons), surrounded by its own deBroglie wave and gravity field., because their interference patterns are of the same character.

I didn't use the "decay" word - so I don't understand, why are you asking for it.

If you don't understand why I'm asking for it you have no idea what a DeBroglie wave is. Especially if you think they can be composed of vaccuum.

It's evident, we are dealing with two levels of waves - those inside of particles, which are very shortwavelength ones, and diffusive waves of vacuum environment, which surrounds them and which have nothing to do with waves inside (so called deBroglie wave).

Nonsense!! A wave is a wave, and its wavelength
obviously determines what the smallest volume can be into which it can collapse. The fact that light waves with long wavelengths make larger spots is caused by the fact that only absorbers of larger size can collapse them than light-waves with shorter wavelengths.

The fact that gamma-waves spread like electron-waves is further proof that both entities are waves with short wavelengths and not particles at all.

you have no idea what a DeBroglie wave is. Especially if you think they can be composed of vaccuum.

I'm just explaining, it's wave of undulating vacuum foam which surrounds moving objects in similar way, like the ripple around swimming duck. Do you have such idea, if not better one?

Just to make it clear, Alizee and ZeroX are the same person and it is trying to push Aether Theory over all other current science. Arguing with it is pointless, it just uses that as an excuse to spew Aether crap all over the comment thread.

The Aether model is very general, because virtually every complex dynamic system could be reduced to system of interacting particles. It's similar approach to bleaching of photos - the very last image, which would remain on each picture will be randomly distributed dots. The very last motion observable on bleached movie would be particle collisions. Therefore virtually every system could be modeled just by colliding particles with surprisingly low amount of parameters and ad-hoced information possible.

http://www.youtub...=related

In addition, these models are completely out of reach of formal math due their complexity. Even if we could compose their equations, we wouldn't be able to solve them. Even if we could solve them, we couldn't understand these solutions anyway due their complexity. The blind adherence of mainstream physics to formal math prohibits the physicists to see connections even at the place, where such connections are quite apparent.

The religious character of mainstream physics is in the fact, it refuses to consider these connections even under situation, when has no other explanation(s) available. It's similar to stance of Holy Church in medieval times, which refuted various explanations just for the sake of its scholastic. Now the same situation just repeats at higher level again.

I'm not saying, equations are bad - but why to cover apparent connection of pilot wave and the wave around swimming duck at water surface, which everyone could imagine? Such stance appears childish at the first sight, but its deeper reasons are connected with tendency of mainstream science to keep its information monopoly for explanation of things like secretive shamans of medieval times.

If equations would remain the only way, how to explain the reality, then the scientists and teachers would always keep their job without public feedback like priests of ancient era. Such stance develops in every community out of public control.

Yep, it is all a big massive conspiracy of the Holy Church of Jesus-Einstein that nobody considers Aether theory to be anything other than the product of damaged pseudo-intellectuals clamoring for attention.

Yep, it is all a big massive conspiracy of the Holy Church of Jesus-Einstein

LOL, you're unconscious member of such "conspiracy" too. Aether theory explains your stance as an result of emergent phenomena. If all people in the crowd would make only one slight step against wall, then some people near wall will be crushed. Were these people killed by some conspiration inside of crowd?

Not at all. In the same mechanism the Hitler got its power in Germany - the whole reason was, every frustrated German hated Jews just a little bit more, then it's "normal". Such concentrated social pressure has enabled to survive psychopaths like Stalin or Hitler like condensation of evil inside of fluctuations of the dense particle gas. There was no underground conspiration against Jews, in fact - on the contrary, all their persecution was quite public.

In this way the particle model enables to understand the emergence of various social phenomena.

..damaged pseudo-intellectuals clamoring for attention...

I'm not saying, dense aether theory is something extraordinary intellectual stuff - on the contrary, its main power is in its conceptual simplicity. In fact, one of my motivations is to make the understanding of science, mainstream physics in particular as unintellectual, as possible.

The more surprising is, the physicists ignored dense aether model and its consequences so obstinately. The formal theorists of W.Pauli type have virtually some negative instinct for it - even the seemingly abstract and innocent concept of pilot wave was hated by these people just because it could leads to concept of dense aether, at least remotely. These formal theorists somehow recognized, it could be dangerous for them. In this connection the Towler's lecture "Not even wrong: Why does nobody like pilot-wave theory?" may be interesting for someone.

http://www.tcm.ph...ohm7.pdf

In modern physics the formal fundamentalists are quite common. It may be interesting, how one of them, physmatic Peter Woit explains, why he doesn't like pilot wave theory:

"I personally didn't like pilot-wave theory, partly because it seems to me that it throws out all the deep, amazing and experimentally verified links between modern physics and mathematics that motivate what I love about the subjects, getting nothing much in return."

Do you see? Even formal mathematician can recognize instinctively, the pilot wave theory could lead into concepts, which would make his beloved math less significant in the eyes of society. He doesn't care, if it could lead to deeper understanding of physic, though.

The true nature of idiosyncrasy of mainstream science toward Aether theory is in the fight for social dominance of scientific community, in fact. We could say, Woit fights for public attention by his stance in the same way, like me.

I'm not saying, dense aether theory is something extraordinary intellectual stuff - on the contrary, its main power is in its conceptual simplicity.

We established that the Universe wasn't composed of heavenly water a long time ago. Since then we've actually gone to space and proven that is wasn't a heavenly water.

There is no "dense aether".

Conceptual simplicity is akin to creationist cosmology.

We established that the Universe wasn't composed of heavenly water a long time ago

This is just a rather naive persuasive speech maneuver for everyone, who has basic education in psychology. Aether is not "heavenly water" and in fact nobody has said, "Universe wasn't composed of heavenly water". Neverthelles the usage of "we" noun exhibits some traits of belonging to religious sectarian community. It's defensive stance: self-confident people are usually speaking for themselves.

There is no "dense aether"

Why are so sure about it? The only person who proposed the "dense aether" concept before me was Oliver Lodge before one hundred years. But how his hypothesis was opposed and disproved? There is no evidence of refusal of this model inside of scientific community. Therefore you cannot know, whether "dense aether" exist or not.

Conceptual simplicity is akin to creationist cosmology.

This is just another persuasive maneuver. After all, BigBang is conceptually even simpler

Physicists already know, vacuum is not a homogeneous stuff, it's full of subtle density fluctuations, i.e. tiny space-time curvatures in general relativity sense, or quantum foam in quantum mechanics sense.

Perfect vacuum does not exist, nor does a perfectly isolated system. And those "fluctuations" might aswell be caused by the gazillions of stuff that is flying through it every second, from every direction, permanently.

Every "(energy) density fluctuation" (as you like to call it) causes a space-time curvature fluctuation. So every, even the tinniest single energy wave/particle/whatnot, that flies through it, causes a fluctuation of some sort & amplitude. Interactions between them the more.

There you have your quantum (soap?) foam.. Nothing more than just an interferrence pattern, and no hocus-pocus stuff popping out of nowhere from nothing in "empty" vacuum involved.

geometrodynamic theory based on emergence concept

Interesting.. Then why does it sometimes seem to be emerging from a goulash of various pseudo/pop-science theories (like real goulash emerges from water, meat, popatoes and paprika), rather than from geometrodynamics? :-P

Serriously.. I've seen you so many times trying to "adapt" various popular (pseudo)scientific gimmicks and stuff, even from theories/hypotheses that are mutually totally incompatible, that by now, it's really hard for me to believe a word from that quote above..

I would understand the stance of people, if they would have a better models for main concepts of quantum mechanics or relativity already - but they have none. They simply don't want and refute to understand it - they're adhere on formal regressions based on few formal postulates. Their future development is conditioned by deeper understanding of underlying reality.

The simplest and consistent model is that both matter and light consist solely of waves. All interactions between matter and light can then be modelled by solving differential wave equations. So the problem lies with YOU Alizee, Alexa, Seneca, XeroX or whatever personality you really have!
SO:
For half-educated trolls like Alizee, Xerox, Seneca, Alexa etc. the meaning of life is to prohibit the spreading of analogies and connections by all means possible. They're useless parasites of human society. What these people afraid of - the understanding of reality doesn't harm anyone?

...interesting.. Then why does it sometimes seem to be emerging from a goulash of various pseudo/pop-science theories...rather than from geometrodynamics?

Because geometrodynamics is matematical description of situation, whereas the intuitive models are understandable. I've nothing against math and I'm using it in my work often. But when environment becomes fuzzy and turbulent, then the mathematical description of it brings no significant advantage over intuitive models. Of course, it still enables army of mathematicians to keep their jobs, which is why these people are fighting about relevancy of these models so much.

In fact, one of my motivations is to make the understanding of science, mainstream physics in particular as unintellectual, as possible.

Your model has succeeded in this repect since only a person with no intellect at all will not see that you are more of the track than mainstream physics can EVER HOPE TO BE.

..only a person with no intellect at all will not see that you are more of the track than mainstream physics can EVER HOPE TO BE.

In its consequence, it could help the mainstream scientists, too. They're developing gazillions of theories and occasionally losing orientations in it. I'm eager collector of various theories, so I can imagine, how the people, who are specializing and have no time to follow ideas of other people must be disoriented.

In this way, many mainstream physicists have literally no chance to recognize emergent logical patterns in fast growing pile of new ideas because of limited speed of information spreading inside of human society. Therefore the establishing of more general and fuzzy meta-theories could be understood as a sort of undeniable physical process.

The people would require meta-theories for to navigate in growing ocean of information faster in the same way, like they're undulating along foamy density fluctuations (branes) through vacuum.

Dense aether theory isn't another religion, it's about finding of logical connections.

You succeeded in fooling me!! I have not seen a SINGLE logical connection in any of your propaganda for your aether theory. Or do you believe like Joseph Goebbels did that by just repeating the illogical enough people will believe that it is true?

For example:

1) gas contains density fluctuations => in dense gas these fluctuations appear like membranes of foam or water surface

2) vacuum is dense gas => vacuum contains membranes of foam, which appear like watter surface

3) swimming duck forms a ripples around it at water surface => massive particle forms a ripples around it at the surfaces of foam.

Are you able to follow this logic - or do you see some hole in it?

2) vacuum is dense gas => vacuum contains membranes of foam, which appear like watter surface

There is no experimental proof for this assertion. Starting off with postulates which cannot be proved experimentally usually creates nonsense; as your model is doing;

OK, OK, I have closed my eyes and saw little ducks swimming past creating ripples in a foam of infinite density. I think I need a psychiatrist now!

BTW If string or loop quantum gravity theorists would be a little more clever, they could made their theories a much more familiar for laymans and successful in predictions, which they desperately lacking by now.

Of course they didn't do it, because it would enable the people to understand many trivialities, too. From the same reasons, druids and shamans didn't explained their tricks to the rest of society, even at the case, when they had logical explanations for it. They would lost their mystery, power and... jobs.

In this way modern physics catched itself into trap of its own positivism.

BTW If string or loop quantum gravity theorists would be a little more clever, they could made their theories a much more familiar for laymans and successful in predictions, which they desperately lacking by now.

I agree that string and quantum loop theory fall in the same category as your aether theory: It is all just claptrap!

string and quantum loop theory fall in the same category as your aether theory: It is all just claptrap!

Why? Because you have said so?

..vacuum is dense gas ... there is no experimental proof for this assertion...

Does light travel in transversal waves like energy through dense gas? Did we talk about eternal motion of fluid helium like about Brownian motion of pollen grains in fluid? etc...

Why? Because you have said so?

Because there are no experimental data which support these theories in any manner whatsoever.
There is not even related experimental data from which one can argue that they might have any merit. That is why!

Does light travel in transversal waves like energy through dense gas?

It does not since if it did Einstein's Special Relativity would be wrong.

Did we talk about eternal motion of fluid helium like about Brownian motion of pollen grains in fluid? etc...

If you know elementary physics you will know that liquid helium and Brownian motion have NOTHING in common!

Why not? The zero point energy of eternal movement of atoms can be attributed to Brownian motion of particles in dense fluid in the role of vacuum quite easily. Without it you would have no explanation for such motion.

If you want to believe such nonsense you are welcome to do so. The helium atoms move by quantum fluctuations which are allowed by Heisenberg's relationship for energy and time. They are not buffeted by non-existent "particles" constituting a so-calle aether.

I am not even going to try and reason with you about Einstein's special teory of relativity. It is clear that you do not understand it and do not want to understand it.

So good luck to you!! Maybe you should contact Mark MacCutcheon: He still believes that the planets are being "pushed" around their orbits.

..the helium atoms move by quantum fluctuations which are allowed by Heisenberg's relationship for energy and time..

Heisenberg's relationship is theorem of QM derived from experiments. BTW It's a product of the same Copenhagen's interpretation of QM, which you're fighting against..;-)

The same is valid about invariance of light speed in relativity. In this theory the invariance of light speed is one of postulates as a part of Lorentz symmetry. In dense aether theory it's a theorem, i.e. a consequence of transversal character of energy spreading in common dense massive environments.

In dense aether theory everything has its own very good logical reason, including the zero-point energy, uncertainty principle and/or invariance of light speed to the motion of environment. This theory proposes testable connection with observable reality for all phenomena and concepts of formal theories, so I'm not required to believe in any postulate, which hasn't support in everyday reality.

@johanfprins: Because this thread is overly long and it has nothing to do with quarks anyway, I'm finishing with discussion here - you can continue in it therein:

http://www.physor...053.html

Heisenberg's relationship is theorem of QM derived from experiments. BTW It's a product of the same Copenhagen's interpretation of QM, which you're fighting against..;-)

It is NOT!!! It is a relationship that is NOT an "uncertainty" relationship. This is where the Copenhagenists went off the rails. It is purely a resonance relationship.

I'm finishing with discussion here - you can continue in it therein:

Thank God for small mercies!

It is purely a resonance relationship.

If it's a resonance relationship, then it's a product of resonance of waves which are undetectable by light waves - in this view such hypothesis is equivalent to aether hypothesis, which considers, vacuum is composed of particles, which are undetectable by light waves.

The phenomena, which are caused by many invisible artifacts, are generally labeled as probabilistic and I don't see nothing wrong in such denomination. It's simply the expression of the invisibility/undetectability of these artifacts and their hidden origins.

For example the collisions between particles inside of dense gas appears chaotic and of probabilistic nature for us, but from higher dimensional perspective it's just a product of mutual interference of many wave packets in sufficient number of extra-dimensions.

My aether wave theory covers both models - both particle interpretation of gas, both wave interference model, because both these perspectives seamlessly converge and undulate mutually. The large system of particle exhibits waves, the large system of waves exhibits interference wave packets, i.e. particles. From perspective of dense aether model both these systems are the very same stuff conceptually.

Therefore I can understand your fight for wave interference interpretation of quantum uncertainty quite well, but from my perspective such wave interpretation is just one of aspects of more general model of hyper-dimensional reality. Some aspects of this reality are easier to describe by using of particles, some others in waves.

Because this thread is overly long and it has nothing to do with quarks anyway, I'm finishing with discussion here

19 hours later: two further comments by the same user.
Just to demonstrate how serious he is.

"I'm finishing" doesn't equal "I finished"
"to be serious" doesn't equal "to be true"

It's evident, my opponents aren't interested about discussion, but for silencing of discussion and disregarding of their opponents.

Children (of all ages) use words that only have meaning to them and to no one else.
The words can be common to all.

Neologism

"for exact understanding exact language is necessary."

(Gurdjieff to Ouspensky)

You need no judgment or defense.
You need to be understood.

You need to understand others do not understand you.

I need to know you know a language - a language that has meaning - beyond the language you understand.

My understanding is irrelevant.
Everyone understanding is relevant except mine.

Nothing is so wonderful it can not be repeated.
Including mutual understanding.