Movement of pyrrole molecules defy 'classical' physics

Apr 26, 2013
Representation of a pyrrole molecule. Credit: Marco Sacchi

(Phys.org) —New research shows that movement of the ring-like molecule pyrrole over a metal surface runs counter to the centuries-old laws of 'classical' physics that govern our everyday world.

Using uniquely sensitive experimental techniques, scientists have found that laws of - believed primarily to influence at only sub-atomic levels – can actually impact on a molecular level.

Researchers at Cambridge's Chemistry Department and Cavendish Laboratory say they have evidence that, in the case of pyrrole, affecting the internal motions of the molecule change the "very nature of the " – making this 'quantum motion' essential to understanding the distribution of the whole molecule.

The study, a collaboration between scientists from Cambridge and Rutgers universities, appeared in the German chemistry journal Angewandte Chemie earlier this month.

A pyrrole molecule's centre consists of a "flat pentagram" of five atoms, four carbon and one nitrogen. Each of these atoms has an additional hydrogen atom attached, sticking out like spokes.

Following experiments performed by Barbara Lechner at the Cavendish Laboratory to determine the energy required for movement of pyrrole across a , the team discovered a discrepancy that led them down a 'quantum' road to an unusual discovery.

In previous work on simpler molecules, the scientists were able to accurately calculate the 'activation barrier' – the energy required to loosen a molecule's bond to a surface, allowing movement – using '', a method that treats the electrons which bind the atoms according to but, crucially, deals with using a 'classical' physics approach.

Surprisingly, with pyrrole the predicted 'activation barriers' were way out, with calculations "less than a third of the measured value". After much head scratching, puzzled scientists turned to a purely called 'zero-point energy'.

In , an object losing energy can continue to do so until it can be thought of as sitting perfectly still. In the quantum world, this is never the case: everything always retains some form of residual – even undetectable – energy, known as 'zero-point energy'.

While 'zero-point energy' is well known to be associated with motion of the atoms contained in molecules, it was previously believed that such tiny amounts of energy simply don't affect the molecule as a whole to any measurable extent, unless the molecule broke apart.

But now, the researchers have discovered that the "quantum nature" of the molecule's internal motion actually does affect the molecule as a whole as it moves across the surface, defying the 'classical' laws that it's simply too big to feel quantum effects.

'Zero-point energy' moving within a pyrrole molecule is unexpectedly sensitive to the exact site occupied by the molecule on the surface. In moving from one site to another, the 'activation energy' must include a sizeable contribution due to the change in the quantum 'zero-point energy'.

Scientists believe the effect is particularly noticeable in the case of pyrrole because the 'activation energy' needed for diffusion is particularly small, but that many other similar molecules ought to show the same kind of behavior.

"Understanding the nature of molecular diffusion on metal surfaces is of great current interest, due to efforts to manufacture two-dimensional networks of ring-like molecules for use in optical, electronic or spintronic devices," said Dr Stephen Jenkins, who heads up the Surface Science Group in Cambridge's Department of Chemistry.

"The balance between the activation energy and the barrier that sticks the molecules to the surface is critical in determining which networks are able to form under different conditions."

Explore further: A quantum logic gate between light and matter

More information: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.201302289/abstract

Related Stories

A New Type of Molecule

Jun 21, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- A Rydberg atom is one with an electron that spends most of its time far from the nucleus. Rydberg atoms, which are normally artificially produced, can have dimensions thousands of times larger ...

Scientists discover giant Rydberg atom molecules

Jun 24, 2009

A group of University of Oklahoma researchers led by Dr. James P. Shaffer, Homer L. Dodge Department of Physics and Astronomy, have discovered giant Rydberg molecules with a bond as large as a red blood cell. Determining ...

Recommended for you

Progress in the fight against quantum dissipation

17 hours ago

(Phys.org) —Scientists at Yale have confirmed a 50-year-old, previously untested theoretical prediction in physics and improved the energy storage time of a quantum switch by several orders of magnitude. ...

A quantum logic gate between light and matter

Apr 10, 2014

Scientists at Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics, Garching, Germany, successfully process quantum information with a system comprising an optical photon and a trapped atom.

User comments : 47

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Telekinetic
2.2 / 5 (13) Apr 26, 2013
And to all of the ZPE skeptics who've grunted and cackled "but this is in violation of Thermodynamics" as if a heretic spat on the floor of a church, I say be forewarned that there are more surprises, and spit, to come.
Q-Star
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2013
And to all of the ZPE skeptics who've grunted and cackled "but this is in violation of Thermodynamics" as if a heretic spat on the floor of a church, I say be forewarned that there are more surprises, and spit, to come.


Who are the ZPE skeptics that ya seemed to be plagued by? Does someone in particular argue that there is no such thing as zero-point energy? Was it Zephyr?

My guess is it was probably someone that pointed out to ya that it is probably not a useful consideration when dealing with things like stars, galaxies, quasars, pulsars or black holes. I know those miscreant skeptics annoy ya immensely with their skeptical scoffing at Dr. La's crank science.
Telekinetic
2 / 5 (12) Apr 26, 2013
If those who control the advancement of science, technology, and energy sources don't deliberately interfere with ZPE research, a source of free energy will be discovered in the vacuum of space- precisely the place one finds stars, galaxies, quasars, etc.
Tektrix
5 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2013
The existence of ZPE is not really in question. How much useful energy can be extracted from it, definitely is.
Telekinetic
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 26, 2013
If ten pounds of plutonium can level a metropolis, you don't think it's likely to find the equivalent amount of energy in the vacuum of space? But then again, since you're an authority on the subject, we should probably halt any research.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2013
If ten pounds of plutonium can level a metropolis, you don't think it's likely to find the equivalent amount of energy in the vacuum of space? But then again, since you're an authority on the subject, we should probably halt any research.


How much "vacuum of space" would equal ten pounds of plutonium? 100 trillion cubic meters? A quadrillion cubic meters? My guess would be many thousands of times that. Whatever, how would ya propose to squish it all down into a useful size, like, say, the density of ten pounds of plutonium? Ya know concentrate it by a factor of 10^30 or so?

I'm not an authority on QM, nuclear physics or the chemistry of pyrrole. But I'm pretty sure ten pounds of plutonium equals a whole lot of vacuum space.
Telekinetic
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 26, 2013
When YOU address me, I'd appreciate it if you'd retire the "ya" affectation. It's been stale for a long while. The lead-in to this article states that this action runs counter to classical physics, which, if you can't get your head unstuck from, it will always seem impossible. There are a number of physicists whose work is credible and cutting-edge and believe what I do.
Sanescience
1 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2013
If vacuum energy does "action" on the molecule, what is the opposite and equal reaction?
Telekinetic
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2013
If vacuum energy does "action" on the molecule, what is the opposite and equal reaction?

Are you asking a real question or are you trying to be clever semantically?
If you prefer- (from the article) " making this 'quantum motion' essential to understanding the distribution of the whole molecule."
johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2013
zero-point energy' moving within a pyrrole molecule is unexpectedly sensitive to the exact site occupied by the molecule on the surface. In moving from one site to another, the 'activation energy' must include a sizeable contribution due to the change in the quantum 'zero-point energy'.


The term "zero-point energy" is misleading: The best term would be an "energy-fluctuation" which occurs all the time within any EM-wave-field no matter how large or small it is. This is so since it correlates with resonance. It does not appear from the vacuum when there is no EM-field!

Such energy can appear for a limited time (delta)t and it can cause the wave to overcome a potential energy barrier if the wave can do so within the allowed time interval (delta)t. The energy then again disappears. Thus the energy to move across the surface is on loan and therefore this motion is possible.
johanfprins
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2013
Borrowing energy, doing work to displace the molecule, and then returning it en-toto to the source from where the energy came, is according to the laws of thermodynamics the same as a cycle of a perpetual motion engine. Work is done for free provided the borrowed energy is returned and not dissipated to increase the entropy.

The same mechanism is responsible for the motion of superconducting charge-carriers. Since the charge-carriers can in this manner move without dissipating any of the energy that is on loan, a current can flow without encountering any electrical resistance.

Note that the pyrole molecule IS NOT a "Cooper pair"!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2013
..it was previously believed that such tiny amounts of energy simply don't affect the molecule as a whole to any measurable extent, unless the molecule broke apart..
Who believed it? This is just an example of tabloid journalism (i.e. the pretending, that the particular finding is more significant and outbreaking, than it really is for to attract the attention of readers). The physicists are routinely studying quantum effects for much larger molecules (furullenes, photosynthesis proteins, quantum dots etc...).
alfie_null
not rated yet Apr 27, 2013
It's been stale for a long while.

Stale? Oddly, this make me think of pundits, persistently trying to sell their ideas here rather than appropriately in forums where they'd be subject to critical review by peers.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2013
If those who control the advancement of science, technology, and energy sources don't deliberately interfere with ZPE research...

How much useful energy can be extracted from it, definitely is.


I think you're missing something very basic about ZPE.
ZPE exists directly because of the Uncertainty principle. If one were to go the 'classical' road then having zero energy would mean that the entity in question (e.g. an atom) would be perfectly still. This would absolutely pinpoint the location of the atom. But by Uncertainty this would mean that the impulse of the atom is completely undetermined (which would give it a huge, average energy...contradicting the notion that it should have zero energy)

ZPE is that state where the tradeoff between these factors is lowest. There is some energy, but it isn't extractable - because you would have to LOWER the energy of the particle for that - which isn't possible given that the ZPE state is already the lowest one.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2013
As for energy extraction in general I also think you need to revisit your highschool physics books. Work is proprtional to a CHANGE in energy (first derivative).

To get USEFUL energy out of a system (i.e. anything that can do actual Work) it isn't sufficient that the system have energy.
For that it's absolutely required that there be an energy GRADIENT (i.e. there be a lower state of energy you can transfer your system to.)
ZPE is already the lowest state and there is no gradient to a lower state.

Yes: there is energy there - but no: you can't use it to do any work.
So no ZPE-powerplants.
ValeriaT
2 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2013
ZPE exists directly because of the Uncertainty principle
The experimental artifacts don't exist because of abstract theorems, but vice-versa. In dense aether model the ZPE field is simply manifestation of density fluctuations/scalar (gravitational) waves of the very dense superfluous environment, which we are living in and it points to the dynamic nature of the vacuum. It's macroscopic analogy is the Brownian noise at the water surface. The ZPE is the same consequence of this noise, like the uncertainty principle.
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2013
Yes: there is energy there - but no: you can't use it to do any work.
Yes, and the flying of planes heavier than air is impossible. In my understanding for example the magnetic motors and so-called MEGs utilize the vacuum fluctuations already. The magnetic domains inside of ferromagnets form a spin condensate at room temperature. At the moment, when the material gets oversaturated, the vacuum fluctuations actually help them to get into more oriented state, i.e. they decrease the entropy instead of increase. This effect is known many years as so-called magnetic viscosity. Because the saturated ferromagnets exhibit lower magnetic force, their desaturation can be utilized for doing usable macroscopic work, which is assisted with vacuum fluctuations directly.
johanfprins
3 / 5 (8) Apr 27, 2013
Oddly, this make me think of pundits, persistently trying to sell their ideas here rather than appropriately in forums where they'd be subject to critical review by peers.


The problem is that that novel ideas which differ from mainstream dogma is rejected without sending the manuscript out for review; and in most cases when it is sent out for review the reviewer usually rejects all physics which contradicts anything that the reviewer has published. This censorship is facilitated by the criminal rule that a reviewer remains anonymous. Would you like to be judged in a court by a judge who sits behind a curtain to remain anonymous?

I am afraid that you are very naive to have swallowed the fiction that scientists are open-minded when it comes to new data or ideas. In most cases, and at present most probably in all cases, the editors and reviewers refuse to see that there are mountains on the moon. Peer review is at present nothing else than criminal censorship.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2013
Yes, and the flying of planes heavier than air is impossible.

They don't violate any fundamental physical principles. Unless we find physical principles that are more fundamental than QM and thermodynamics there's no useful energy to be had here (read: energy that can be used to do work) .
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2013
If those who control the advancement of science, technology, and energy sources don't deliberately interfere with ZPE research, a source of free energy will be discovered in the vacuum of space- precisely the place one finds stars, galaxies, quasars, etc.
@tk

-While I myself (and NASA apparently) agree that there must be some way to extract energy from the vacuum, I must say you make it sound so... dirty.
http://en.wikiped...thruster
In my understanding for example the magnetic motors and so-called MEGs utilize the vacuum fluctuations already
Hey jigga here is something else NASA is working on that is right up dein yumpa.

"The Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster is a proposed reactionless engine which uses entirely mechanical principles. The concept involves various methods of leverage applied against the supports of a large gyroscope."
http://en.wikiped...ss_drive
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2013
They don't violate any fundamental physical principles. Unless we find physical principles that are more fundamental than QM and thermodynamics there's no useful energy to be had here (read: energy that can be used to do work)
The casimir effect is a well-known such principle which does work and, per my above post, NASA thinks

"A Q-thruster will utilize quantum vacuum fluctuations as its propellant. The quantum mechanical Casimir effect has demonstrated that quantum vacuum fluctuations do exist.

"A Q-thruster then uses the same principles and equations of motion that a conventional plasma thruster would use, namely magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), to predict propellant behavior. The virtual plasma is exposed to a crossed E-field and B-field, inducing a drift of the entire plasma in the E×B direction, which is orthogonal to the applied fields. The difference arises in the fact that a Q-thruster uses quantum vacuum fluctuations as its propellant, eliminating the need to carry any."
Telekinetic
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2013
@antialias:
The last place I look for up to date information is a high school text book:

"Princeton University's John Wheeler and Richard Feynman valued the zero point energy for the first time. They calculated that a cup of zero point energy is enough to bring all the oceans of the world to boiling point. The equivalent in matter of the zero point energy using Einstein's famous equation of E= m * c² is 10⁹⁴ gram/cm³! This is more matter per cubic centimetre than the total mass of the entire universe!
Contrary to what we have always believed matter is not a condensed substance but a diffuse form of energy.
Now how is this possible, we seem to live in a huge sea of energy and we don't even notice it? We're like fish submerged in water but never ever aware of the fact that there is water all around them."

ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2013
pundits, persistently trying to sell their ideas here rather than appropriately in forums where they'd be subject to critical review by peers
At physical forums I'm banned after first usage of aether word. The professional physicists are unable to argue scientifically at all.
Unless we find physical principles that are more fundamental than QM and thermodynamics there's no useful energy to be had here (read: energy that can be used to do work)
The experimental findings like the magnetic motors are independent of laws of QM and thermodynamics. QM itself violates the thermodynamics in many aspects = these two sets of laws are mutually inconsistent (particularly because the thermodynamics implies the entropic time arrow, whereas the QM is time reversible).
ValeriaT
2 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2013
Recently another violation of thermodynamics has been found. The Weiss magnetic domains inside of ferromagnets form a spin condensate at room temperature. At the moment, when the material gets oversaturated, the vacuum fluctuations actually help them to get into more oriented state, i.e. they decrease the entropy instead of increase. The magnetic domains interfere with gravity in rather transparent way. Everyone of you can check it by itself. This is particularly because the magnetic domains are largest and most stable quantum system, opened to experiments at room conditions. They survive temperatures up to 1000 °C (Curie temperature of cobalt) - i.e. they're much more robust than the boson condensates inside of superconductors or superfluids.
Telekinetic
3 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2013
@ValeriaT
You can see how difficult it must be for researchers going against the tide, when here, in the most casual setting, members of this forum have neither the decency or the balls to admit they're wrong when the unequivocal, contradictory evidence is presented to them.
SciPhyJon
3 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2013
Is superconductivity not also a well known and incompletely explained violation of the laws of thermodynamics? I mean we have different theories to explain type I and II, maybe ZPE could link the two... I don't know just a thought.
I understand why thermodynamics is still taught in physics 101. However believing in the laws of thermodynamics is analogous to believing in a flat earth. Sure its a somewhat functional understanding of the way the world works but it is simply not correct.
With that in mind, it seems there really is no innate limitation on our ability harness the energy of the universe to do actual work. Just like there is no edge we will fall off if we sail too far west...
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2013
Is superconductivity not also a well known and incompletely explained violation of the laws of thermodynamics?


No it is not, since perpetual motion is allowed by thermodynamics when you obtain energy from a source, perform work with this energy without dissipating any of this energy, and then returning the energy to the source from where it came. This is what happens when superconduction occurs.

I mean we have different theories to explain type I and II, maybe ZPE could link the two.


What is incorrectly called ZPE does cause superconduction. The mainstream theories based on "pair-formation" are all WRONG!

I understand why thermodynamics is still taught in physics 101. However believing in the laws of thermodynamics is analogous to believing in a flat earth. Sure its a somewhat functional understanding of the way the world works but it is simply not correct.


Thermodynamics is the basis of all energy interactions: Where is it incorrect?
SciPhyJon
1 / 5 (2) Apr 30, 2013
Yes, thermodynamics is wonderful I agree... but it fails when it comes to explaining why when we shoot a single photon from a laser it can pass through both slits. That's equally opposite of what should intuitively happen in the thermodynamic laws. But I was just trying to be clever with an analogy is all...
Anyways, if you don't mind could I pick your brain about superconductivity for a moment.

I've been wondering about whether a superconductor material could be formed as an oscillation circuit with a large capacitor and a core extended from its inductor... and be used to create a sort of infinitely pulsing polarity electromagnet that could be used to power a machine. A video I saw from 1965 on experiments with superconductors made me wonder about this possibility.

The fundamental questions I am unsure of are; Do superconductor inductors work to create magnetic fields? and if so would quantum locking of magnetic fields prevent the machine from moving other magnets to perform work?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 30, 2013
Yes, thermodynamics is wonderful I agree... but it fails when it comes to explaining why when we shoot a single photon from a laser it can pass through both slits.


No it does not. Any coherent light-wave, also a photon, can move through both slits without violating thermodynamics at all!

Do superconductor inductors work to create magnetic fields?
Yes they do.

I've been wondering about whether a superconductor material could be formed as an oscillation circuit with a large capacitor and a core extended from its inductor... and be used to create a sort of infinitely pulsing polarity electromagnet that could be used to power a machine.


According to my insight, an ac-current through a superconductor dissipates energy owing to cyclical polarization of the charge-carriers. Thus you can form a superconducting material as an oscillating circuit, but I expect that any advantage that superconduction might have bestowed, if ac SC were to be possible, would be lost.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 30, 2013
The mainstream theories based on "pair-formation" are all WRONG


The ZPE is responsible for both superconductivity, both electron pairing (merging in general). This merging/coupling is necessary condition for superconduction


Although it is possible that ZPE (a misnomer for the real source of this energy) might be able to cause pairing, this is not what is happening in a superconducting material. Pairing is NOT a necessary requirement for SC to be possible.

- in high temperature superconductors the electrons do form more extensive clusters, than just Cooper pairs.


These "clusters" have NOTHING to do with the formation of Cooper pairs whatsoever!

There is no need to throw out the child with the bath watter when advancing from low temperature superconductivity theories into high temperature ones.[ /q]

If there has NEVER been a child in the bath water you can safely throw away the dirty water and start anew with clean water in which you wash a real babyl
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 30, 2013
Any coherent light-wave, also a photon, can move through both slits without violating thermodynamics at all!


It's routinely known that the quantum phenomena like the http://www.techno...sicists/ -


How does it do this?

particularly because the thermodynamics implies the entropic time arrow, whereas the quantum mechanics is time reversible theory.


All the equations of equilibrium physics are time-reversible, not just those of quantum mechanics.

In AWT ...


Oh my God: Here we go again: Another mindless argument from Cloud Cuckoo land! How about going for a brain implant? On the other hand you probably do not need one since your own is still brand new: It has NEVER been used!.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 30, 2013
The coupling/clustering of electrons is. That coupling can have many different mechanisms and scope: the phonon coupling is one of them, which applies to lowest temperatures.


It does NOT apply in ANY superconducting material whatsoever.

It even manifest itself in high temperature superconductors, which can be observed with http://www.aether...real.gif -


Again AWT!!! Can you not see that your pet mantra is based on unadulterated bullshit? There is NO aether within which an EM wave moves.

these stripes are neatly paired by their spin. It's the observable residuum of Cooper pair pairing at low temperatures. Of course most of electrons are already condensed with another mechanisms there: every stripe is formed with many electrons coupled with intraatomar forces here - not with phonons.


Just hand-waving vomiting without ANY quantitative basis. Please fit your model to experimental data before putting your foot in your mouth!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 30, 2013
All the equations of equilibrium physics are time-reversible, not just those of quantum mechanics


Not at all. The thermodynamics implies the entropic time arrow, the relativity implies the radiative time arrow (and we recognize http://en.wikiped...f_time). Just learn the physics - don't live inside of your ivory tower of ideas only.


There is NO separate "radiative" time-arrow owing to relativity. I wish you would take a simple undergraduate course in physics; so that you can understand what you quote from WIKI!.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 30, 2013
It does NOT apply in ANY superconducting material whatsoever
Which one doesn't apply to it?


Pairing is NOT required for superconduction to occur within ANY material: It is also highly improbable that Cooper pairs can form within ANY material.

Please fit your model to experimental data before putting your foot in your mouth


I'm just showing you an experimental data - these pictures weren't hand-drawn and they really exhibit the pairing of electron stripes.


It is YOUR demented interpretation that the "stripes" are paired and therefore require Cooper pairs to form.

There is NO aether within which an EM wave moves.


Such a stance indeed doesn't help the understanding of connections at all. It just makes the light wave concept ad-hoced.


No it does not! As had been clearly argued by Einstein: If there is an aether, the speed of light can ONLY be measured relative to this aether: In such a case the speed of light cannot be the same within
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 30, 2013
In such a case the speed of light cannot be the same within
within ALL inertial reference frames as we know it must be to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment and for Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to be correct.

When every wave transfering the energy requires some inertial material for its spreading, why the heck the light wave should be an exception.


Since if it is NOT an exception, the Michelson-Morley experiment would not have given a null-result and Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity would have been wrong. Since STR is NOT wrong, there cannot be an aether within which light-waves move similar to the motion of water waves through a container of stationary water.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 30, 2013
Why not to admit, you're refusing the Cooper pair model from ideological, not physical reasons?


You amaze me: You have proved time and again that YOU are the bigot and then you have the audacity to accuse other people of acting like you are consistently acting on these forums. You are the one who clings to the Cooper pair model for ideological reasons and not physical reasons. And when I direct you to my calculations that prove that Cooper pairs are not responsible you refuse to read what I have written. Can there be anybody in the Universe who is more closed-minded than you are?

Every proponent of some theory tries to deny the other/previous theory and refuses the http://en.wikiped...rinciple in this way. Even Einstein did the very same mistake during his attempts to disprove quantum mechanics.


Einstein was not a stupid bigot like you are: So do not use this genius to try and justify your own stupidities.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 30, 2013
If there is an aether, the speed of light can ONLY be measured relative to this aether


I explained it many time here already:


And I have read your explanation many times: It remains unadulterated bullshit. There is not a single fit of your demented "model" to any real data. You are just wasting everybody's time with your hallucinations.

The fact remains that if you require an aether the speed of the wave can only be measured relative to the inertial reference frame in which this aether is stationary. Since this aether cannot be stationary within ALL possible inertial reference frames, its existence will demand that the speed of light cannot be the same within all inertial reference frames. Since the speed of light IS the same within ALL inertial reference frames, there cannot be an aether in which light waves are moving. This has been settled over 100 years ago and you are NOT producing ANY experimental evidence to the contrary
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 30, 2013
Well, exactly - Einstein himself claimed the aether as an necessary condition for special relativity.


Einstein was talking about his GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY. Not the special theory as you are claiming.

Note that the special relativity assumes the invariant speed of light waves as a postulate (i.e. the assumption, which is considered without proof) -


WRONG! This postulate explains the Michelson-Morley experiment in terms of Galileo's inertia, which states that one cannot do any physical measurement within an inertial reference frame which can determine whether that IRF is moving or not moving. If the speed of light is not constant, one can measure it, and if it is not c one can conclude that the IRF is moving relative to the aether. There are enough experiments that consistently prove that this postulate must be correct. If you say it is not correct you should first give experimental proof that it is not correct: and then explain the MM result in another way.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 30, 2013
that if you require an aether the speed of the wave can only be measured relative to the inertial reference frame in which this aether is stationary


At the water surface the tiny Faraday/capillary waves spread independently to the water reference frame/motion.


We are not talking about water but about light-waves. Relative to what are you measuring these hallucinary "Farady/capillary" waves of light?

They can even propagate against the water stream undeformed.


What water stream?

They're simply fucking the (motion/reference frame of) underwater (nearly) completely.


Write down the equation of how Maxwell's light-waves do this: I am not interested in the pornography involved.

The scope of transverse waves existence is furthermore broadened with Brownian motion of the underwater.


So now your aether consists of molecules?

PLEASE go and see a shrink!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 30, 2013
Einstein was talking about his GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY. Not the special theory as you are claiming


The better for dense aether model.


LOL!

But it cannot change the fact, without dense aether model the postulates of special relativity are ad-hoced as well.


Where are your equations? What you are posting is ad-hocked within your demented mind!

Einstein did know that these postulates were confirmed with Michelson-Morley experiment, but he apparently didn't realize, why it is so in similar way, like many other physicists..


I am asking you again: Where are your equations that prove that "dense AWT" causes a null result for the MM experiment?

so you can stop waste your time and the place in this discussion thread with demonstrating it.


YOU are the one who for years have wasted everybody's time as well as the space on this discussion thread by posting demented unsubstantiated nonsense called AWT. Show us your equations as I have been doing.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 30, 2013
Where are your equations that prove that "dense AWT" causes a null result for the MM experiment?
It's like to say the Galileo: "It's nice that that the order of Venus phases doesn't fit the Ptolemy's epicycle model - but where are the equations proving it"? In another words, you're in role of Galileo opponents before forty years.


Another example of your stupidity: Kepler's laws already provided a testable mathematical background in Galileo's time AND these laws have been derived from detailed experimental data which these laws could model very well indeed. Where is your experimental data which your "model" fits? ZILCH. It fits nothing, not even the Michelson and Morley results!

SciPhyJon
1 / 5 (2) Apr 30, 2013
Maybe its just the lawyer side of me but logically it seems:

If it is the Higgs Field that gives particles mass;
And, super massive objects such as black holes can trap photons of light.
Then, the Standard Model and String theory's (LHC evidenced) Higgs Field must be your dense luminiferous Aether.

Call it whatever you want, I think its a semantic issue. Just another way of saying there has to be a super-symmetry in quantum mechanics.

Though no AWT proponent has ever convinced me that they understand differential equations any better than I do as a lawyer/Quantum nerd. Everything I've read (mostly by this one guy Zephir) is just an insightful mind f#$k with no mathematical predictions. Due to this AWT is just allegory with no application to testable experimentation. a.k.a. Word Salad
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (1) May 01, 2013
Everything I've read (mostly by this one guy Zephir) is just an insightful mind f#$k with no mathematical predictions
The scope of AWT (which is based on singular particle concept) lies outside of scope of math predictability. Do you realize that even system of four/five particles (N-body problem) is impossible to handle with formal math? Does it mean, we should resign to particle system qualitative description and predictions, which would imply from it?

If you don't believe me, try to explain, HOW for example the "Higgs Field gives particles mass" - and I'll show you, what the wor(l)d salad is.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 01, 2013
Though no AWT proponent has ever convinced me that they understand differential equations any better than I do as a lawyer/Quantum nerd. Everything I've read (mostly by this one guy Zephir)


He also HIDES behind many other names and is thus a totally dishonest person who dare not reveal that he is a physics-idiot! In other words he is the ultimate troll.

is just an insightful mind f#$k with no mathematical predictions.


Correct! And such a theory or model is the same as a verbal contract: It is not worth the paper it is written on.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 01, 2013
Everything I've read (mostly by this one guy Zephir) is just an insightful mind f#$k with no mathematical predictions


The scope of AWT (which is based on singular particle concept) lies outside of scope of math predictability.


Thus it is not even wrong-physics!

Do you realize that even system of four/five particles (N-body problem) is impossible to handle with formal math?


It can be handled with numerical analysis or statistically, depending on the problem involved. Your AWT means NOTHING since there is no way in which one can obtain quantitative predictions from it in ANY MANNER!.

If you don't believe me, try to explain, HOW for example the "Higgs Field gives particles mass" - and I'll show you, what the wor(l)d salad is.


At last a worthwhile statement. The Higgs model is like your AWT! It is bullshit all the way!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (1) May 01, 2013
Funnily enough, most of physicists consider J.F.Prins a crackpot in the same way, like he considers me. He considers bullshit everything in mainstream science: from Higgs model to particle-wave duality just because I'm explaining these stuffs with dense aether model. Without matter of fact arguments it has no meaning to discuss these stuffs with him. He's old senile physicist, who lives in his own world, full of feeling of hurt from ignorance of his theories.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 01, 2013
Funnily enough, most of physicists consider in the same way, like he considers me.


You are lying again! As you will find out soon, not all physicists think this way. Archie Campbell is a senile old crackpot!

He considers bullshit everything in mainstream science:


Another lie: Not "everything".

from Higgs model to particle-wave duality just because I'm explaining these stuffs with dense aether model.


I have NOT seen anywhere that you modeled these aspects with your so-called "dense" aether model. The "dense" is in your head!

Without matter of fact arguments


I have posted manuscripts with mathematical derivations and written books which are being very well received. Where are your equations that model "wave-particle duality" and the Higgs boson? Nowhere to be seen!

He's old senile physicist, who lives in his own world, full of feeling of hurt from ignorance of his theories.


And you are a congenital young moron without any brains!

More news stories

Robotics goes micro-scale

(Phys.org) —The development of light-driven 'micro-robots' that can autonomously investigate and manipulate the nano-scale environment in a microscope comes a step closer, thanks to new research from the ...

Biologists help solve fungi mysteries

(Phys.org) —A new genetic analysis revealing the previously unknown biodiversity and distribution of thousands of fungi in North America might also reveal a previously underappreciated contributor to climate ...