[General] Reply of comments from what a model…

[Hodge John]

DavidThanks for the thought.You seem to be more familiar with Popper than I. I thoughtPopper dealt with “refutation” in connection with models and ability to befalsified as being a requirement for a model to be a “scientific”. If evolutioncannot be falsified, then wouldn’t Popper consider it not a science? Butevolution did predict fossils of evolving species would be found. A single experiment is enough to reject a (hypothesis)theory within some domain. Both quantum mechanics and cosmology reject eachother in the domain of a ToE. The comment was trying to suggest that theinability of a model to explain an experiment within the domain that the modelis supposed to apply is cause for rejection. A “null” result is a “no test”done result. For example, Galileo tried to find parallax in stars to supportthe heliocentric model. He had a null result that resulted in some trouble withthe Church. More accurate equipment in the 1830s finally saw parallax andheliocentricism was accepted. The same is true in the case of theMichelson–Morley experiment.  (see also John W comment where he agrees with David) Thedeviations from expectaion in experiments have lead to finding several emergentproperties of nature. Indeed, deviation for expectation causes the postulate ofhidden variables rather than suggesting lack of a proper model. Further, thefinding of data that is poorly explained is an indication of the need for a newmodel. Sometime the new data is so radical, a complete rethink is needed. Untilthat is done, ad hoc additions are made such as Dark Energy, Dark Mass,inflation, etc and models become very complex. So, I suggest, simplification isneeded but simplification usually requires redefinition of what is basic.  I’m unsure of your interpretation of the UncertaintyPrinciple as an experimental error. I had understood the photoelectric effectmeasurement of energy vs frequency (slope h) to have steps in the linearrelationship. The idea of steps suggests the quanta and the non-existence of aninbetween state. The measurement was well within the experimental error. Thatis it’s not so much a tool limit as a fundamental existence limit.  RichardThanksIn my opinion, our instruments detect matter not the waves.The waves in the fluid is the fluid of the underlying tension of the molecules. I think the matter photon is guided by the pilot wave. Ifyou are you using “wave function” to mean the probability energy density,probability functions don’t “guide”. However, I suggest (and I think Bohm does,too) the the pilot wave is real and the \Psi ^* \Psi is a characteristic of thepilot wave and not a probability function. The nest step is to suggest what the\Psi^* is in reality. Photons need a property of coherence for diffraction tooccur. The nature of coherence is unknown. I suggest the Bohm interpretation issuggesting photons do require guidance to the screen if an interference patternis noted. At least in my model pilot waves exist (are real) for both electronsand photons.   John W The Bohm Interpretaion was under discussion a bit ago. Thestatement about source was directed to the Bohm model. Certainly, other modelshave similar problem with the source of their action and particularity where isthe energy for the interaction coming from or does the interaction involve nonet gain or loss.  I like the idea of a single entity in an experiment at atime or, at least, one entity beyond the mask. However, I allow the possibilitythat the determination of one entity in the experiment at a time could be theresult of averaging of a pulse with fewer pulses.  I think you are using “dimension” to mean mathematicalparameters. I use “dimension” to mean real special extents (limit 3). I’munsure how to classify time. At any special point there could be scalar orvector or tensor values mathematically. However, I like the scalar modelbecause the forces can be vectors (tensor) through divergence. Theelectromagnetic comments beg the question “What are the basic constituents ofthe universe? Simpler but yet complete is better. I suggest a continuous andmatter like Bohm. What are your basic? I’m left with explainingelectromagnetism with the interaction of the 2 components.   Although the walking drop analogy is limited, it doesproduce the interference pattern. So the question becomes what characteristicsof the walking drop observations produce diffraction - energy input need not beone of them. If the walking drop doesn’t involve electromagnetism, I think amodel based on electromagnetism has difficulty.  “Space” can have no mass - the boat and water were analogiesin the classical realm. The y and y* were translated incorrectly. They were meant tobe \Psi and \Psi*. However, You hit on the same realization I did - that the \Psi*is just the part of a standing wave in the Transaction Interpretation of thewave returning to the source (the particle) rather than the future wavemanifest in the present. This could provide the Bohm requirement of “reality”to the \Psi.  Please provide a reference for your / Martin’s paper towhich you are referring. Although I haven’t read you paper, perhaps my experiment inmy last paper is such an example. It is if it relies upon Huygens-Fresnel. Thanks for your comments.  Hodge 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151108/5ddfe9ab/attachment.htm>