tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266478817448155510.post6642059173942563389..comments2023-07-16T04:42:18.352-07:00Comments on Aether Wave Theory: AWT and mechanical models of entanglementZephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266478817448155510.post-3702863364944814272009-04-28T07:01:00.000-07:002009-04-28T07:01:00.000-07:00/*..we could set up many such apparatuses one afte.../*..we could set up many such apparatuses one after another and they would all have to get in sync with electron..*/<br><br>This situation corresponds the electron, which gets spin-oriented after passing through magnetic field in Mosbauer experiment. We can prepare spin separated electrons by magnetic field in Mosbauer experiment - even though by quantum principle every attempt to localize electron would lead to violation of spin state and vice-versa. But because the path/momentum of every electron is modified just very slightly/temporarily during passing of electron from one part of apparatus into another - we can still achieve a complete separation of electrons by their spin. This is a principle of so called "weak measurement", because every localized state in QM is just a superposition of many other states in nested Hilbert space - so you can never get a "complete" entanglement or decoherence of particle and observer, until the observer object becomes a part of observer (their mutual space-time distance is what prohibits a full entanglement).<br><br>In my opinion, main problem of boat-sailor analogy is rather an apparent absence of quantization. Whereas water droplets can undulate in standing waves, the quantization of energy transfer can still take place in second example. After all - if you don't believe in boats and droplets, here are experiments, which are confirming this model directly. <br><br>http://www.physorg.com/news78650511.html<br><br>As we can see, even simple model of water droplets can cover the entanglement, collapse of wave function, decoherence and quantum cryptography and seamlessly reconcile Copenhagen and many worlds interpretations of quantum mechanics in few sentences.Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266478817448155510.post-34073892968009980402009-04-28T06:48:00.000-07:002009-04-28T06:48:00.000-07:00/*..everything results from deformations of a 4D s.../*..everything results from deformations of a 4D spacetime..*/ In AWT everything is density gradient of Aether, which can be considered as a deformation of underlying space-time, too. But AWT doesn't assume any particular number of dimensions of that space-time. The number of space dimensions follows from packing of 3D hyperspheres, by which these gradients can be approximated. <br><br>Of course, the higher number of postulates and ad-hoced constants you'll introduce into your theory, the better such theory would describe this particular situation - the less general it will remain at the case of another situations, though. It's tic-for-tat: here's not general criterion, which theory is better in general situation. I'm just following as general way, as possible.Zephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266478817448155510.post-14992444673261562372009-04-28T05:37:00.000-07:002009-04-28T05:37:00.000-07:00While this analogy is quite interesting it is not ...While this analogy is quite interesting it is not complete.<br><br>Consider an electron which can have spin up or down and two measuring apparatuses which measure the spin along the same axis. The apparatuses are separated by a distance of a few meters. <br><br>After the first apparatus measures the spin of the particle we have a collapse and up to this point your analogy holds, however the electron flies on to the second apparatus and when it is measured again we cannot detect any superposition, the electron will have the same state we measured in the first apparatus even though it did not have the opportunity to come in sync (to synchronize it's phase) with the second apparatus.<br><br>To save the analogy you would have to claim that as the first apparatus exchanges energy with the electron the second one also somehow gets in phase. But we could set up many such apparatuses one after another and they would all have to get in sync with electron the moment the first apparatus makes the observation.<br><br>Even more problematic is the case with two entangled particles. Imagine that we double the setup mentioned above and we have two entangled electrons flying in the opposite directions. The moment one of the pair of electrons gets measured the second one would somehow have to get in sync even though it didn't exchange energy with anything.<br><br>This is just to show that this analogy although nice does not hold in all cases.<br><br>BTW I have my own crackpot theory which explains entanglement and all the rest :P, it even resembles AWT slightly - everything results from deformations of a 4D spacetime, I will try to publish it within the next two years (I'm serious), internet is full of us crackpots lolAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com