So the way to an absolute inertial frame is through ether theory. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, and first of all we need to get rid of the widespread idea that relativity is necessary to explain observations and experimental results. Then realize that what we call a vacuum isn't empty, isn't nothing, it is full of stuff, the stuff that we call light and electromagnetic radiation and the stuff that is responsible for gravitation, any volume of space has plenty of these things passing through, interacting with one another and with whatever matter is present, it cannot be ignored. We have to explain how the interaction between these things and matter can slow down the internal processes of that matter, which are electromagnetic in nature. In that way we can hope to explain why an atomic clock can run slower or faster depending on its state of motion relative to these things. An atomic clock in Earth orbit isn't moving through empty space, it is moving relative to all the stuff emitted by the Sun and the Earth, so it isn't inconceivable that the atomic clock would behave differently depending on how fast it is moving through this stuff.

That's where we have to look, instead of looking at relativity multiverses and extra dimensions and whatnot, the physicists have been at it for a century and they're stuck. Desperately stuck. Students are taught these theories, in order to become physicists they have to spend a lot of time working with these theories and applying them, these theories are so against common sense that the students are told to "shut up and calculate", and by the time they become physicists that's what they do, shut up and calculate, unable to think outside the box anymore, unable to question the assumptions at the root of relativity and quantum mechanics. Modern physics is stuck in a box. We can get out of it. I'm showing you the way.

I said I'm not going to be available for a while, I shouldn't be here now, but I guess the urge to respond is too strong, so I'll be quick — leo

If this is a quick note I'd hate to see one of your long ones.

There really is a medium permeating all space that is detectable

The evidence for stuff in supposed vacuum is not evidence that said stuff acts as a medium. You may posit the medium, but all efforts to detect one have so far failed.

Now consider an atomic clock at rest in that medium (isotropic radiation coming from all around) and an atomic clock in motion (anisotropic radiation). An atomic clock is based on the behavior of atoms (and electrons), that behavior depends on their environment, why should we expect that the two atomic clocks behave the same when one receives isotropic electromagnetic radiation and the other one anisotropic electromagnetic radiation?

We can subject said clock to radiation of our choice, and none of it being the medium you speak of, none of it has any effect. I say this because what you suggest is easily tested, and would completely violate both theories if said anisotropic radiation had any effect.

The question ... talks about being in a dense hollow shell, a region of a flat gravitational field (no acceleration, but still in a well).
— noAxioms

I don't know, the ether flow model works well in many cases but it seems to be problematic in the kind of situation you mention.

Maybe the reason the mainstream view is taught in schools is because GR has a clear answer for this situation. If LET was fully generalized, why are you guessing instead of looking it up? If not, is has no business being taught. If the moving ether model can't account for observations in the case I mention, then the moving ether model is incomplete or wrong.

Meta (in the post following the one to which I'm replying) calls it 'activity' instead of motion, but activity doesn't explain two clocks in the same place running at different speeds. The flowing ether model does, but it seems to come up short in some cases.

I suppose Lorentz's theory has been generalized then? I wonder how black holes are handled since they don't seem to exist under LET.
— noAxioms

I gave a link to an example of such a generalization, but it could be generalized in other ways.

Oh, so if that 2-page paper is the general theory, you should be able to answer the questions based on that particular work. It seems to mostly just refer to gravitational field theory (Einstein) for all the mathematics. I don't even think it makes a suggestion for the choice of frame.

As I said I don't consider that time 'flows',

You said 'runs' I think. Same thing. Anything that isn't a 4D spacetime view is a preferred moment, and if change doesn't progress, well, that's kind of like a Boltzmann brain situation, and very few people argue for that view.

but in order to compute absolute time dilation one would have to have detected the absolute frame in the first place

Let's assume the comoving one like everybody else does. We're only moving at around 350 km/sec in that frame. Hardly any dilation due to motion. It's the gravity part they always shy away from. Problem is, the equation doesn't converge.

Yes strictly speaking they don't 'see', I explained that in another post, what they see is mostly Doppler not the real rate of the other clock. But when each of them assumes that light travels at c in all directions in their frame, each of them infers (computes) that in their frame the other clock is ticking more slowly.

No paradox there.

One can do it the complicated way (the non-inertial frame in which the traveler is stationary the whole way), but then the twin back home ages mostly during the time taken to turn around.
— noAxioms
And that's exactly the kind of stuff that confuses people.

Rightly so. Besides the needless complication, a person's point of view is not the cause of events, remote or not. Mike Fontenot doesn't seem to realize this, wording his assertions as if a PoV is such a cause.

The idea of an instant "remote age change". If there is no acceleration, there is no "during the acceleration".

No, there's just 'at' the acceleration. Mathematically, an extended object (anything not a point mass) cannot instantly accelerate without distortion, so instant acceleration isn't possible even if infinite power was theoretically possible.

Consider that we don't even need to talk about twins, we can simply talk about the clock readings.

I've said the same, but everybody seems incapable of visualizing things unless they're 'identical' human observers of some kind. For one, pregnant women make far better biological clocks.

In that way there is no need to jump to another ship and accelerate, whatever reading the clock of the first spaceship indicates can be transmitted to the other spaceship going the other way when they pass by one another, and the clock of the second spaceship can be synchronized to it. In that way it is as if the clock had been transferred to the second ship without any acceleration at any point. Sure there is a change of inertial frame.

Yes, this tag-team method illustrates the point without worry about acceleration at all. There isn't even a change of frame since each ship just keeps right on going.

But still, at any moment, it is as if from the point of view of the moving clock, the staying clock is always ticking more slowly.

I don't get what you mean by that. From the PoV of any thing, the thing is not moving.

We may be in a privileged location (how would we know we aren't), but let's assume we aren't anyway, and that the Hubble law applies from the point of view of other galaxies, that redshift of distant galaxies is proportional to their distance. Even if that redshift/distance law applies to arbitrarily large distances, the velocity/distance law doesn't, or at the very least there is no reason it should apply.

Redshift is a function of the increase in separation over time of the observed object and the observation. No increase in that rate means no increase of redshift.
LET supports this, using the same coordinate system as does GR. Notice I don't say 'velocity' because that rate is only velocity under a relational definition of the word.

If we assume no superluminal velocity, then arbitrarily large redshift doesn't translate to arbitrarily large velocity, as the redshift increases the velocity approaches the speed of light, just like in a given inertial frame if you have a projectile with a very high redshift its velocity is close to the speed of light not above.
...
The absolute frame can be inertial. See the problem with the mainstream narrative? Pushing beliefs as if they were truths.

Dark matter and energy aren't incompatible with an absolute inertial frame. — leo

You obviously haven't thought that through. Nobody seems to support the inertial model/mapping of the universe. I've never seen a picture of it, but you claim to have drawn one. I drew one myself because I could not find one published anywhere. It didn't support dark energy. It can have no event horizon, and that makes it a contradiction with reality.
Ignoring the problems with dark energy, absolute interpretations really fall apart under the inertial frame model since it can be demonstrated that the universe is probably older than any arbitrary finite age you can choose.

The problem is that it takes infinite energy to accelerate the last bit, so it cannot be sustained. What can be done is indefinite proper acceleration of 1G like that, in which case light speed is never reached.
— noAxioms
I know that isn't true, yet that's exactly what they do when they say that the recession velocities of galaxies are proportional to their distance no matter how distant they are.
They don't take into account how velocity approaches the speed of light as redshift increases.

Now you're talking nonsense. Redshift is about observation, so irrelevant. I'm saying continuous acceleration (defined as a constant change in velocity in a given frame) would take you over light speed and is impossible only because infinite energy would be required for the last bit. Continuous proper acceleration on the other hand (defined as a constant value on the onboard accelerometer) is quite possible, and occurs in reality, and indeed, light speed is never reached in any inertial frame because of the way relativistic velocities add up.
Know the difference between acceleration and proper acceleration before you make such statements.

I actually tried to draw a picture of the whole universe using an inertial frame, including these 'superluminal' objects.
— noAxioms

I did that too,

Got a link to it somewhere?

That sounds stupid only because you assume special relativity is true

It sound stupid because if any of it actually worked that way, the mainstream view would be easily empirically falsifiable.

Meta (in the post following the one to which I'm replying) calls it 'activity' instead of motion, but activity doesn't explain two clocks in the same place running at different speeds. The flowing ether model does, but it seems to come up short in some cases. — noAxioms

I really don't know what you would mean by "two clocks in the same place". Are the clocks composed of different materials such that one exists within the other? If so, that would explain why they run at different speeds. If they are similar materials and side by side, the fact that they are side by side, in an active medium would explain the difference. I don't think you have a valid argument here. You need to better explain your proposed situation of 'two clocks in the same place running at different speeds".

I mean one clock stationary and another right next to it (momentarily at least), but moving at high velocity. The 'activity' at that location is the same, and yet one clock is dilated (runs slow and is length contracted) and the other not, so thus it isn't the local 'activity' that causes it.
That's why 'speed relative to the ether' works better because the two clocks are in the same ether but have different velocities to it. But if speed through ether is the explanation, then ether must be moving through me if I'm in a gravity well, but there are cases where it clearly shouldn't be. So the 'dilation by motion relative to the ether' also seems to fall apart.

It seems the theory proper doesn't have an answer to this (why ether is necessary at all) and other issues, because if it had answers, you absolutists would tell me how they've been resolved. If the issues haven't been resolved, it would explain why mainstream relativity is taught in schools and not the absolute interpretation.

I mean one clock stationary and another right next to it (momentarily at least), but moving at high velocity. The 'activity' at that location is the same, and yet one clock is dilated (runs slow and is length contracted) and the other not, so thus it isn't the local 'activity' that causes it. — noAxioms

Don't you see that as a nonsense (impossible) situation? One clock is moving at a high velocity relative to the other. It is next to the other "momentarily". Therefore there is no such thing as the same "activity" of the two distinct clocks at the "same" location. Each clock has its own particular activity relative to its location as it approaches, and recedes from the location of the other clock. If one clock is assumed at rest, its activity will occur in one very small, particular locality, while the supposed "same" activity of the other clock (moving at a high velocity relative to the other), will occur over a large, extended area. There is no duration of time in which the clocks are at the same location, and therefore no activity when the clocks are at the same location. In reality, the clocks are never at the same location, they only pass near to each other, and the respective "activity" of each clock cannot be compared as you propose.

That's why 'speed relative to the ether' works better because the two clocks are in the same ether but have different velocities to it. — noAxioms

This scenario ought to be impossible according to Michelson-Morley experiments. That's what was disproven, the idea that a physical object moves relative to the ether. This would necessarily create a disturbance in the ether, and none can be detected. That's why I proposed that we conceive of physical objects as property of the ether. This is consistent with particle theory which conceives of particles as property of fields.

But if speed through ether is the explanation, then ether must be moving through me if I'm in a gravity well, but there are cases where it clearly shouldn't be. So the 'dilation by motion relative to the ether' also seems to fall apart. — noAxioms

It's not that the ether is moving "through" you, but that you, as a physical object, are a property of the ether. That's why I said it's better to conceive of the ether as changing rather than flowing. The ether is continuously changing as time passes, but so are you, so there is no inconsistency. Think of the motion of objects as changes within the ether in which energy is transmitted, just like waves, except we really don't know all the ways in which the ether is capable of changing. We barely touch the tip of the iceberg with electro-magnetics, because electrons hardly account for any mass.

t seems the theory proper doesn't have an answer to this (why ether is necessary at all) and other issues, because if it had answers, you absolutists would tell me how they've been resolved. If the issues haven't been resolved, it would explain why mainstream relativity is taught in schools and not the absolute interpretation. — noAxioms

Ether is necessary to account for the reality of waves. A wave is in a substance. We can deny the reality of these waves, but then fields and wavefunctions don't represent anything real. Observation attests to the reality of these waves. If the waves are real, then so is the medium in which they exist.

One clock is moving at a high velocity relative to the other. It is next to the other "momentarily". Therefore there is no such thing as the same "activity" of the two distinct clocks at the "same" location. — Metaphysician Undercover

The term 'activity' comes from you, and you did not seem to be referring to the activity of each clock, but rather to the ether or something else in the environment:

The "absolute inertial frame" cannot be produced without a proper representation of the ether flow, which may not be a flow at all, but some other unknown type of activity. — Metaphysician Undercover

So I am reacting to that usage of the word 'activity'.

That's why 'speed relative to the ether' works better because the two clocks are in the same ether but have different velocities to it.
— noAxioms
This scenario ought to be impossible according to Michelson-Morley experiments. That's what was disproven, the idea that a physical object moves relative to the ether.

If the ether is undetectable, then the M-M experiment proved nothing about it.

It's not that the ether is moving "through" you, but that you, as a physical object, are a property of the ether. That's why I said it's better to conceive of the ether as changing rather than flowing.

The ether is changing (instead of 'activity'). There are the same two objects in proximity, one heavily length contracted. The cause seems to be the object's speed and not a difference in how the ether is changing. Same argument. The object's speed causes the contraction, not the ether causing it.

Ether is necessary to account for the reality of waves.

That the state of a system can be represented by something called a wavefunction does not mean that the system is necessarily a wave, or that a medium is required for it. The Schrodinger equation does just fine with the future evolution of a wave function without requirement for an ether.

A wave is in a substance. We can deny the reality of these waves, but then fields and wavefunctions don't represent anything real.

Fallacious reasoning. They might represent something real that simply isn't actually a wave.

The term 'activity' comes from you, and you did not seem to be referring to the activity of each clock, but rather to the ether or something else in the environment: — noAxioms

Yes, I was talking about the activity of the ether. You introduced to that discussion, "clocks". Now a clock is itself a form of activity, and you asked how it is possible that two clocks (two specified activities) at the same place, at the same time, with one of them moving at a high velocity in relation to the other, could be "the same". I just pointed out to you how this notion, this scenario you created, is in fact contradictory. If one is moving at a high velocity relative to the other, then clearly the two clocks are not each the same "activity".

So the "activity" of each clock cannot be said to be the same activity, they are distinct as one is at a high velocity relative to the other, and your objection is unfounded.

If the ether is undetectable, then the M-M experiment proved nothing about it. — noAxioms

Why do you conclude that the ether is undetectable? What the M-M experiment demonstrated is that the ether is not detectable through the means employed. The means employed assumed as a premise, that the ether would be a substance separate from the substance of physical objects like the earth. So the experiments demonstrated that the ether is not such a separate substance, and cannot be detected in a way which assumed this premise. The experiments do not demonstrate that the ether cannot be detected in any absolute sense. And, as I explained, quantum physics demonstrates that the ether does not exist as a separate substance from the objects, the particles are attributes of the ether.

The ether is changing (instead of 'activity'). There are the same two objects in proximity, one heavily length contracted. The cause seems to be the object's speed and not a difference in how the ether is changing. Same argument. The object's speed causes the contraction, not the ether causing it. — noAxioms

The "object" is a feature of the ether, as demonstrated by quantum mechanics, and understood through the precepts of particle physics. Therefore any change in location of the object is better described, and understood as a change in the ether. What you call "the object's speed" is simply how changes in the ether appear to us, as observers. The appearance of "an object" is simply a feature of the ether. Therefore the object's apparent form (length contracted) is also a feature of the ether. The "object's speed" is a fundamentally arbitrary judgement which you and other human beings make based on some assumptions of an inertial frame or whatever, and therefore cannot be the cause of anything real concerning the object. That's why it's wrong to say that the object's speed causes the contraction. The true inertial frame can only be understood from a description of the ether and its activities (changes). The contraction is an appearance only.

They might represent something real that simply isn't actually a wave. — noAxioms

Sure, and a rainbow doesn't involve the refraction of waves either. What is the point in referring to science, if you are simply going to deny the obvious conclusions drawn from simple observations, saying things "might " be otherwise, just for the sake of supporting the possibility of some obviously faulty metaphysics? Instead, try changing your metaphysics to be consistent with empirical observations and real science.

Yes, I was talking about the activity of the ether. You introduced to that discussion, "clocks". Now a clock is itself a form of activity, and you asked how it is possible that two clocks (two specified activities) at the same place, at the same time, with one of them moving at a high velocity in relation to the other, could be "the same". — Metaphysician Undercover

I never said they were the same. You can make the two things billiard balls if you like. The moving one is half the length and twice the mass of other (a physical change), but the 'activty' of the ether is the same at those two locations, hence it seems that the ether activity there has nothing to do with the different properties of the two balls. If the contraction is caused by the ether, then it must be its speed through the ether, or the ether's speed through it. If not, the ether seems unnecessary for the view at all and there's just a preferred frame for whatever reason.
Correct any holes in my logic, since I'm arguing about a theory I don't hold, so I might misrepresent it. I certainly don't know how all the absolutist interpretations word it, but I know some posit relative motion with the ether as the cause of the physical change.

There is no physical change to the balls in the mainstream view. The differing length measurements are due to spatial separation of different things, not a change in the thing itself.

I just pointed out to you how this notion, this scenario you created, is in fact contradictory. If one is moving at a high velocity relative to the other, then clearly the two clocks are not each the same "activity".

Again you use the word in a different way than your original usage. I never spoke of the activity of the clocks, but since you seem to dwell on it, I made the two objects into balls. The ether has physically changed one of the balls, which sort of kills the absolutist's claim to being the more intuitive view. Relativity isn't intuitive no matter how you look at it.

They might represent something real that simply isn't actually a wave.
— noAxioms
Sure, and a rainbow doesn't involve the refraction of waves either.

That's right. Maybe it doesn't. Hence your assertion that we can't deny the reality of these waves being fallacious. Yes, light has a dual nature, and of course you gravitate towards rainbows where it is most wave like, but you've not demonstrated that matter is actually waves, so one is free to deny it. I'm personally open both ways. I don't know.

The moving one is half the length and twice the mass of other (a physical change), but the 'activty' of the ether is the same at those two locations, — noAxioms

You don't seem to understand. The objects, billiard balls now instead of clocks, are features of the ether. I've explained this over and over, but you don't seem to get it. It's what we can take away from the M-M experiment, as what is likely the case, objects are not independent from the ether. The existence of an object is a feature of the ether, like a particle is a feature of the field in particle physics. So if one ball is moving at a high velocity in relation to the other ball, then the activity of the ether cannot be the same at the two locations. The movement of the ball is an activity of the ether.

That's right. Maybe it doesn't. Hence your assertion that we can't deny the reality of these waves being fallacious. Yes, light has a dual nature, and of course you gravitate towards rainbows where it is most wave like, but you've not demonstrated that matter is actually waves, so one is free to deny it. I'm personally open both ways. I don't know. — noAxioms

The only thing I'm trying to demonstrate is that the objection you made to what I said, is baseless.

You don't seem to understand. The objects, billiard balls now instead of clocks, are features of the ether. I've explained this over and over, but you don't seem to get it. It's what we can take away from the M-M experiment, as what is likely the case, objects are not independent from the ether. The existence of an object is a feature of the ether, like a particle is a feature of the field in particle physics. So if one ball is moving at a high velocity in relation to the other ball, then the activity of the ether cannot be the same at the two locations. The movement of the ball is an activity of the ether. — Metaphysician Undercover

OK. Sounds a little like Conway game of Life which has an objective medium, undetectable directly, but the activity of which determines the physical properties of the 'matter'.

I am unaware of any actual model that has been fleshed out that works this way for our universe. Is there one, or is this just your contribution here?
The M-M experiment results do not suggest this case is particularly likely since there are actual fleshed out models that don't involve the ether which are still entirely consistent with the M-M results.

The only thing I'm trying to demonstrate is that the objection you made to what I said, is baseless. — Metaphysician Undercover

You seem to be failing in your demonstration of that. Yes, I agree that you are trying.
I suspect the thing to which I've objected here is probably that 'one cannot deny the reality of waves', but light also behaves in ways that waves do not, such as throwing crisp shadows, so light seems in reality to be something that is best described as neither particle nor wave.

I am unaware of any actual model that has been fleshed out that works this way for our universe. Is there one, or is this just your contribution here? — noAxioms

The only models I can think of are those of particles physics, in which the particles are a feature of the fields..

The M-M experiment results do not suggest this case is particularly likely since there are actual fleshed out models that don't involve the ether which are still entirely consistent with the M-M results. — noAxioms

Empirical evidence indicates that there are waves and this necessitates the conclusion of an "ether" or some such substance which the waves exist in. The M-M results show that the "ether" is not a substance independent of material objects. There is little, if any movement of the ether relative to the earth. Therefore we can conclude that the "ether" and material objects are not separate substances, they are one and the same substance, just like "particle-wave".

You seem to be failing in your demonstration of that. — noAxioms

Actually you seem to understand now. Your objection about the two clocks, or two billiard balls is not applicable when the objects are conceived of as part of the ether. Each is a different activity of the ether. The two clocks cannot be said to have the same activity (therefore as 'clocks' they are not the same), nor can the two balls be said to be the same, in any real way. It makes no sense to refer to these distinct things involved in completely different activities, as the same. That's all I wanted to explain, and I think I've finally succeeded. Whether you agree with the premise which makes your objection irrelevant, doesn't matter, your objection is still irrelevant from the perspective of the metaphysics which holds this premise.

Empirical evidence indicates that there are waves and this necessitates the conclusion of an "ether" or some such substance which the waves exist in — Metaphysician Undercover

I would like to hear this from a physicist. :roll:

It's one of the first things I learned in high school physics, waves are an activity of the medium, and we experimented in wave tanks.

What is the medium through which probability waves in QM travel?

How about it, physicist out there? Clarify the idea that MU advances? Waves in fields create particles? Good luck with the metaphysics of fields. :nerd:

What is the medium through which probability waves in QM travel? — jgill

I believe that fields, like the electromagnetic field, are a real medium in particle physics.

The only models I can think of are those of particles physics, in which the particles are a feature of the fields.. — Metaphysician Undercover

None of those require a preferred frame for the fields. Any theory corresponding to the ether would need to.

Empirical evidence indicates that there are waves and this necessitates the conclusion of an "ether" or some such substance which the waves exist in.

All empirical evidence for real waves (like in water) have an obvious medium, and no real waves behave like that which the M-M experiment is measuring, so this is just your biases talking.

Your objection about the two clocks, or two billiard balls is not applicable when the objects are conceived of as part of the ether. Each is a different activity of the ether. The two clocks cannot be said to have the same activity (therefore as 'clocks' they are not the same), nor can the two balls be said to be the same, in any real way. It makes no sense to refer to these distinct things involved in completely different activities, as the same. That's all I wanted to explain, and I think I've finally succeeded.

I agreed to that, yes.

waves are an activity of the medium — Metaphysician Undercover

Kind of by definition, yes. What jgill was questioning not that definition, but where you assert "Empirical evidence indicates that there are waves". That part does not hold up.

What is the medium through which probability waves in QM travel? — jgill

QM does not posit waves of probability, through a medium or otherwise.
Meta's answer to this is a statement of his personal beliefs, but nothing about what QM theory says.

QM does not posit waves of probability, through a medium or otherwise. — noAxioms

Of course it does, but not in a physical sense.

From Physics.Org: "At the heart of quantum mechanics lies the wave function, a probability function used by physicists to understand the nanoscale world. Using the wave function, physicists can calculate a system's future behavior, but only with a certain probability. This inherently probabilistic nature of quantum theory differs from the certainty with which scientists can describe the classical world, leading to a nearly century-long debate on how to interpret the wave function: does it representative objective reality or merely the subjective knowledge of an observer?"

Fairly good description there, but the phrase 'waves of probability' hardly fits that.
Yes, there is a wave function, and yes, the function is probabilistic, but that doesn't make the function a 'wave of probability' traveling through a medium. It simply means that the probability of any particular measurement can be computed from the wave function.

None of those require a preferred frame for the fields. Any theory corresponding to the ether would need to. — noAxioms

This is not true. The preferred frame, what Leo called the "absolute inertial frame" could only be produced from an accurate understanding of the activity of the ether. The fact that we do not understand the nature of the ether inhibits our capacity to produce such a frame. So physicists have to construct numerous different fields to deal with the numerous different aspects of material existence.

All empirical evidence for real waves (like in water) have an obvious medium, and no real waves behave like that which the M-M experiment is measuring, so this is just your biases talking. — noAxioms

Electromagnetic waves behave just like other waves. That's why when we study the physics of waves, we learn the fundamental principles of wave motion by observing and studying visible waves in wave tanks, then we move on to vibrating strings, sounds, and light. The fundamental principles of all wave action are the same no matter what the medium is. Your claim that electromagnetic waves are somehow fundamentally different than other waves not only biases your perspective, but it puts you in the wrong.

Kind of by definition, yes. What jgill was questioning not that definition, but where you assert "Empirical evidence indicates that there are waves". That part does not hold up. — noAxioms

Remember, I mentioned the rainbow, and "refraction"? Refraction of light has been studied for hundreds of years. Here's how Wikipedia defines it: "refraction is the change in direction of a wave passing from one medium to another or from a gradual change in the medium." You said maybe the rainbow isn't produced from refraction of waves. Your just denying hundreds of years of accepted science, and the empirical evidence which supports that science.

Yes, there is a wave function, and yes, the function is probabilistic, but that doesn't make the function a 'wave of probability' traveling through a medium — noAxioms

"By analogy with waves such as those of sound, a wave function, designated by the Greek letter psi, Ψ, may be thought of as an expression for the amplitude of the particle wave (or de Broglie wave), although for such waves amplitude has no physical significance." Encyl. Brit.

I was suggesting a metaphysical argument. Interested in seeing what it would provoke. :snicker:

What is the medium through which probability waves in QM travel?

How about it, physicist out there? Clarify the idea that MU advances? Waves in fields create particles? Good luck with the metaphysics of fields. — jgill

To me it seems like a quaint prejudice to insist that anything that is wave-like requires a medium. Maybe there is something to the idea; I wish there were some non-cranks here who could explain this point of view. Technically, a (physical) field is just a distribution of physical values in space - nothing less, nothing more. Why would some additional stuff smeared over space be required?

Found this paper, gives some historical perspective on the issue:

The term, ‘‘field,’’ made its first appearance in physics as a technical term in the mid-nineteenth century. But the notion of what later came to be called a field had been a long time in gestation. Early discussions of magnetism and of the cause of the ocean tides had long ago suggested the idea of a ‘‘zone of influence’’ surrounding certain bodies. Johannes Kepler’s mathematical rendering of the orbital motion of Mars encouraged him to formulate what he called ‘‘a true theory of gravity’’ involving the notion of attraction. Isaac Newton went on to construct an eminently effective dynamics, with attraction as its primary example of force. Was his a field theory? Historians of science disagree. Much depends on whether a theory consistent with the notion of action at a distance ought qualify as a ‘‘field’’ theory. Roger Boscovich and Immanuel Kant later took the Newtonian concept of attraction in new directions. It was left to Michael Faraday to propose the ‘‘physical existence’’ of lines of force and to James Clerk Maxwell to add as criterion the presence of energy as the ontological basis for a full-blown ‘‘field theory’’ of electromagnetic phenomena. — Ernan McMullin, The Origins of the Field Concept in Physics (2002)

Somebody consider the possibility that quantum mechanics applies to all phenomena since even complex configurations (e.g rocks) are an aggregation of simpler configurations (e.g. molecules, atoms, sub-atomic, etc). Therefore, even a rock could act as both wave and particle in the sense that it has a corresponding force resonance (vibration sequence/pattern -> a wave property) aligned with its apparent physicality (or interactive configuration).

If complex configurations are an aggregate of simpler configurations and, quantum mechanics is a perspective on those simpler configurations, doesn't that mean that every complexity we seem to have has a field of activity in which quantum mechanics applies?

To me it seems like a quaint prejudice to insist that anything that is wave-like requires a medium. Maybe there is something to the idea; I wish there were some non-cranks here who could explain this point of view. — SophistiCat

If you automatically designate as a "crank" anyone who expresses this idea, that if it looks like and acts like a wave, then it is a wave, and a wave by definition, requires a medium, you'll never find a non-crank who could explain this idea.

That the conventional wisdom is to completely ignore what is necessitated by logic, making those who respect the logic into "cranks" is a pathetic state of affairs.

I would like to hear this from a physicist. — jgill

We had a precious few physicists involved in discussions, but they seem to have vanished. The "cranks" (and I mean real crackpots) seem to frustrate them.

that if it looks like and acts like a wave, then it is a wave, and a wave by definition, requires a medium, — Metaphysician Undercover

Imo, problems like these are an inevitable product of the interaction of language and insufficient understanding. E.g., "medium" needs careful definition. There may have been a time when the idea of a medium could be left vague and subject to naive intuition, but that day is long gone, if indeed for scientists there ever was such a day.

If for example I tie one end of a rope to a tree and then take the other end out to some distance and move it rapidly and forcefully up and down, I can easily establish a standing wave in the rope. Or, such a thing is the simple operation of a guitar string. The medium, if you want to call it that, is air, but the air - the medium in this case - is irrelevant. Is there something else present without which the vibration of a string under tension does not happen? I don't know, but as a question of the presence or absence, necessity or not, of a medium, that is going to depend on definition.

If you automatically designate as a "crank" anyone who expresses this idea, that if it looks like and acts like a wave, then it is a wave, and a wave by definition, requires a medium, you'll never find a non-crank who could explain this idea. — Metaphysician Undercover

You are right: this isn't even cranky, this is just stupid. But I didn't say that only a crank could defend the idea that waves and fields require a medium: on the contrary, I was looking for an intelligent explanation. And I have found some some, such as McMullin's paper.

I acknowledge that historically, it made sense to think that way. Waves transmit influence, they cause action at a distance. It makes intuitive sense to think that matter is required to transmit action: you want to move something - you push it, poke it with a stick or throw a rock at it; even a monkey understands that much. Hume defined a cause in accordance with contemporary understanding as "an object precedent and contiguous to another." Of course, Newton's gravitational interaction violated this "law of causality" quite spectacularly, and indeed this issue vexed him and those who followed.

If for example I tie one end of a rope to a tree and then take the other end out to some distance and move it rapidly and forcefully up and down, I can easily establish a standing wave in the rope. Or, such a thing is the simple operation of a guitar string. The medium, if you want to call it that, is air, but the air - the medium in this case - is irrelevant. — tim wood

The medium in this case is the rope, not the air. The air carries resulting sound waves perhaps, but not the wave in the rope, which would be there even if the exercise was done in a vacuum.

Yes, light acts like a wave in one way, but it acts in other ways like no wave acts. If it swims like a duck but honks like a goose, it's probably not a duck. To assert it being a duck by only considering the swimming property and turning a deaf ear to the honking is a blatant example of selection bias. So no, Meta, it does not look and act like a wave.

The medium in this case is the rope, not the air. — noAxioms

Yep, that makes sense. I'm corrected, and TY!

I still like the idea of a metaphysical medium through which probability waves travel.

But, assuming the PW is itself a metaphysical entity, then it is a metaphysical actuality since it "describes" a physical observation. A previous thread mentioned this notion, and I find it entertaining to contemplate. :cool: