Could aether be the factor that integrates phenomena of quantum mechanics and general relativity, the observation of which would finally provide us with a realist interpretation akin to the one Einstein sought? Can experimental designs and instrumentation ever become advanced enough to register such a medium, and what does current physics suggest about the chances of this substrate existing? — Enrique

This is all pseudo-scientific speculation. It's not even really speculation, because the things you suggest don't really mean anything. You just use scientific buzz-words; e.g. entanglement, aether, nonlocality, spacetime, relativistic frame; sort of jumbled together and stacked on top of each other to sound profound, but it's not, it's nonsense. If the forum were true to it's standards, this type of post would not be allowed.

Apparently you've never read a book or taken a course on quantum mechanics or relativity theory. Probably haven't even talked about the subject much either. Are you just trying to get a rise out of me by insulting my post based on nothing? You shouldn't troll with contentless posts indicating you don't know anything about the subject being discussed, but at least someone troubled to get the ball rolling, though not in the most productive way. And what in the world is your definition of pseudoscience? You brandish the term a lot but don't really specify its meaning. Is philosophy of science all pseudoscience in your estimation? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've got something of substance to say after all.

Much as I hate to agree with him, @T Clark is right.

It looks as if all you have is yet another hidden variable theory, waving the word "aether" around.

Show how your proposal is compatible with Bell's inequality.

@T Clark and @Banno are wrong lol anyways, someone who cares about physics want to comment?

This is a philosophy forum perhaps if you’re looking for a comment from people knowledgeable of physics you could try posting it to physicsforums.com

You deleted the post, but that's funny. I'll admit I'm not a Ph.d, though I've been learning from some of the best books on the subject and I presume they were written for a reason besides deluding me lol

It looks as if all you have is yet another hidden variable theory, waving the word "aether" around.

Show how your proposal is compatible with Bell's inequality. — Banno

Essentially, the statistical results of Bell's experiment rule out local hidden variables, a property of the particles themselves determining probabilistic outcome, verifying nonlocality in quantum mechanics. The delayed choice experiment which developed out of Einstein's EPR paradox paper seems to contradict nonlocal hidden variables of a kind consistent with relativity unless viewing the detectors as separate reference frames, and this doesn't explain anything beyond correcting some calculative imprecision between clocks etc., basically not a realist account. The aether proposal explains why quantum entanglement can appear to transcend the speed of light while general relativity and nonlocal quantum mechanics still hold, and does not entail the controversial issues of observer and measurement dependence that I think are a metaphysical illusion of logic and woo chasing its tail. So any prospect of proving it empirically?

banno’s right you’re basically appealing to the Bohr-De Broglie’s ‘hidden variables’ type of argument. Here are some video tutorials on it. Oh, and you can be mistaken without being literally delusional. Very easy in this topic, I would think. I’m sure that Einstein and the other luminaries of physics had a very good reason for discounting the existence of aether, and if you’re going to prove them wrong it’ll take more than a Forum post to do it.

From what I've read, De Broglie wave theory is an intriguing model of what goes on inside the atom, but doesn't account for spooky action at a distance entanglement. Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation claims that all we can know of a quantum system is what can be measured, in his day restricted to the initial conditions and final probabilities of an experiment along with some rudimentary geometrical representations derived from the interaction of atoms with radiation. This paradigm is consistent within its constraints, but nonlocality on the macroscopic scale is still a mystery. I'll have to give those resources a look and maybe get some further ideas. Or someone could inform me in a post and save me the trouble.

Pilot wave theory, forgot about it, not sure if it can explain electron spin correlation in addition to position properties, but I'll have to look into that.

From what I've read, De Broglie wave theory is an intriguing model of what goes on inside the atom, but doesn't account for spooky action at a distance entanglement. — Enrique

There's a subject called 'the De Broglie-Bohm theory':

The de Broglie–Bohm theory, also known as the pilot wave theory, Bohmian mechanics, Bohm's interpretation, and the causal interpretation, is an interpretation of quantum mechanics. In addition to the wavefunction, it also postulates an actual configuration of particles exists even when unobserved. The evolution over time of the configuration of all particles is defined by a guiding equation. The evolution of the wave function over time is given by the Schrödinger equation. The theory is named after Louis de Broglie (1892–1987) and David Bohm (1917–1992).

The theory is deterministic[1] and explicitly nonlocal: the velocity of any one particle depends on the value of the guiding equation, which depends on the configuration of all the particles under consideration.

Measurements are a particular case of quantum processes described by the theory and yields the standard quantum predictions generally associated with the Copenhagen interpretation. The theory does not have a "measurement problem", due to the fact that the particles have a definite configuration at all times. The Born rule in Broglie–Bohm theory is not a basic law. Rather, in this theory, the link between the probability density and the wave function has the status of a hypothesis, called the "quantum equilibrium hypothesis", which is additional to the basic principles governing the wave function.

The theory was historically developed in the 1920s by de Broglie, who, in 1927, was persuaded to abandon it in favour of the then-mainstream Copenhagen interpretation. David Bohm, dissatisfied with the prevailing orthodoxy, rediscovered de Broglie's pilot-wave theory in 1952. Bohm's suggestions were not then widely received, partly due to reasons unrelated to their content, such as Bohm's youthful communist affiliations.[2] The de Broglie–Bohm theory was widely deemed unacceptable by mainstream theorists, mostly because of its explicit non-locality. Bell's theorem (1964) was inspired by Bell's discovery of Bohm's work; he wondered whether the theory's obvious nonlocality could be eliminated. Since the 1990s, there has been renewed interest in formulating extensions to de Broglie–Bohm theory, attempting to reconcile it with special relativity and quantum field theory, besides other features such as spin or curved spatial geometries.[3] — Wiki

But you will notice that even that article contains equations in mathematical physics which I don't understand, which is a barrier to further discussion, so I'll bid adieu.

I'm curious if Bohmian mechanics can explain the full range of observed correlations between entangled particles on some scale at least. Supposedly it can't yet be synthesized with relativity as your post highlights, but it is interesting. Pilot waves might propagate as an aether substance that also has emergent mass/medium correlation properties in line with the spacetime curvature model, ripples in something like a body of water that also bends and perturbs as a weird vortex effect when in close proximity to relatively hefty objects that rotate, revolve, flux.

as said, I'll wait for anyone (you know who you are!) who actually understands those issue to respond, but I feel we did at least actually point the thread in the right direction.

Apparently you've never read a book or taken a course on quantum mechanics or relativity theory. Probably haven't even talked about the subject much either. — Enrique

I have a civil engineer's understanding of physics - mostly classical and Newtonian, although my physics classes did cover relativity and quantum mechanics. I have also read fairly extensively, including books significantly beyond popular science. I certainly am not an expert on relativity or quantum mechanics, there are quite a few here on the forum who know more, but I know enough to see that what you have written doesn't have anything to do with either.

Are you just trying to get a rise out of me by insulting my post based on nothing? You shouldn't troll with contentless posts indicating you don't know anything about the subject being discussed, — Enrique

As I've written in some of your past discussions, I have no desire to insult you. You seem like a nice person. On the other hand, I feel as if someone should speak up when you post your baseless theories. I've had my say and I don't plan to say any more in this thread.

And what in the world is your definition of pseudoscience? You brandish the term a lot but don't really specify its meaning. — Enrique

Here are some definitions from the web:

• A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation.
• False or pretended science; a pretended science.
• Any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which fails to comply with the scientific method.
• An activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions

Good post, but if you think what I wrote has nothing to do with quantum mechanics or relativity, we obviously didn't read the same books and some prominent physicists might disagree with you!

The aether proposal explains why quantum entanglement can appear to transcend the speed of light while general relativity and nonlocal quantum mechanics still hold, — Enrique

Unless you can say what your aether is, that's at the cost of being little better than hand-waiving. You're just saying 'something that is invisible influences conventional mater, and I'll call that something "aether"'.So all you have is that "Something explains why quantum entanglement can appear to transcend the speed of light, and I call that something aether" That's not an explanation.

Essentially, the statistical results of Bell's experiment rule out local hidden variables, a property of the particles themselves determining probabilistic outcome, verifying nonlocality in quantum mechanics. — Enrique

Not really. Fundamentally speaking, the experiments you're describing are those for which QM predicts outcomes that violate Bell inequalities. They rule out precisely the types of theories that suggest Bell inequalities should hold; that is, classical realist local theories. But that does not suffice to verify nonlocality.

The delayed choice experiment which developed out of Einstein's EPR paradox paper seems to contradict nonlocal hidden variables of a kind consistent with relativity unless viewing the detectors as separate reference frames, and this doesn't explain anything beyond correcting some calculative imprecision between clocks etc., basically not a realist account. — Enrique

Tossing this in:

The aether proposal explains why quantum entanglement can appear to transcend the speed of light while general relativity and nonlocal quantum mechanics still hold, and does not entail the controversial issues of observer and measurement dependence that I think are a metaphysical illusion of logic and woo chasing its tail. — Enrique

I'm not sure I understand how it does this. Bob has a clock. Alice has a clock. Alice takes a very long trip; once she is a light year away, she sets up a station. Bob generates two electrons whose spin are entangled; they spin in opposite directions. He sends one to Alice. By Bob's clock, he measures the spin of his electron at t=0. By Alice's clock, she measures the spin of her electron at t=0. Tell me the rest of the story.

And yet, Cartuna, who is an actual physicist, is banned. :roll:

Mathematics is not physical! :grin:

\It's quite clear that in physics a "wave" is a disturbance in a medium. Since the "wavefunction" describes waves, we can conclude that these waves require a medium (commonly known as the ether). Until this medium is identified and properly "observed", the wavefunction, and all the derivative principles in physics which depend on it, are based in unsubstantiated metaphysical speculation, and ought not be called "science".

The modern trend in metaphysics is to simple deny the reality of the ether. But since the ether is logically required, this trend is just bad (illogical) metaphysics, which many people like to pretend is science.

So all you have is that "Something explains why quantum entanglement can appear to transcend the speed of light, and I call that something aether" That's not an explanation. — Banno

The key is the memory foam idea, that aether substance stabilizes the objects in their trajectories by some sort of imprint effect, but I think Bohmian mechanics is a much better model at the quantum scale. Whether aether imprinting can be salvaged I'm not sure. Like I was saying, my idea might explain certain properties of gravitating celestial objects, induced by large-scale motion through an aether, and also entanglement via pilot waves that occurs on a smaller scale within the quantum reference frame, but that's total speculation.

Not really. Fundamentally speaking, the experiments you're describing are those for which QM predicts outcomes that violate Bell inequalities. They rule out precisely the types of theories that suggest Bell inequalities should hold; that is, classical realist local theories. But that does not suffice to verify nonlocality. — InPitzotl

True, Bell's experiments rule out classical locality, so nonlocality still appears to obtain. My aether idea and Bohmian mechanics in a much more developed way suggest nonclassical locality to explain observations of nonlocality. Apparent nonlocality is basically a given that has to be accounted for with a nonclassical model, but I think some kind of unintuitive locality must be found to obtain beneath it all.

I'm not sure I understand how it does this. Bob has a clock. Alice has a clock... — InPitzotl

I'm not familiar with how the electronics work, but supposedly clocks run slightly faster at higher altitude so that the difference between reference frames is corrected for purposes such as satellite positioning.

The delayed choice experiment simply puts one detector of an entangled particle farther away from the source than a detector of the other particle, a discrepancy so slight that information cannot travel between the two particles at light speed once the first has been detected. It has been proven that entanglement still holds, so whatever goes on is beyond what relativity can model. I'm claiming relativity theory is its own reference frame, making the assumption that matter cannot interact faster than light speed, and the aether hypothesis is one way of subverting those assumptions. But some variation of Bohmian mechanics is probably the best way to account for entanglement regardless of whether or not these waves are considered "aether".

Can the concept of aether substance as a universal medium synthesize gravity with wave mechanics, these being different forms of interaction within the same substrate, one applicable to chemistry and one to celestial objects?

Is it possible that it's not the measurement of one of a pair of entangled particle that causes the other to behave in a very specific way? In other words, no signal going from one entangled particle to another; and no signal, no speeding ticket headaches.

Maybe quantum entanglement is proof of nonphysicalism (no physical signal can travel that fast, instantaneously). Einstein is safe and secure and nonphysicalism gets the break (it deserves?).

True, Bell's experiments rule out classical locality, so nonlocality still appears to obtain. — Enrique

It would be more accurate to simply say that they demonstrate Bell's Theorem to be true, and to interpret that to mean that there are no classical HVT's.

My aether idea ... — Enrique

I cannot comment on that; I asked about this in the prior post, but didn't get a response. What is your aether idea exactly? How does it explain entanglement? I started a story about Alice and Bob and entangled electrons for you... can you use your aether to finish it?

My aether idea and Bohmian mechanics in a much more developed way suggest nonclassical locality to explain observations of nonlocality. Apparent nonlocality is basically a given that has to be accounted for with a nonclassical model, but I think some kind of unintuitive locality must be found to obtain beneath it all. — Enrique

I can't comment on your aether theory; you didn't explain how it worked. Bohmian mechanics as I understand is not local.

It has been proven that entanglement still holds, so whatever goes on is beyond what relativity can model. — Enrique

Why do you surmise that entanglement holding implies something is going on beyond what relativity can model?

I'm claiming relativity theory is its own reference frame, making the assumption that matter cannot interact faster than light speed, and the aether hypothesis is one way of subverting those assumptions. — Enrique

How does the aether resolve this? What does your aether do to resolve it?

I can't comment on your aether theory; you didn't explain how it worked. Bohmian mechanics as I understand is not local...What does your aether do? — InPitzotl

The idea is that particles of conventional matter are embedded in aether, and apparently nonlocal interactions are mediated by emergent, integrated patterns in the aether that materialize as particles move. Aether reciprocally constrains the behavior of particles such that certain states are more or less probable given the beginning state, such as opposite spin in initially entangled electrons that are then more or less likely to interact with the detector in certain ways depending on detector orientation. These emergent patterns in the aether can be very complex, accommodating any quantity of particles by some unknown mechanism that might have at least remote complementarity with the pilot wave model.

The Alice and Bob situation would probably be impossible because the electrons are so distant that aether is unable to sustain their entanglement, unless space travel with the box doesn't at all disrupt a fixed or expanding aether pattern, with the electron's spin orientation maintained in a sort of suspended animation. It depends on exactly how the aether works, and observation along with experiments will have to be possible before anything can be verified. Perhaps studying the fine structure of an entangled system could yield some kind of mathematical model that starts to prove aether's existence and mechanisms of action by indirect observation. Whether this will amount to a pilot wave sort of dynamic or something else is unknown. I surmise that all of this resides beyond traditional relativity theory.

By the way, I think pilot waves are deterministic and thus local in concept, but they mediate particle relationships remotely such that the particles relate to each other as if nonlocal forces obtain between them, from the particle perspective.

"Aether"? Old sko0l woo-of-the-gaps ...

The gaps have to be something, whether or not you say woo! Gaps are the most interesting part lol

Why not leave the gaps as gaps (i.e. we don't know yet)? That's what honesty and intellectual integrity require.

Since the "wavefunction" describes waves, we can conclude that these waves require a medium (commonly known as the ether). — Metaphysician Undercover

Wiki, wave function: "A wave function in quantum physics is a mathematical description...". I am going to assume you were being facetious.

:monkey: Nope.

Wiki, wave function: "A wave function in quantum physics is a mathematical description...". I am going to assume you were being facetious. — tim wood

Well of course, a wave function is a mathematical description. And what the mathematics describes, is waves. That's what I said "'wave function' describes waves". I didn't think anyone reading this would be so uninformed as to require the qualification "using mathematics". That the description is made with mathematics is self-evident. I'm not being facetious, you are just being unbelievably ignorant.

Are you familiar with the Fourier transform which is central to the mathematics of a wave function? It describes wave frequencies.

History
Main articles: Fourier analysis § History, and Fourier series § History
In 1822, Joseph Fourier showed that some functions could be written as an infinite sum of harmonics.[10]

Introduction
See also: Fourier analysis

One motivation for the Fourier transform comes from the study of Fourier series. In the study of Fourier series, complicated but periodic functions are written as the sum of simple waves mathematically represented by sines and cosines. The Fourier transform is an extension of the Fourier series that results when the period of the represented function is lengthened and allowed to approach infinity. — Wikipedia: Fourier Transform

The infamous "uncertainty principle" is a feature of the principle referred to here as "allowed to approach infinity". We really know that neither the actual time value nor the actual frequency of a real wave could be "infinite", so this assumption introduces a degree of uncertainty (falsity) into the mathematical description.

The Alice and Bob situation would probably be impossible — Enrique

Your explanation in my mind is defaulting on the promises. The huge distance versus the time scale involved is simply an example of non-locality. You promised to explain non-local effects predicted by QM, and even explicitly paid heed to delayed choice as an example of non-local effects happening. If your aether blows itself apart for experiments with second scales over distances of a light year, how can it explain experiments on the nanosecond scale with distances of 10 feet?