[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

“We should expect the following for electrons: since charged electrons generate waves, like a boat moving in water. These generated waves make interference with other ether waves, and that means also that we get interference between particles and waves. Not duality between them.“

Okay. If we were to consider that the truth, what is it that causes the non-interference pattern (of only two thick lines) to show up, instead of the series of a few lines, of a variety of intensity? That is, when the “which-way” detector is set up, the act of observation, whether through the device, or even if a human being were to observe too closely? Did you get to watch the video? Would you say they’re conveying a false claim? What you’ve said thus far, however possibly correct, doesn’t explain the wave-function collapse. Actually, I haven’t ever heard of any observation or explanation that does. This is why I highly doubt the claim.

“So, electrons move through one hole, and generated wave through both holes, and thereby generate a pattern. This pattern can act back on the electron and cause a pattern to be visible in electron behaviour. Therefore, we have a wave-particle interference in electrons. Electrons are particles causing waves.”

Then why does the image on the wall of the experiment transform into the non-interference pattern when the detector is in place? And if the detector is removed, the interference pattern once again shows up?

“For light it is different, since light is just waves, or wave packets, but not photon particles, the explanation is easier and self evident. For light we need only waves.”

I also agree that photons don’t exist. Actually, I’m maybe just extremely skeptical of them. How is your view self-evident though? Also, what evidence is there for “wave packets”? That sounds very similar to Einstein’s idea of the “quanta”, except “wave packets” might seem much larger than “quanta” or photons, however, they’d each seem to exist as separated units. Why couldn’t light exist as a smoothly flowing wave? That is, until it is interrupted somehow?

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

Would you say that the first observers of the original wave-function collapse, had somehow mis-read the evidence (or were possibly somewhat deceitful) of what they claimed to find? And that there just haven’t been many objections to their “discovery”? That maybe few have tried to duplicate the same results?

Where could I find your essay “The wave function gives better explanations to key phenomena in physics”? I agree with you that light isn’t a particle either.

What of how electrons (allegedly) don’t have mass, or even a size? Would you say instead, that they’re composed of a thick, dense material, instead of a “cloud” or “flowing energy”?

Is the idea that the ether is composed of miniscule particles that popular? I hadn’t heard of that. Is there available evidence?

• This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by  Jerry.

[Jerry]

“I do not believe in collapse. I think that a changing field becomes a static Coulomb field.”

Okay. I don’t believe that the wave-function collapses either.

However, it seems well established that when a detector is attached to the wall that has the double slit, to determine which slit the particles actually go through, turns the image on the screen to the image of two thick lines (the non-interference pattern), instead of the interference pattern of a series of lines with a variety of intensity.

It is said this is caused by the presence of the detector itself, or a consciousness, such as a person who observes.

If what you said instead explains the strange effect, then what causes a changing field to become a static Coulomb field?

[Jerry]

That is, “what was completely unexpected”

[Jerry]

It seems well established *in the mainstream* that is. I doubt that their “findings” were valid.

They attached the “which way” detector to the double slit experiment to find which slit the particles actually go through, since they were allegedly observed to go through “one slit, the other slit, each slit, and neither slit”. They thought the detector could help them to find the truth, except somehow, something around or within the experiment “turned the quantum tables” on them, and showed them what was completely expected. One of the main quests of Quantum Mechanics was how to understand or interpret these baffling experimental results, which was what they called the wave-function collapse.

Have you seen the scenario from “What the Bleep Do We Know”, that illustrates the alleged WFC effect? It’s animated, so it isn’t as convincing as a live video would seem. I’ve searched online quite a few times for an actual real-life recording, yet without luck.

[Jerry]

Thank you, John-Erik.

When I wrote the “lines of light” earlier, what I meant was specifically the series of quite a few of them, which most seem to produce a variety of intensity, which is the interference pattern. However, whenever there is the (alleged) wave function collapse (caused by the presence of a “which way” detector, or even human observation), it is said that the image on the screen turns into “two thick lines”, that the wave feature isn’t present anymore. There doesn’t seem any acceptable or established answer available yet to account for this strange anomaly.

When the wave function collapses, it is said to revert to the image that is “built” by particles, instead of waves. What is your view of this effect, if you have doubts regarding the existence of light particles?

[Jerry]

I’m having second thoughts. lol

Well, one of the main disagreements is with Thomas Young’s “discovery” of the interference pattern with the very first double-slit experiment. It was actually done with sunlight. I have sort of a different theory as to why a series of lines of light could show up across the “screen” though.

[Jerry]

Oops! Didn’t know that image would turn out so gigantic! 🙂

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

This here isn’t exactly the same topic(s) we’ve discussed thus far, though it’s found within the same “ball park”. Have you possibly heard what Rupert Sheldrake said about “constants” on his “banned” TED Talk? Specifically when he mentioned a visit he had to the patent office where he found several old physics textbooks? He found discrepancies of the value of c, that covered almost two decades. It’s quite interesting. You could “fast forward” to around 9:45 if you want. Here’s a link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

[Jerry]

Yes, l light speed is constant, but that is not the important question. Instead: constant in relation to what? It is not constant in relation to observer, as Einstein said. Light speed is c in relation to the ether.

Isn’t “if the velocity of light is constant” also an important question though? Of course, that wasn’t exactly what we were talking about. 🙂

The way Einstein seemed to express the idea, was that c is constant in relation to whichever frame of reference the object, light source, or observer finds itself. That wherever found, somehow, light is always “clocked” at 186,282 m/s. I asked if you thought possible that c isn’t actually 186,282 m/s, only since I have my own doubts that it’s the truth.

Yes, light speed actually is 3×10^8 m/sec, but this is a wave behaviour, not moving particles. No particles in light. Planck’s constant is an electron property, since we use electrons to detect invisible light.

I also disagree with the concept of photons. I’m skeptical that light is a wave, as well though.

[Jerry]

That’s cool. 🙂

What is your view of “the constancy of the velocity of light”? That however fast a light source, object, or observer travels, that light is allegedly “clocked” at the exact same (186,282 miles per second)?

Also, would you say for sure that the velocity itself actually *is* 186,282 miles per second?

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

Alternatives are, as you know, reference frame or no reference frame.

I actually haven’t heard of “no reference frame” offically spelled out that way. It just seemed sort of implicitly denied. What would that even consist of? I can’t picture the absence of a reference frame, even if the universe somehow didn’t exist.

It is stupid not to regard more options.

I definitely agree, whenever possible. For instance, there only seem two possibilities of the existence of God. He is either there, or isn’t.

A field is defined based on a frame.

I probably wouldn’t say “based on a frame“. More of that “fields exist within frames”.

If space contains an ether space is not empty.

If it did, I would agree. And even if the ether doesn’t exist, many physicist tend to agree that empty space doesn’t exist. That there is at least various particles and waves that “take up” all of space. Also, please forgive my statement that “the ether exists in empty space”. That was a sort of off-handed statement. What I meant was that if the ether exists, it occupies empty space.

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik. Thanks for your response. (Your statements in italics)

Debating is positive, but many decades without more than 2 alternatives is stupid.

It seems unclear to me, which two alternatives? And would you consider one of them correct? or that one of them is at least more accurate than the other?

If the reference is a velocity field, it cannot at the same time be a frame.

That’s actually something I forgot to ask earlier. What is the different of a “frame” and a “field”? Why couldn’t a field exist within a frame?

Yes, there is an additional effect. So, we must add something, and that means we must add an ether.

How does the ether settle the debate though? If it does exist, why wouldn’t it exist within empty space, which is where what seems a completely “unlimited supply” of frames could reside? That is, wherever you choose to identify or “choose” a frame for a given purpose, they’re quite possibly infinitely available.

How exactly to define the ether? Did you know that there several types or definitions of the “ether”? For instance, the concept you’ve mentioned of “falling ether” doesn’t seem as popular as other versions of the ether. Also, length contraction isn’t accepted by all etherists. Does the ether exist everywhere? Again, why couldn’t fields exist within frames? How would you personally define a “frame”?

I have nothing against inertial frames, but they cannot explain gravity.

Does that “you have nothing against inertial frames“, mean that you accept the concept of frames as valid? The idea of “inertial frames” doesn’t try to explain gravity, or accelerations. The definition of “inertial frames” includes the idea that a truly inertail frame doesn’t accelerate. Gravity doesn’t seem to coincide with inertial frames either, even though the earth is often considered “inertial” or a “lab frame”. Of course, the frame of “earth” is in constant motion, with it’s spin and orbit around the sun.

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik. Thanks for your thoughts. You’ve mentioned “abberration with gravity” and the “pioneer anamoly” quite a few times. I did research those a bit, though it’s been a while and I can’t recall exactly all of what I read, so I’ll have to at least scan through that a bit, so I could better respond to what you’ve written.

You wrote, “The debate regarding reference frame, or no frame, has been active for many years.”

That seems quite positive to me! Isn’t questioning a crucial component of science? 🙂 Of course,

countless debates haven’t yet arrived at answers that everyone accepts.

You wrote, “When 2 alternatives are defined the discussion is stalled and no more alternatives are regarded. This is stupid binary thinking, and all the other alternatives are forgotten.”

There have been countless debates where there were only two possible answers. It shouldn’t seem stupid to think that way. What were the 2 alternatives though? The aether or relative frames?

You also wrote, “One of the alternatives is a reference with a state of motion that is different in every point in space. This means that the reference velocity is a velocity FIELD – not a FRAME with constant velocity.”

How does this provide the “final” answer this question or debate? If the theory of “reference with a state of motion that is different in every point in space” is valid, it doesn’t seem to completely invalidate “relative frames”. What you’ve suggested seems to only account for additional effects. Wouldn’t a given object within a frame of reference continue to define itself as having motion only relative to other objects (or frames)? What is your view of “inertial frames”? Would you say it’s a valid concept?

[Jerry]

Hi Andy.

I have some doubts about the conclusions of your math. Of course, math is often quite useful. At other times, if it is accidentally inaccurate, it possibly does more to confuse than provide answers. Or maybe I just don’t understand it yet.

You wrote that, “Space possesses the potential for energy to exist.” This seems to somewhat over-extend what “space” realistically means. Space couldn’t “possess” a given capability, such as to provide the potential for energy. It doesn’t even have what we call “properties”. Space simply isn’t there (physically). It literally is “nothing”. So how is it ever possibly [1] ?

You also wrote, “When space equals [1]. Motion = [0] And when motion = [0] Time = [1]” How did you arrive at this though? What sort of mathematical process led you there?