<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2496"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2562" class="">David</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2564" class="">Thanks for the thought.</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2566" class="">You seem to be more familiar with Popper than I. I thought
Popper dealt with “refutation” in connection with models and ability to be
falsified as being a requirement for a model to be a “scientific”. If evolution
cannot be falsified, then wouldn’t Popper consider it not a science? But
evolution did predict fossils of evolving species would be found. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2568" class="">A single experiment is enough to reject a (hypothesis)
theory within some domain. Both quantum mechanics and cosmology reject each
other in the domain of a ToE. The comment was trying to suggest that the
inability of a model to explain an experiment within the domain that the model
is 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 support
the heliocentric model. He had a null result that resulted in some trouble with
the Church. More accurate equipment in the 1830s finally saw parallax and
heliocentricism was accepted. The same is true in the case of the
Michelson–Morley<b class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2570"> </b>experiment. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2572" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2574" class="">(see also John W comment where he agrees with David) The
deviations from expectaion in experiments have lead to finding several emergent
properties of nature. Indeed, deviation for expectation causes the postulate of
hidden variables rather than suggesting lack of a proper model. Further, the
finding of data that is poorly explained is an indication of the need for a new
model. Sometime the new data is so radical, a complete rethink is needed. Until
that is done, ad hoc additions are made such as Dark Energy, Dark Mass,
inflation, etc and models become very complex. So, I suggest, simplification is
needed but simplification usually requires redefinition of what is basic. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2576" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2578" class="">I’m unsure of your interpretation of the Uncertainty
Principle as an experimental error. I had understood the photoelectric effect
measurement of energy vs frequency (slope <i class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2580">h</i>) to have steps in the linear
relationship. The idea of steps suggests the quanta and the non-existence of an
inbetween state. The measurement was well within the experimental error. That
is it’s not so much a tool limit as a fundamental existence limit.</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2582" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2584" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2586" class="">Richard</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2588" class="">Thanks</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2590" class="">In my opinion, our instruments detect matter not the waves.
The waves in the fluid is the fluid of the underlying tension of the molecules.
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2592" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2594" class="">I think the matter photon is guided by the pilot wave. If
you 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 the
pilot 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 to
occur. The nature of coherence is unknown. I suggest the Bohm interpretation is
suggesting photons do require guidance to the screen if an interference pattern
is noted. At least in my model pilot waves exist (are real) for both electrons
and photons. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2596" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2598" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2600" class="">John W</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2602" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2604" class="">The Bohm Interpretaion was under discussion a bit ago. The
statement about source was directed to the Bohm model. Certainly, other models
have similar problem with the source of their action and particularity where is
the energy for the interaction coming from or does the interaction involve no
net gain or loss. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2606" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2608" class="">I like the idea of a single entity in an experiment at a
time or, at least, one entity beyond the mask. However, I allow the possibility
that the determination of one entity in the experiment at a time could be the
result of averaging of a pulse with fewer pulses. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2610" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2612" class="">I think you are using “dimension” to mean mathematical
parameters. I use “dimension” to mean real special extents (limit 3). I’m
unsure how to classify time. At any special point there could be scalar or
vector or tensor values mathematically. However, I like the scalar model
because the forces can be vectors (tensor) through divergence. The
electromagnetic comments beg the question “What are the basic constituents of
the universe? Simpler but yet complete is better. I suggest a continuous and
matter like Bohm. What are your basic? I’m left with explaining
electromagnetism with the interaction of the 2 components.<span class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2614" style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2616" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2618" class="">Although the walking drop analogy is limited, it does
produce the interference pattern. So the question becomes what characteristics
of the walking drop observations produce diffraction - energy input need not be
one of them. If the walking drop doesn’t involve electromagnetism, I think a
model based on electromagnetism has difficulty. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2620" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2622" class="">“Space” can have no mass - the boat and water were analogies
in the classical realm.</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2624" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2626" class="">The y and y* were translated incorrectly. They were meant to
be \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 the
wave returning to the source (the particle) rather than the future wave
manifest in the present. This could provide the Bohm requirement of “reality”
to the \Psi. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2628" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2630" class="">Please provide a reference for your / Martin’s paper to
which you are referring.</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2632" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2634" class="">Although I haven’t read you paper, perhaps my experiment in
my last paper is such an example. It is if it relies upon Huygens-Fresnel.</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2636" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2638" class="">Thanks for your comments. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2640" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2642" class="">Hodge</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2644" class=""> </div><div dir="ltr">
</div></div></body></html>