Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World

For Steve,

Not quite sure I follow you here. For example, sound waves in solids travel in exactly the same way as sound waves in liquids or gases. The only difference is that the amplitude is less in solids.

One interesting point about this is that in solids sound waves travel faster than the other mediums.

I can definitely appreciate why you are having trouble following what I say here. I need to clarify my original statements. This statement needs clarification. I said, “Your assumption that the motion of the medium must affect the wave is only true for mediums that are not solid. I said, ” The solid I am referring to here is not the traditional solid that we are familiar with. The solids we are familiar with in the macroscopic world are made of individual atoms. This in my thinking is somewhat different than the solid I am referring to in the statement I made. You of course would have no way of knowing that because I did not clarify that. I apologize for that. The solid I was referring to is the solid that exists as the ether material. This solid is not composed of particles or a particle field. It is a very rigid completely continuous material.

So what my opinion is when I said this is …

I will agree that the wave propagates as a disturbance in a medium. Your assumption that the motion of the medium must affect the wave is only true for mediums that are not solid. Apparently when the wave and the medium are one in the same there is a transformation of the space with no friction or loss of energy to the wave. This is what the experiment proves. Perhaps you are thinking of more traditional waves that occur in the air or liquid. In those cases you are correct but it is not true in the case of a pure solid such as the ether.

It is my belief that concerning this special type of solid as particles pass within it there is no friction because the wave motion is different. As the particle moves the solid medium is deforming into the shape of the particle that is occupying that spot in space. It’s almost as if the particle is nothing more than a configuration in space. The space does not move at all it merely is reconfigured into the particle as the particle configuration slips through space. This is very similar but not identical to mechanical waves that move in conventional solids liquids and gases. These Mechanical waves propagate through a medium, and the substance of this medium is deformed. The deformation is slightly different as it is the atoms that are moving around as the waves propagate. The deformation reverses itself owing to restoring forces resulting from its deformation. For example, sound waves propagate via air molecules colliding with their neighbors. When air molecules collide, they also bounce away from each other (a restoring force). This keeps the molecules from continuing to travel in the direction of the wave.

In my concept the ether medium is not composed of particles it is a true continuous solid that transforms without resistance to movements that are of a special type movement. The movement must be of a uniform linear motion with constant velocity or zero acceleration. When objects move through space in this way I believe there is no friction. Let me back that up with some old fashion science. Linear motion is the most basic of all motion. According to Newton's first law of motion, objects that do not experience any net force will continue to move in a straight line with a constant velocity until they are subjected to a net force.

As far as space is concerned linear movements through it are the same as no motion at all. That’s what the M and M experiment proved to me. We chose an object that uses a linear motion through space, (the photon). Big mistake. The experiment was doomed from the start. You are not going to detect a ether wind using photons.

Sorry, my mistake. In fact it seems that Michelson concluded that the aether WAS anchored to something. Just shows how experimental results can be interpreted in more than one way.

Yes, that is one of the 2 explanations proposed to account for the null result. I have proposed a 3rd explanation. I also strongly agree with your second statement it is so critical to me that we properly interpret the results of experiments. In my opinion the results of the Michelson and Morley experiment were completely misinterpreted. These types of experimental results are clues that will someday help us understand how nature really works. We need to be sure we are interpreting them properly.

What I meant by how it works is simply that I know how to calculate it using the Lorenz factor.

Yes, I suspected that was what you meant. I did not want to put words in your mouth that is why I asked you to explain. I thought to myself is he possibly saying that he understands the mystery of time itself? That explanation was definitely something that I would be interested in hearing.

The reason I don't dwell on the why questions is that they usually turn out to be an attempt to explain by reducing any new knowledge to old established ideas e.g. trying to fit QM to the Newtonian model. However, we should not imagine that all future science must fit with what we thought several hundred years ago. That is just my personal opinion, but I also admire your ambition to revise the whole of physics. I hope it leads to new and more powerful predictive capabilities, because that is the only objective measure of progress in science.

I really appreciate this paragraph. Thank you for this and summing up what this conversation is about. We all exchange ideas and give our opinions in the hope of getting to the truth. That to me is what it is all about. We test each other’s ideas and hopefully someday we will figure it out.

I am interested in starting a discussion about the enigma that exists concerning the fundamental nature of consciousness and “reality”, and how the two interact. Quantum theory clearly shows that microscopic particles behave in a way that does not “make sense”. Not only can those particles exist in two places at once, but the theory shows that they only exist when observed by something or someone. And since our everyday macroscopic objects are made up of those tiny particles, what does that mean about the chair I am sitting on? Is it there only because I am here?

I would like to see how this enigma can be resolved. In other words how is it that objects made up of microscopic particles that do not make sense and only exist when they are indirectly observed, can still work in a way as a large group to form large scale objects that make sense and are directly observable in the macroscopic world. How can microscopic objects that do not make sense form objects that do make sense?

Does a person cease to exist when in a room alone where they are not observed? Does your spouse or you for that matter become nothing when one goes to the bathroom and shuts the door? This is an extension of the 'if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it exist?'

for Misty,

To answer your question in my opinion objects do not disappear when we are not conscious of them. I believe that objects in our Universe are connected but they also have an independent reality. When a tree falls in the woods it does make a noise....

-- Updated August 1st, 2012, 10:56 am to add the following --

For Xris,

Ah, you like to ask infinite amounts of why questions. Eventually when doing this you arrive at questions that are not answerable while we exist in this physical realm.

Particle scientists have constantly denied the existence of any field so why have they suggested one now?

I am not sure I accept your premise that physicist have denied the existence of fields. I do not recall ever reading that. At any rate if it is true you would have to ask a physicist? I do not deny the existence of fields.

If a medium is a necessity why is it so invisible?

Hmm, this maybe a question for the big guy in the sky. My guess would be it’s so we can see the objects that exist in the Universe. If the spatial medium were opaque we could not see what is out there ahead of us. This answer assumes intelligent design. In other words there is a good reason for all the exists in the Universe. So there is an answer for every "why" question imaginable. Those really tough questions will have to be answered by the creator.

Here is a few for you. Why does the Universe exist at all? Where did the Universe come from? Does time exist? How old is God? There are some questions that just can’t be answered here in the physical realm but I’ll bet they can be answered by God.

The question only occurs because of a failed ability to recognise that particles are not involved in the split screen experiment. When that has been recognised the quantum world will be no stranger than ours.

For Xris,

Ah, the famous double slit experiment. Love that one. A conerstone for QM lovers. Boy, you really don't like the particle concept. I am okay with the particle concept. It to me is part of mother natures clues. I believe that the physical objects we call particles have a composition that manifests both particle and wave properties. I am completely good with that. To me the experiment does not disprove the particle concept it proves the wave aspect of particles. I accept that you do not agree and that is okay.

101,I think it was Einstein that disproved the possibility of the aether. No medium for your schizophrenic particles to behave like waves. No wave can permeate without a medium. The vacuum of space is only inhabited with messages not energetic particles. The delayed choice double split experiment is easily explained using Gaedes idea of EM ropes. No waves, no particles.

If you remove particles from our universe the BB disappears, the black holes vanish, red shift becomes a joke, Newtons determined universe returns. The universe ceases to be magically created and we can start to explore what it really looks like. Particles are delaying the advance of cosmology, quantum science, astronomy and philosophy.

There are some questions that just can’t be answered here in the physical realm but I’ll bet they can be answered by God.

...not if He's a particle.

for Xris,

What I am about to comment on is not attempt to convince you of my ideas or the concept of particles. This info is just for the sake of getting a few things cleared up and the proper information out there. I fully support your right to believe in whatever you want to believe. I support that for you and everyone else who has participated in this conversation. We should have respect and tolerance for each others ideas even if we do not share a common belief. I feel that I need to correct one inaccurate statement that you made. Please do not take offense. I just want to set the record straight.

you said,

101,I think it was Einstein that disproved the possibility of the aether.

This is not entirely accurate. This is what most people believe. I in the last few weeks have done a lot of reading about this experiment. I have to tell you I think it is a very interesting story. Somebody ought to make it into a movie. Anyway getting back to the history surrounding this experiment and Special Relativity. As it turns out it has been recently discovered that Einstein was in communications with Michelson the entire time the experiment was being run. Why is that important you ask? Well when I read Einstein’s original paper. I saw this comment that along with the introduction that deliberately disassociate his new theory of special relativity with the aether. He did that, I believe to save his new theory from ridicule.

Quote from the Einstein’s original paper

On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies

The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous in as much as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.

I thought to myself this is very interesting. He specifically goes out of his way in the beginning of his paper to disassociate this new theory with the aether. It is interesting because the Lorentz Transformations were derived by a man named Hendrick Antoon Lorentz who was the strongest advocate of the aether that ever lived. The Lorentz Transformations were written with the aether in mind as the mechanics behind the equations and so was Maxwell’s equations. Maxwell was also was a strong believer in the aether. So why did Einstein make sure that his theory would not be associated with the aether. Simple, he knew from conversing with Michelson that the results of the experiment were not going to support the aether hypothesis. Einstein cleverly released his paper just a couple of months before the results of the M and M experiment were released. He knew of the results ahead of time. The math of both Special relativity and Maxwell both say that light is supposed to travel at a specific rate. What was the big surprise was that it was always this speed relative to all other frames of reference. The Lorentz transformations do say that is the case and Lorentz himself could not believe this could be true because it did not make sense to him.

The incorrect assumption was being made in that time. Everyone sensibly thought that everything should be relative to an absolute stationary aether. That assumption was wrong. The true nature of the aether is just exactly what the experiment proved it was for objects in uniform linear motion. They should have never assumed that there would be an aether wind in this experiment. Einstein new all of this in advance. Knowing that null result was going to discredit the aether he made sure that his theory did not go down along with the aether.

It's becoming a little more well-known in recent years that Einstein was in fact a strong advocate for a "new ether" from 1916 until his death. He denied the 19th Century version of the ether in his 1905 paper on SR, and spent about 11 years defending his banishment of the ether from physics. But in 1916, in a letter to Lorentz (a lifelong advocate of the ether concept), Einstein admitted that GR entailed a "new ether" that, at the least, imparted acceleration and rotation to ponderable mass. I cannot tell you how important that concept really is. I have been trying to stress that point this entier discussion. Einstein remained a defender of the ether concept until his death, attempting to create a unified field theory.

Later Einstein states in his 1920 speech at Leiden which was about the Aether he comes right out and says that General Relativity is proof that an aether of some sort exists. Unfortunately by this time no one was listening to Einstein they were too busy following Neils Bohr.

I presented this not to convince you of my ideas or concepts but simply to correct the statement that you made for the sake of other readers that will view this discussion. I am a believer in the new aether.

101 you never offend me you are gracious debater who I greatly respect. The time and effort you expend is most gratefully welcome. I can not in all honesty agree or even attempt to confront you on this subject. I simply report what particle science maintains in most fervent manner. It claims in almost all of its publications that Einstein proved conclusively that this ether did not exist. You must excuse my immediate surprise that you oppose that notion.

Xris,

I would not disagree that you will read in many if not most publications that Einstein conclusively disproved the aether. I am just giving you the details of what actually happened way back when. Much like Paul Harvey's "the rest of the story." You probably don't know who he was. He was an great American commentator and news reported that past away a year or so ago. What I gave you above was the details of what actually happened and what Einstein actually believed concerning the aether. You are free to believe as you will. At least now "you know the rest of the story".

101, if I was being generous I might suggest that Einstein theory of relativity does not require a medium, is that the same as not denying it? Great as the man was I am not going to admit he had everything correct. If we did we would stagnate and not look for alternatives. I still do not understand why this undiscovered medium indicating light propagates as a linear wave, answers the problem of the delayed choice double split experiment. We still have the act of observation altering the outcome. Something I can not logically accept.

Xris, Explaining that experiment would take pages of explantion which would best be saved for a discussion all its own. Its a very interesting experiment. I definitely think at some point someone should start a discussion about it. You seem to want to accept a certain set of facts and explanations and disregard all else. So I am not going to go into a full discussion of that experiment here. Don't want to beat the dead horse. The clouds have cleared and I am going to enjoy the rest of the day collecting sea shells.

Damn you can argue about details.

Then again I guess that is what philosophy is all about.

Just dont get too stuck in the details (meant to all including me).That will leave us all in a status-quo.

Amb

narnug

Xris, Explaining that experiment would take pages of explantion which would best be saved for a discussion all its own. Its a very interesting experiment. I definitely think at some point someone should start a discussion about it. You seem to want to accept a certain set of facts and explanations and disregard all else. So I am not going to go into a full discussion of that experiment here. Don't want to beat the dead horse. The clouds have cleared and I am going to enjoy the rest of the day collecting sea shells.

Certainly not. What facts have I accepted? I have no idea if this aether exists. I know we require a medium for waves to travel through and the majority of scientific opinion denies a medium exists. Even with a medium the photon as a particle has no proof of actually existing. The double split experiment tries to admit a particle and then concludes the quantum world can be influenced by an observer. You are not asked to or need to explain this experiment but simply concur that you agree or disagree with the conclusions. Enjoy your day.

QM equations describe nothing..However, the Schrödinger equation does not directly say what, exactly, the wavefunction is.

Might I suppose, that QM equations describe the wavefunction?

Schrödinger much like Einstein believed that quantum mechanics was a statistical approximation to an underlying deterministic theory. I believe they are correct in that assumption.

You mean, an underlying deterministic reality. The theory would describe it. It is in this sense, I take it, that to your eyes, QM equations describe nothing.

Purely mathematical theories are in a different class. They are in a class where interpretation of abstract concepts plays an important role.

I'm not sure I agree, what role does interpretation play? Do you have to like it, that the math works? What you will accept as an explanation, does this matter?

I believe that the randomness is a pseudo randomness.. I do not believe that the difficulty of measuring microscopic objects is the Uncertainty Principle. The Uncertainty Principle is an abstract mathematical object that attempts by use of a circular logic to give birth to its own cause. Wow I can’t believe I just said that. I hope you get what I mean there.

I think I do, controversy about QM is pretty familiar to me.

My analysis tells me that QM theory has never been proven to be a complete theory. All of its success has relied upon statistics and probability..Therefore I reject this method as a way to solve and or explain the mechanics of the Universe..There is no scientific basis for suggesting that statistics and probabilities represent anything physical.. I am truly a metaphysician. I am not sure why you would say that is the worst possible attitude for a scientist..There is no substantive meaning in using statistics and probabilities.

Okay, I'll take up this question, of what is the substantive meaning, if any, in using statistics and probabilities. You are focussing on QM, but I'd rather simply consider the theory of probability and its interpretation. I note, that the identification of the probabilities appearing in scientific theories, with the corresponding relative frequency limits, really only got incorporated into a rigorous mathematical theory in the 1920s and 1930s.

You are expounding a philosophical approach to probability and causality. You aspire to provide the essential support required for the conduct and advance of science. And, I, I belong to the party that finds distracting metaphysical inputs in it, I think. I'm currently happier with what I might term a more minimalist approach.

To attempt to summarize a bit more of your view, you think that science is, or should be, the search for objective facts and laws, together with an associated view that the instruments and arguments used, in that search, should likewise have an objective status. That is, independent of any personal views of the scientist. And, you think some further link with external reality is needed in QM.

I'm not so ambitious to answer this, I think an answer good enough for you would have to be indirect and subtle, but for me, I think I have one that serves the desired purpose well.

In conclusion, I'll make a little note that you are quite disturbed by the matter of the empirical content and meaning of 'causal' probabilistic models. Actually, sure, I might agree, about some worrying metaphysical aspects of some stuff, I think I agree with you, in part. But I think an approach can be outlined.

So why am I not just diving into this now? I probably get where you're coming from pretty well, but what slows me down is this kind of thing:

I do not think that the standard model is correct. Specifically speaking the fundamental forces are wrong. The Strong and Weak nuclear forces should not be classified as forces. They should be classifed as interactions only. Gravity is a force. Electromagnetism should be split out into 2 separate forces. The Coulomb force and magnetism. Electromagnetism is a Unification of the Coulumb force and magnetism. The Grand Unification of forces should be like Einstein envisioned the Unification of electromagnetism and Gravity ..His vision was basically that space is bent a special way by something that is rotating. Like a rotating disk or sphere. He also, I believe had the correct idea where the source of gravity originates. He believed that it was somehow a condensate of electromagnetism..I believe that yes gravity is a tension between two masses. The masses themselves create the tension because of their movement within space. Specifically speaking it is the accelerated circular motion of particles that makes up matter and that is what causes the gravitational field to form.

..It appears to me that there must only be a single object that exists. Space..If space were truly made of nothing it would take zero time to traverse it..Ever wonder what holds back the photon. Why its speed is the value that it is. There must be some interaction between the photon and the medium it is traveling through. Photons travel through space at a specific rate. If space did not exist as a physical medium, if it were not there at all the velocity for photon's would either be infinite or zero.

Seeing this, my reaction is kind of on the grave side of the continuum. You've really been busy. Where do you come up with these notions? For example, you state that 'If space did not exist as a physical medium, if it were not there at all the velocity for photon's would either be infinite or zero.' Why is that? I have some difficulty even conceiving of 'infinite speed'. Infinite speed, would I suppose be instantaneous travel. So, wherever the light was going, it would have gotten there already. Except, that it would keep going. And, already have gotten there already. I have some difficulty w/this.

I think it should be possible to break down your notion that Space is a single object that exists, but I can see that you're really wrapped around the axle w/something extensive, here, you're invested. I'll try spitballing something now, about the nature of space. Space is three-dimensional, Euclidean, flat. It's a geometrical manifold. Immediately, one wonders about when relativity will come into this, Einstein, 'His vision..basically that space is bent a special way by something that is rotating..'

However, let's just sit with space, three dimensional, flat, Euclidean, a geometrical manifold. What is a geometrical manifold. Is it an object that exists? Can I dive right into some math, are you familiar with the notion of Euclidean space as an inner product space that has forgotten which point is its origin. Do we care about translation isometries. You talk about the structure of space, but you can't do that, can you? without forgetting some more information. The structure that you describe, would definitely be a differential manifold. Hit me, does any of this make sense? Just checking whether you have an opinion, here.

What is a geometrical manifold. Is it an object that exists? Who has thought that way, since Newton? You seem pretty sure that you're on board w/Einstein, I see this kind of thing:

Einstein was in fact a strong advocate for a "new ether" from 1916 until his death.

I may in fact wind up debating Einstein, then, here, about what is the special modus operandi of mathematics. Shall we agree, that the most visible natural object is the 'space'. Ah yes, the place where all things happen. But if I try to illustrate how space and number, fit together, I expect that's where we'll hit some bumps. Let's stick with space. The way I see it, as science progressed, so did the notion of space. I talk about manifolds, well, manifolds are everywhere. I expect that our issue is going to be smooth manifolds. The basic terminology used in differential geometry is probably the most arid in geometry, although if you want arid, there is also calculus on manifolds, which, sadly, we're probably also going to need, we'll need the 'kitchen' of differential geometry.

We could skip all that, if you're willing to stipulate that shape and space are two closely related concepts, and let me ask whether they really look the way our senses tell us. What I take to be the basic issue here, is that “measuring the shape” cannot have a clear cut answer. Perhaps you are aware, that the geometric objects which can be studied using the methods of calculus are called smooth manifolds. To apply the techniques of calculus we need “things to derivate and integrate”. Locally, everything looks like traditional calculus.

What is the special modus operandi of mathematics. Here it is, one studies the properities of the notion of number. Mathematics replaces concrete natural objects. So you see. What is 'space'? Manifolds are the extension of curves and surfaces. What are curves and surfaces? What I'm after here, is the way that they are referred to as 'domains'. What is a domain? Offhand, one recalls that what can go into a function is called the domain. All the values that can go into a function. You probably know the domain of the set of real valued functions--the set of all real numbers. If the domain is not specified, you usually take it to be the set of all real numbers for which the function is defined.

And, real n-dimensional euclidean space is the n-fold cartesian product of the real line, r, with itself, using the euclidean metric (a measure of distance between points of the set).

Blah-de-blah and I'm just getting started, but I think it should be possible to break down your notion that Space is a single object that exists.