tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266478817448155510.post1988123880767228192..comments2023-07-16T04:42:18.352-07:00Comments on Aether Wave Theory: AWT and Bohmian mechanicsZephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266478817448155510.post-51310837960040605132009-01-28T15:58:00.000-08:002009-01-28T15:58:00.000-08:00By AWT Universe is composed of inhomogeneous envir...By AWT Universe is composed of inhomogeneous environment of infinite mass/energy density - so called an Aether (1st postulate). The appearance of reality is given by fact, we can observe only transversal waves of this environment (2nd postulate).<br><br>Fermi exclusion principle can be demonstrated by surface tension of mercury droplets, for example. While these droplets tends to merge together by weak attractive force (analogy of gravity), the strong but short distance force prohibits them in immediate merging (analogy of weak nuclear force). <br><br>http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/astronomy/blackhole.gif<br><br>By this way, large pile of tiny mercury droplets will not collapse immediately, until this collapse isn't initiated by merging of few droplets inside it - after then the avalanche-like collapse of the whole pile occurs. For example, LHC experiments can serve like initiator of terrestrial matter collapse into singularity.Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266478817448155510.post-62455533560924185412009-01-28T13:59:00.000-08:002009-01-28T13:59:00.000-08:00Meaning of word may: Fermi exclusion principle for...Meaning of word <i>may</i>: Fermi exclusion principle for example <i>may</i> not be explained by classical wave mechanics, in my view.<br><br>What are the two postulates of AWT?Arjen Dijksmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09450431291713605237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266478817448155510.post-65533445846405845282009-01-28T03:59:00.000-08:002009-01-28T03:59:00.000-08:00/*..not all of QM may be interpreted by classical .../*..not all of QM may be interpreted by classical wave mechanics...*/<br><br>Yep, I agree. What does word "MAY" mean here? <br><br>Well, correspondence principle requires, all aspects of one theory would be convertible into another seamlessly. But in general case such comparison can lead into unresolvable tautologies or fuzzy set of "solution landscapes", indeed. This is because every theory is multidimensional object in causal space, the dimensionality of which is defined by number of mutually independent postulates. This number defines a degree of freedom of every theory. For example, line is defined by vector, plane by 2st order tensor, etc. <br><br>When the second theory is more general and it requires lower number of mutually independent (orthogonal) postulates, no lost of information should appear during this, because first theory is observed for higher dimensional perspective, then the second one.<br><br>Currently QM is using six or so independent postulates (some of them may be dependent mutually, though), while AWT just two, being implicit theory. From AWT follows, number of postulates of any theory can be limited arbitrarily by making theory implicit and as such fractally recursive.Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266478817448155510.post-42921893172937019462009-01-28T00:01:00.000-08:002009-01-28T00:01:00.000-08:00Thanks for the link to the Single-Particle Interfe...Thanks for the link to the <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news78650511.html" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">Single-Particle Interference Observed For Macroscopic Objects</a> paper.<br><br>I like <a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Stewart_Bell" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">John Bell's quote</a>: <i>While the founding fathers agonized over the question 'particle' or 'wave', de Broglie in 1925 proposed the obvious answer 'particle' and 'wave'. Is it not clear from the smallness of the scintillation on the screen that we have to do with a particle? And is it not clear, from the diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the particle is directed by a wave? De Broglie showed in detail how the motion of a particle, passing through just one of two holes in screen, could be influenced by waves propagating through both holes. And so influenced that the particle does not go where the waves cancel out, but is attracted to where they cooperate. This idea seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored.</i><br><br>By the way, you write <i>therefore it’s evident, QM can be interpreted by classical wave mechanics without problem</i>. It would be more correct to say: <i>quantum slit experiments can be interpreted by classical wave mechanics without problem</i>. Not all of QM may be interpreted by classical wave mechanics.<br><br>Kind regards,<br>ArjenArjen Dijksmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09450431291713605237noreply@blogger.com