Any Physicists Here?

Fortunately Einstein did not lie down at the feet of the accepted scientific views of the time. Had he we would probably still use “ether” to explain that which we do not understand.

Your context post is well taken, however your use of the “aether” analogy may not be appropriate.

Einstein was enamored with light. Einstein invented his Special Theory of Relativity and presented it to the world in 1905. In his STR he got rid of the “aether”. His reason for doing so is very complex and highly controversial, and he has his reasons for doing so.

But by doing so....he got rid of the very means by which James Clerk Maxwell formulated His most notable achievement ....the classical theory of electromagnetic radiation, bringing together for the first time electricity, magnetism, and light as different manifestations of the same phenomenon. Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism have been called the "second great unification in physics".

Maxwell equations was based on the “aether”.

Einstein struggled with that for sure ...but he must get rid of the “aether”. Einstein admitted if the “aether” exists ...his theory goes up in smoke.

Soon problems arose with his STR. Einstein either forgot, overlooked or ignored the forces of gravity, centrifugal and other forces in his STR rendering it useless. It only applies to places where these forces are not present. Name a place in the universe where these forces are not present? 🤷🏻‍♂️

Einstein had to re-invent his STR with gravity and other forces in the mix.

But in doing so ....Einstein HAD TO BRING BACK the “aether”

This is his General Theory of Relativity which he presented to the world in 1915.

In doing so however, Einstein states that this “aether” is “non-ponderable” ....Yet ...George Sagnac detected the aether in 1913 ...ie the Sagnac Effect and so did Albert Michelson in 1881 in Germany, 1887 in the U.S. and again in 1925 (M/G).

Now how does this abode with Einstein’s statement “If the aether exists his theory is falsified”?

1/2 a century later theorists have the universe permeating with quantum particles filling the vacuum of space! ....can anyone say “aether”?

....and is James Clerk Maxwell breathing a sigh of relief in his grave?
 
Last edited:
Yes, I was a Physicist. Here are two thoughts on the discussion.

First, the Particle and Wave models are just that: Models for explaining what’s going on, and not reality itself. Neither is 100% correct. Please don’t ask me what reality is.

Secondly, it’s tempting to think of dark matter in the way that we used to think about the aether, as an all pervasive substance. Current research is pointing away from that. The concept of dark matter gained prominence as a way of explaining that many galaxies rotate faster than they should when we do calculations based on the mass which we can observe. Adding unseen (or dark) matter is a possible explanation. However some galaxies do fit the calculations, and don’t appear to need dark matter. Hence dark matter, if it exists, is not spread uniformly and isn’t analogous to aether.
 
I am not a physicist. But I do come into contact with some of them since my day job is wrangling high performance computers on behalf of people who do scientific research. I worked very hard for a few years on the Belle II project, which is running a particle accelerator and detector in Japan to try and figure out why there's so much more matter than antimatter in the known universe. Theory says there should be roughly equal amounts of both, but as best we know, there is not. In the field this is known as "CP Violation" and it's a big problem.

The very good point was made earlier that the particles in the double-slit experiment have behaviors that are both wave-like and particle-like. IOW their behavior can be described by those two things, but it doesn't fully explain why they do what they do. Quantum theory and the "standard model" that describes matter at the subatomic level is incredibly weird stuff, probably in part because it's incomplete. There's a lot to it that we don't understand and particle physicists are desperate to find the "new physics" that fills in the gaps they know are there.

But the really astonishing thing about those super-weird theories is that they are really good at predicting things that ought to exist, and have subsequently been discovered to exist (the Higgs boson being the most recent and best-known).
 
I am not a physicist. But I do come into contact with some of them since my day job is wrangling high performance computers on behalf of people who do scientific research. I worked very hard for a few years on the Belle II project, which is running a particle accelerator and detector in Japan to try and figure out why there's so much more matter than antimatter in the known universe. Theory says there should be roughly equal amounts of both, but as best we know, there is not. In the field this is known as "CP Violation" and it's a big problem.

The very good point was made earlier that the particles in the double-slit experiment have behaviors that are both wave-like and particle-like. IOW their behavior can be described by those two things, but it doesn't fully explain why they do what they do. Quantum theory and the "standard model" that describes matter at the subatomic level is incredibly weird stuff, probably in part because it's incomplete. There's a lot to it that we don't understand and particle physicists are desperate to find the "new physics" that fills in the gaps they know are there.

But the really astonishing thing about those super-weird theories is that they are really good at predicting things that ought to exist, and have subsequently been discovered to exist (the Higgs boson being the most recent and best-known).

Yes...a very big problem.

If not for the slight edge of Matter over Anti-Matter...we would not be here enjoying the Fractal heavenly bliss!!

No doubt the God Particle thrives in Fractal.
 
Actually, no ...it’s still all theoretical...no one has directly observed particles popping in and out of existence.

The Casimir effect is real and can be measured in the lab. There have also been many particle accelerator/collider experiments done since the 90s that have proven these particle pairs can be generated on demand albeit with a large amount of energy input input into the system to induce the quantum fluctuations to a measurable extent.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/
https://physics.aps.org/story/v2/st28

Cliff, here is an article I came across that I think is a good read about virtual particles that doesn't involve a lot of quantum terminology. Not exactly an explanation for your original query, but it's still semi-related in that it discusses the existence of particles as ripples in fields:

https://profmattstrassler.com/artic...ysics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/
 
I am sure you would. You accept the current scientific status quo. Fortunately Einstein did not lie down at the feet of the accepted scientific views of the time. Had he we would probably still use “ether” to explain that which we do not understand.

You're right... I do accept the current status quo (to some extent), as should we all. After all, a lot of genius minds other than Einstein have dedicated their life's work to working out these problems. We should first strive to understand the knowledge of those who came before us before we can set out to prove them right or wrong, or simply improve upon their foundation that they've laid for the rest of us.

I'm not saying you can't have an idea or "hunch", but, don't feel marginalized when others who have done the leg work and math (and therefore have a greater understanding of the larger picture) are skeptical of your hunch, of which you can't back up because you don't yet have the knowledge or tools to do so. Perhaps you had lousy profs, for which I'm sorry. A decent prof would have used your "hunch" as a teaching opportunity and should have probed your reasoning a bit more. The best teachers have a knack for asking the best rhetorical questions. I'm sorry they scoffed and you.

You are right about one thing. I would not take you seriously. You have the same arrogance that my professors had as well as an inability to step outside of the box that you don’t realize you are in. There are plenty of boring books for that.

I wasn't being arrogant. I was just acknowledging that you already advertised you were not open to being taught. It's right there in your earlier post. I was just commenting on that observation.
 
Then there's the delayed choice quantum eraser in which the state of a wave/particle is seemingly changed based on a future observation. I don't see how your idea of dark matter would have anything to do with this. Perhaps we don't live in a material world after all. Idealism is not new nor intuitive but quantum observation seems to favor it as reality.
 
If not for the slight edge of Matter over Anti-Matter...we would not be here enjoying the Fractal heavenly bliss!!

Oh, it's a situation I'm really very happy about! I'm positively agog when I think about all the complicated... stuff that a really very small number of different particles and forces can cause to happen!
 
Here's my 'lay person #456' explanation -

Always remember that the 'probability wave' is nothing more than a distribution of probabilities for the location that a particle may be found upon an observation - specifically, upon an experiment used to determine where the particle ended up - for example, upon seeing a disturbance on a screen in a 'spot' - a cluster of atoms where the particle found a new home (or temporary lodging before being ejected and heading out again). The probability wave is not in itself a 'thing', that plays a role in the trajectory... just a calculation of odds for various outcome upon measurement - likelihood of receiving a hit here, or there, or over there.

What is amazing, is the accuracy of the odds that are calculated - how accurate the distribution of outcomes matches the predicted distribution of outcomes after many, many 'rolls of the dice'. Any one 'roll of the dice' can end up anywhere in the universe, because the odds are close to, but not quite zero that, the electron from out of an electron gun at MIT may decide to take up residence around a proton on Alpha Centauri , while at the same time the very same 'probability wave' suggests it will likely end up mingling with an atom in the wall with slits, or the screen directly behind it 93.34587% of the time.

So is there a 'guide' wave - is it even implied by the theory, or is it strictly a map of probable outcomes? And do free electrons even exist (as particles), or are their 'footprints' - those little spots on the screen - are these the only thing of substance and locality?

Popular authors who write about the incompatibility of quantum science and classic physics often overlook the fact that Quantum Mechanics is all about probabilities and probability distributions, not about predictions of specific outcomes from initial conditions the way classical physics works - i think that's when they imagine a 'guiding wave' for predictive motion. This may in fact be true, but i don't think it is specifically indicated from the science. In fact, since we just never 'see' a free election or other particle, only the aftermath of it's localizing at the screen or other detecting device, we can ask - 'Do free electrons even exist as particles?'. We know they end up disturbing single atoms at a tiny scale, and this energy cascades to surrounding atoms and molecules and then we see a 'spot' on a screen - but we know little to nothing about that electron or photon, only the 'spot' on the screen that it once disturbed during its journey.

Like photons - do they exist - or is light a continuous field that we can only detect through the absorption of a portion of the field by a 'particle' or 'particles'?, and so we say that light 'comes' in packets because it has only ever been detected by 'containers' (matter particles), or packets of material. and since light can only be measured by packets of matter (like the matter packets in a display screen), they can only ever register in 'packets' - and since that can probably never change, and we will never have another way to measure light, is it safe to simply say 'therefor light can be justifiably declared AS 'particles' in a material world of atoms?
 
Last edited:
We believe that anti-matter and matter annihilate each other when they encounter one another.
Perhaps the result of those annihilations is the particles we’ve been able to observe thus far. Maybe then most of the dark matter has been used up, and whatever’s left missed the target in the initial collision aka the big bang. Hence that remnant has dispersed to the farthest margin of the universe as we understand it.
In order for collisions to occur, there must be at least two things colliding.... and they have to have some substance, at keast in irder to be constructive. On the other hand, waves can destruct.
 
Out of this conversation, I have been able to deduce 2 things:

1. We have some really fookin' smart people on this board.
2. I'm not one of them.
What was the root cause for this conversation? Cliff wanted to order new strings and found an article about string theory. Couldn‘t stop reading and is now working on a quantum computer out of dark matter. I hope it won‘t be heavier that the Axe Fx III.
 
Your context post is well taken, however your use of the “aether” analogy may not be appropriate.

Einstein was enamored with light. Einstein invented his Special Theory of Relativity and presented it to the world in 1905. In his STR he got rid of the “aether”. His reason for doing so is very complex and highly controversial, and he has his reasons for doing so.

But by doing so....he got rid of the very means by which James Clerk Maxwell formulated His most notable achievement ....the classical theory of electromagnetic radiation, bringing together for the first time electricity, magnetism, and light as different manifestations of the same phenomenon. Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism have been called the "second great unification in physics".

Maxwell equations was based on the “aether”.

Einstein struggled with that for sure ...but he must get rid of the “aether”. Einstein admitted if the “aether” exists ...his theory goes up in smoke.

Soon problems arose with his STR. Einstein either forgot, overlooked or ignored the forces of gravity, centrifugal and other forces in his STR rendering it useless. It only applies to places where these forces are not present. Name a place in the universe where these forces are not present? 🤷🏻‍♂️

Einstein had to re-invent his STR with gravity and other forces in the mix.

But in doing so ....Einstein HAD TO BRING BACK the “aether”

This is his General Theory of Relativity which he presented to the world in 1915.

In doing so however, Einstein states that this “aether” is “non-ponderable” ....Yet ...George Sagnac detected the aether in 1913 ...ie the Sagnac Effect and so did Albert Michelson in 1881 in Germany, 1887 in the U.S. and again in 1925 (M/G).

Now how does this abode with Einstein’s statement “If the aether exists his theory is falsified”?

1/2 a century later theorists have the universe permeating with quantum particles filling the vacuum of space! ....can anyone say “aether”?

....and is James Clerk Maxwell breathing a sigh of relief in his grave?

This is really, really wrong.. if you label completely different concepts, with different (observable!) effects, using the same name, anything you say is gonna be meaningless.

Yes, I hope to know a tiny bit of what I am talking about. PhD in theor. physics, before that I worked in cosmology and GR.

Merry Christmas, anyway!
 
Perhaps the result of those annihilations is the particles we’ve been able to observe thus far. Maybe then most of the dark matter has been used up, and whatever’s left missed the target in the initial collision aka the big bang. Hence that remnant has dispersed to the farthest margin of the universe as we understand it.
In order for collisions to occur, there must be at least two things colliding.... and they have to have some substance, at keast in irder to be constructive. On the other hand, waves can destruct.

We are the leftovers of the stuff that did not annihilate. And we know for a fact that matter and anti-matter annihilate. We do that all the time. There is likely no anti-matter out there in the universe and dark matter is not anti-matter. If that would be the case we could observe it, like normal matter. Also we would see the traces of this annihilation, which we don't.
In order for collisions to occur, there must be first of all space and time.

I always struggle with the casimir effect and always come to the conclusion that it just must be the plain old Van der Waals force.
I'm just too stupid and and way too lazy for all that weirdo physics stuff, although I'm really interested in it.
 
Back
Top Bottom