It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Note to the Fifteenth Edition
In this edition I have added, as a fifth appendix, a presentation of my views on the problem of space in general and on the gradual modifications of our ideas on space resulting from the influence of the relativistic view-point. I wished to show that space-time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe a separate existence, independently of the actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept "empty space" loses its meaning.
June 9th, 1952 A. EINSTEIN
Since the special theory of relativity revealed the physical equivalence of all inertial systems, it proved the untenability of the hypothesis of an aether at rest. It was therefore necessary to renounce the idea that the electromagnetic field is to be regarded as a state of a material carrier. The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter in the theory of Newton.
The proportion is precisely defined as the speed of light squared, in the formula E=mc²
Originally posted by Mary Rose
I think you may be blowing this way out of proportion, but we shall see.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Physical objects and electromagnetic fields aren't the same thing, though your comments seem to show that spaceandmotion.com altered what Einstein said to try to make it look that way and support their wsm idea, unless you can find the complete quote as presented on spaceandmotion, without undocumented "editorializing" (which could also be called "falsification").
You don't see the irony in that video?
Originally posted by 23432
I think the first 5 minutes of this video does accurately describe the beliefs some scientists.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Physical objects and electromagnetic fields aren't the same thing, though your comments seem to show that spaceandmotion.com altered what Einstein said to try to make it look that way and support their wsm idea, unless you can find the complete quote as presented on spaceandmotion, without undocumented "editorializing" (which could also be called "falsification").
Originally posted by Mary Rose
However, the word "particles" is the editorializing in question, and it is not editorialized in relation to electromagnetic fields, it is editorialized in relation to the word "matter."
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The proportion is precisely defined as the speed of light squared, in the formula E=mc²
Originally posted by Mary Rose
I think you may be blowing this way out of proportion, but we shall see.
Physical objects go on the right, and electromagnetic radiation goes on the left side of the equation, and the speed of light squared is the factor describing the proportion between them.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
If it's a correct quote, then "(as fields)" should have been in brackets to show editorial comment.
Science is published in peer reviewed journals.
Originally posted by 23432
Tom Campell is not a crackpot .
He is a Scientist too .
From "The Special and the General Theory," page 4 of 107, "Note to the Fifteenth Edition:
In this edition I have added, as a fifth appendix, a presentation of my views on the problem of space in general and on the gradual modifications of our ideas on space resulting from the influence of the relativistic view-point. I wished to show that space-time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe a separate existence, independently of the actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended (as fields). In this way the concept "empty space" loses its meaning ... June 9th, 1952 A. EINSTEIN
From "The Special and the General Theory," page 93 of 107, in "Appendix 5(a): The field":
Since the special theory of relativity revealed the physical equivalence of all inertial systems, it proved the untenability of the hypothesis of an aether at rest. It was therefore necessary to renounce the idea that the electromagnetic field is to be regarded as a state of a material carrier. The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter (particles) in the theory of Newton. ...
From Scientific American, 1950, page 15:
The physical reality of space is represented by a field whose components are continuous functions of four independent variables—the coordinates of space and time. It is just this particular kind of dependence that expresses the spatial character of physical reality.
Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Science is published in peer reviewed journals.
Originally posted by 23432
I think the first 5 minutes of this video does accurately describe the beliefs some scientists.
"Returning to the electron then, we cannot tell in advance at just which point on the screen it will flash. But it seems that the places where it is likely to turn up are just those which a certain wave motion can appreciably reach.
It is the mathematics of this wave motion, which somehow controls the electron, that is developed in a precise way in quantum mechanics. Indeed the most simple and natural of the various equivalent ways in which quantum mechanics can be presented is called just 'wave mechanics'. What is it that 'waves' in wave mechanics? In the case of water waves it is the surface of the water that waves. With sound waves the pressure of the air oscillates. Light also was held to be a wave motion in classical physics. We were already a little vague about what was waving in that case... and even about whether the question made sense. In the case of the waves of wave mechanics we have no idea what is waving... and do not ask the question. What we do have is a mathematical recipe for the propagation of the waves, and the rule that the probability of an electron being seen at a particular place when looked for there (e.g. by introducing a scintillation screen) is related to the intensity there of the wave motion.
In my opinion the following point cannot be emphasised too strongly. When we work out a problem in wave mechanics, for example that of the precise performance of the electron gun, our mathematics is entirely concerned with waves. There is no hint in the mathematics of particles or particle trajectories. With the electron gun the calculated wave extends smoothly over an extended portion of the screen. There is no hint in the mathematics that the actual phenomenon is a minute flash at some particular point in that extended region. And it is only in applying the rule, relating the probable location of the flash to the intensity of the wave, that indeterminism enters the theory. The mathematics itself is smooth, deterministic, 'classical' mathematics... of classical waves."
Bell, J. S. (1993) "Six Possible Worlds of Quantum Mechanics" in Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, p. 187. CUP
It sounds like what Bell is saying is that in nature, there's actually no such thing as wave-particle duality.
Nature is fundamentally composed of waves.
And from what I've gathered, those waves travel in a 3D vortex throughout the universe.
(But it seems that even more fundamentally, there is the aether, which are scalar waves.)