Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: JP on 04/01/2012 23:51:43
-
This is a redirect from here: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?msg=376875
The question is, we know that "aether" as used in physics text was a theory that assumed that space is filled with some stuff through which light propagates much in the way sound propagates through air. Because of this, if you're stationary in the aether, the speed of light should look constant in all directions, but if you're not stationary, the speed of light is no longer going to appear constant in all directions.
Phractality and David Cooper brought up the idea that you could keep the idea of "stuff" (I'm hesitant to say aether because it has a very particular definition that was disproved by MM), through which light propagates if you introduce Lorentz transformations. To have a better place to discuss this theory (and give us leeway to go off into New Theories), I've put this post here.
My question regarding this idea is--does this in any way differ from introducing special relativity and Lorentz transformations other than philosophically? This stuff through which light propagates is going to be unlike any matter we know of, since Lorentz transformations keep it stationary in all reference frames--a property that nothing else has. Is this a testable hypothesis that differs in any way from special relativity?
-
Thanks, JP, for the opportunity to answer your question without having to scrupulously avoid non-standard models.
In the other thread, Why no aether? (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=42662.0), you seem to be confusing THE aether theory with the definition of aether. There is no one aether theory; there are many, and most of them have been proven wrong. There have also been many aether definitions over the millennia, but for modern physics, I think we can settle on one definition: Aether is the medium for the transmission of light. Defining aether this way makes no assumptions about whether it is substantive or whether it can be reconciled with the constancy of the speed of light. Some aether theories, including my own, postulate the medium of light is the medium of all forces, waves and even particles.
Some aether theories presume that the aether is a fluid. For particles to move unimpeded thru a fluid, it must be extremely thin; hence the connotation that anything "aethereal" is lacking in substance. Fluid-aether theories are thought to imply that solids should somehow drag the aether with them. Therefore, experiments have been devised to detect the dragging of aether inside the Earth. No such drag has been detected.
Other aether theories, including my own (actually not a theory but a model), presume that aether is a solid, and light propagates thru it in the fashion of an acoustic shear wave in a solid. It is generally agreed that such a solid aether must be many times denser and stiffer than steel; I suspect it may be many times denser and stiffer even than a white dwarf, which is like a giant diamond. (When I refer to the density of aether, I mean inertial density, as the medium of gravity should have no gravity of its own.)
I'm not sure how other theorists have explained the motion of solids thru the solid aether, but in my own model, particles that have a rest mass consist of orbiting pairs of photons. The photons continue to move at the speed of light, but in tiny orbital paths. A force similar to the Higgs force holds them in orbit. Solids meet no resistance from motion thru the aether because photons meet no resistance. Likewise, particles don't drag the aether because waves don't drag their own medium.
A major flaw in aether models other than my own (all of them as far as I know) is the lack of any mention of pressure waves. Something like the Higgs field consists of aethereal pressure waves, which are many times faster than light. Photons, being shear waves, exchange momentum with the pressure waves; this results in forces of attraction and repulsion between pairs of photons at very close range (near the Planck scale), i.e. the Higgs force. Note that the disturbance surrounding a photon is not spherically symmetrical, so we should expect it to violate some conservation laws. Also, when the Higgs force takes hold of a pair of photons, they fall into a Higgs potential well, perhaps multiplying their mass-energy many fold. This is zero-point energy.
Each photon disturbs the Higgs field, and that disturbance is spun into a spiral pattern around orbiting photons. The spiraling disturbances of the Higgs field around pairs of particles result in forces of attraction and repulsion between the particles. Sufficiently close, the spinning disturbances may mesh like gears; at greater distances, the forces become spherically symmetrical and diminish according to the inverse square. This accounts for all the other forces, including the strong force, the electro-weak force and gravity.
Since the constituent photons that comprise a particle must orbit at the speed of light, the center of their orbits must move slower than the speed of light. If the particle is in motion relative to a given reference frame, it will be length contract in the direction of motion because the photons are moving past the center of the orbit on one side and back on the opposite side. If you calculate the difference between the velocity of the photon and the velocity of the particle's center in the "stationary" reference frame, you will see that the difference is less than c on one side, more than c on the opposite side and equal to c on the front and back. This accounts for the length contraction of special relativity. But in the particle's own reference frame, the particle is not length contracted.
Time dilation results from the fact that photons orbiting a moving particle have farther to go at the speed of light than they would if the particle were stationary. Farther to go at the same speed means they complete fewer orbits per second. Any clock made of moving particles therefore runs more slowly than it would if stationary.
I'll just briefly mention the fractal nature of my model. The cosmic foam of our universe (voids surrounded by walls of galaxies) is the aether foam of a super universe, and the aether foam of our universe is the cosmic foam of a sub-universe. Expansion of space enlarges the voids, stretching the walls of galaxies until, one by one, they rupture. Like the head on a glass of beer, the bubbles of the cosmic foam pop, producing a white noise of pressure waves. Those pressure waves are the Higgs field of the next larger scale universe.
Since all proven phenomena are limited by the speed of light, we have no way to show that the reference frame which is stationary relative to the aether is distinguishable from any other reference frame. The apparent Doppler shift of the CMBR, being bluer in the direction of Virgo, may be a hint that we are moving in that direction at about 627 km/s relative to the aether. If recent experiments with quantum entanglement are proven to be practically instantaneous in that reference frame, we will then have proof that some phenomena do act differently in a preferred reference frame. That discovery could alter our theories about gravity at the scale of galaxies and beyond. So the question of whether the aether is substantive may not be moot, after all.
Yesterday, MikeS posted several ideas in Does an Average Increase in Entropy Explain Away a Local Decrease? (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=42676.0), which I'm pretty sure he learned from reading about my model. That post was deleted by a moderator, but you can view it here. (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=24864) My model implies a reversal of the arrow of time from one universe to the next. Each scale-wise universe exports its entropy to the next larger-scale universe, and time reversal converts the output of entropy to an input of exergy (the opposite of entropy). The expansion of space is the mechanism for this transfer of entropy between universes. It calls into question the idea that the universe must die a cold death. It also suggests that successive scale-wise universes are made, alternately, of matter and antimatter.
My website goes into much more detail. Click the globe icon on the left side of my profile page.
-
This is a redirect from here: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?msg=376875
The question is, we know that "aether" as used in physics text was a theory that assumed that space is filled with some stuff through which light propagates much in the way sound propagates through air. Because of this, if you're stationary in the aether, the speed of light should look constant in all directions, but if you're not stationary, the speed of light is no longer going to appear constant in all directions.
No to the bit in bold: if you're not stationary, you might wrongly believe that the speed of light is no longer going to appear constant in all directions. If you had the ability do measure time without something having to do a round trip for each clock tick, then the differences would show up, but sadly all clocks are governed by forces which operate at the speed of light at best, so the differences remain hidden from us.
My question regarding this idea is--does this in any way differ from introducing special relativity and Lorentz transformations other than philosophically?
Probably not, and that's why it may be 100% mathematically unimportant.
This stuff through which light propagates is going to be unlike any matter we know of, since Lorentz transformations keep it stationary in all reference frames--a property that nothing else has. Is this a testable hypothesis that differs in any way from special relativity?
QM may be able to show that there is a preferred frame, and if it does it will make no real difference to Einstein's relativity other than philosophically. If that happens, everyone will then pretend that they always thought there must be a preferred frame and an aether, and they'll also claim that the whole argument was an artificial fuss manufactured by the people they've been abusing for decades for having the audacity to discuss the need of an aether, so the people who've been right all along will never be recognised by them as having been right.
-
Some aether theories presume that the aether is a fluid...
Other aether theories, including my own (actually not a theory but a model), presume that aether is a solid
How far have you got when it comes to putting gravity in the model? (I havn't looked up your site as I'm short of time). What happens to your solid aether at the event horizon of a black hole where it looks to me as if it would need to be flowing inwards at the speed of light?
-
Some aether theories presume that the aether is a fluid...
Other aether theories, including my own (actually not a theory but a model), presume that aether is a solid
How far have you got when it comes to putting gravity in the model? (I havn't looked up your site as I'm short of time). What happens to your solid aether at the event horizon of a black hole where it looks to me as if it would need to be flowing inwards at the speed of light?
I am not a mathematician, so I haven't gotten far in describing the particular geometries of any of the various species of particles. I don't even have a mathematical description of the way individual photons disturb the Higgs field. Generally speaking, one photon may see another photon as a bright or dark spot against the otherwise uniform Higgs field. The brightness of the Higgs field varies as some function of the phase and polarity of one photon relative to the other. This disturbance of the Higgs field may be very strong when the separation is near the Planck scale, much weaker at the scale of the strong force, weaker still at the scale of atoms, and many orders of magnitude weaker at the scale of gravity.
At the Planck scale, the Higgs field is a bumpy ride for a photon, as it passes close to the source of the individual pressure waves that make up the Higgs field. Those pressure waves result from popping cosmic-foam bubbles in the sub-universe; due to time inversion, our aether-foam bubbles are un-popping. So the pressure waves converge to a point where an aether-foam bubble un-pops. This occurs below the scale of quantum effects, so the pressure wave amplitude falls off as the inverse square of distance from its source.
I calculate that our aether-foam bubbles up-pop at a rate of about 10^88 times per second per cubic meter. If an electron is 10^-22 m in diameter, approximately 10^22 aether-foam bubbles un-pop inside the electron each second. If our velocity relative to the aether is 627 km/s, an electron which has zero velocity relative to Earth will go about 10^-16 m each time an aether-foam bubble un-pops inside of it. Since these close encounters affect particles more strongly than more distant encounters, the result is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This is why nothing that happens in our universe can be predicted with absolute certainty.
I seem to have diverged from answering your question. Discussing the Fatio-Lesage model of gravity on the late Tom Van Flandern's website got me started on the subject of gravity. While I don't accept most of Van Flandern's wacky theories, I do think he was right about the speed of gravity. Based on the lack of perceptible gravity aberration from propagation delay between the Sun and Earth, he calculated that gravity force (not gravity waves) propagates at least 20 billion times faster than light. In other words gravity is to light as light is to a snail. If gravity propagated at the speed of light, we should expect the Sun's gravity to pull us in the direction of stars which were directly behind the sun eight minutes ago. That would pull us into higher and higher orbits; solar systems could not exist.
Applying the formulas for acoustic waves in solids, it seems unlikely that this much difference could exist between the speeds of shear waves and pressure waves. Perhaps a different formula applies to the foamy structure of the aether. It might be similar to the formula for vibrating strings, where the pressure waves propagate at the speed of sound (in the material) and shear wave speed is inversely proportional to the tension in the string. In Earth gravity a string will sag way too much to demonstrate the effect of very low tension; in the weightlessness of space, it would be possible to have only dynes of tension in a string whose density is tons per meter. I haven't done the math, but I'm sure it must be feasible to have a string in space in which pressure waves propagate kilometers per second and shear waves only millimeters per day. Tension in the cosmic foam is maintained by the expansion of space and limited by the structural strength of walls of gravity.
So, with some trepidation, I do accept the argument that gravity propagates as fast as Van Flandern claimed. For that matter, I believe the same speed applies to all the fundamental forces, including electrostatic and magnetic, though electromagnetic waves definitely propagate at the speed of light. There have been attempts to measure the speed of electrostatic force, but as far as I know, none have succeeded. The same with the speed of gravity.
The Fatio-Lesage model predicted a limited range of gravity, beyond which it would diminish faster than the inverse square. My model does not suggest any such effect.
If gravity does have a finite propagation delay, this might account for the rotation of galaxies due to their motion relative to the aether. That's just a wild guess; I lack the mathematical skill necessary to formulate how that would work.
At the event horizon of a black hole, my model doesn't seem to suggest anything different from the standard theories, except that gravity is able to escape due to its extreme speed of propagation, not because gravity is caused by the warp of space-time. The warp of space-time is a mathematical description of an effect; that does not address the cause. My model addresses the cause, but as far as I know it only differs from general relativity in that gravity has a finite propagation delay; less than three minutes at the diameter of our galaxy.
Incidentally, I suspect that even a black hole is only a minor disturbance of the aether. In other words, the densest concentrations of shear waves involve only ripples a small fraction of a Planck length in amplitude. They seem extreme to us because we have no understanding of how dense the aether is. My own wild guess is that a sub-universe galaxy might have as much inertia as a comparable galaxy in our universe; and there are literally googols of sub-universe galaxies in every cubic meter of our aether. So, even though the math suggest a singularity, I don't see that as in any way tearing the fabric of space-time.
-
There seem to be a lot of theories indicating that there is some component of "space" that we are not seeing or able to observe.
Ether/Aether/Æther
Space-Time
Strings????
Stretching/Distorting of Space?
I guess I see them as new terms for similar concepts.
I suppose there is the issue that if a particle (photon, electron, neutrino, etc) follows a type of wave... then we really don't have a great explanation why that is the case, or why one can create a laser beam, without the photons zipping off on some tangent. [???]
I do like the idea that what we observe as a single particle is actually a pair of particles. Although, If there is a significant distance between the two photons, then they'd have troubles with a grate (or slit) type of experiment, as one might be able to exclude half of the pair, or find a gap that would work for part of the wave, but not another portion of the wave.
||||||||
||||||||
||||||||
I suppose I think of a type of "Local Space", in which the space becomes part of the objects with which it is observed. So, the speed of light, for example, becomes an intrinsic property of the device which is measuring it. I'll try to get an experimental design posted in a few days to determine whether space is a property of an object, or independent of the object.
-
I get the impression that space-time is a well accepted concept and the the speed of light is determined by properties of space-time. Unfortunately, that does not give us a lot of insight into what space-time is, and that's assuming it happens to be "something" at all, which I would not count on.
If we are ever able to answer the question, I have a suspicion that the answer will turn out to be really quite strange and highly counter intuitive.
-
If gravity propagated at the speed of light, we should expect the Sun's gravity to pull us in the direction of stars which were directly behind the sun eight minutes ago. That would pull us into higher and higher orbits; solar systems could not exist.
I don't think that can be right. Here's why:-
Case 1: if the sun is not moving through space, the gravitation radiating out from it (ignoring all ideas that gravity doesn't work this way at all) will reach the planet in such a way that it might as well have travelled instantly - it will be applying a pull directly towards the sun. This makes it dead easy to keep planets in orbit.
Case 2: if the sun is moving at high speed through space (which it probably is), and the planet likewise (assume too that its orbital velocity is small by comparison), then the system will still need to act as if the sun is stationary. It's easy to imagine that the rays of gravitation will reach the planet at the wrong angle, pointing back to a position behind where the sun now is, but you need to think about what happens with light in the same situation - the light will appear to be coming from where the sun actually is rather than from a point where it was some time earlier. Why should this be? Well, if you then shine a laser at the sun, you might imagine that you won't hit the sun with it because the sun isn't actually going to be there by the time the light has completed the trip, but the light will indeed hit the sun because it won't travel along the path you expected - it will actually go to where the sun has yet to be. As the light travels through the laser in your hands (the laser being the gadget you're holding rather than the beam), the laser is moving, so the direction the light leaves the laser is not angled the same say as the gadget is physically pointing, the front end having moved since the light set out from the back end of the device. The same thing happens when your eye receives light from the sun - your eye is aligned with where the sun now is and not where it was when the light you're receiving from the sun was emitted, and that's because there is a delay between the light going through the lens of your eye and hitting your retina, your retina moving during that delay. The same kinds of thing must happen to any force applied to the planet by the gravitation, so they always apply a force towards where the sun actually is rather than where it was when the force was sent out.
There is a small complication - If the sun is not moving but the planet is, the force will be received slightly out of alignment every time, acting as if the sun was slightly to the side of its true position. The result of this should be the opposite of the one you mentioned, and I'm just wondering now if it might provide an alternative explanation for perihelion advance, the effect obviously being greater for faster orbits nearer to the sun.
-
"Therefore there exist an aether according to the general theory of relativity. Space without aether is unthinkable", Albert Einstein, 1920
"All things are composed of identical weightless atoms in constant motion", Demokritos, of Aldrea; " There is an infinite amount of seeds which mind places in motion creating the illusion of things coming into and out of existence", Anaxagoras of Klazomenia, 400 BC.
-
Yesterday, MikeS posted several ideas in Does an Average Increase in Entropy Explain Away a Local Decrease? (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=42676.0), which I'm pretty sure he learned from reading about my model. That post was deleted by a moderator, but you can view it here. (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=24864)
Phractality
I have told you quite clearly that all that I mentioned owed nothing to you as I had not read your model and I said I originally had the idea about 20 years ago which, if need be, I can prove. Please have the courtesy to stop accusing me of plagiarism.
Yesterday, MikeS posted several ideas in Does an Average Increase in Entropy Explain Away a Local Decrease? (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=42676.0), which I'm pretty sure he learned from reading about my model. That post was deleted by a moderator, but you can view it here. (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=24864) My model implies a reversal of the arrow of time from one universe to the next. Each scale-wise universe exports its entropy to the next larger-scale universe, and time reversal converts the output of entropy to an input of exergy (the opposite of entropy). The expansion of space is the mechanism for this transfer of entropy between universes. It calls into question the idea that the universe must die a cold death. It also suggests that successive scale-wise universes are made, alternately, of matter and antimatter.
Having since read your model I believe the only similarities are I believe the universe is cyclic with matter cycle following antimatter cycle etc. This being possible, at least in my model, as matter and antimatter are gravitationally repulsive. This leads to one or more black holes at the end of one universe cycle becoming white holes at the start of the next cycle as times arrow reverses. The reversal of times arrow converts entropy to an input of energy.
I can prove that I originally wrote this model about 20 years ago. I also sent professor Roger Penrose at Oxford University a copy for his comments. I believe I am right in saying that he has since embraced some of my ideas which may or may not be the same as some of your more recent ideas. Now, I am not accusing Roger Penrose of plagiarism are you?
-
Mike - Phract's post that you quote was on: 05/01/2012 08:04:22 - yours explaining it was part of your model of 20 years was « on: 05/01/2012 07:45:02 »
I hope and think we can put it down to the fact that Phract had not read your explanation when he posted. You can PM me if you have any other problems or further instances or if I have misinterpreted the situation
-
Sorry imatfaal our posts crossed.
-
Mike - Phract's post that you quote was on: 05/01/2012 08:04:22 - yours explaining it was part of your model of 20 years was « on: 05/01/2012 07:45:02 »
I hope and think we can put it down to the fact that Phract had not read your explanation when he posted. You can PM me if you have any other problems or further instances or if I have misinterpreted the situation
I am sorry if my comment sounded like an accusation. (I would have retracted it earlier, but my account was suspended for two weeks.) I saw so many similarities to my own conclusions that the most likely explanation seemed that Mike had read what I had written. Now it appears that he reached those conclusions via a vastly different route. I see little similarity between his model and my own, and yet, we draw those same conclusions about the reversing arrow of time between universes, alternating matter and antimatter universes, each universe exporting its entropy and the next universe turning it into exergy (the opposite of entropy). Great minds think alike.
My own model suggests that the arrow of time reverses because space can be measured in median-size aether-foam bubbles. Based on the wild guess that a median-size bubble is a Planck length cubed, one cubic meter is roughly 2.4 x 10^104 bubbles. Space expands because bubbles are un-popping; dark-energy pressure waves converge to a point where a new bubble wall divides one bubble in two, creating one Planck volume of new space. Repeat that about 1.66 x 10^87 times per second per cubic meter, and you get the Hubble constant. As seen by an observer in the sub-universe, one of its cosmic-foam bubbles expands until it pops, radiating pressure waves outward.
Mike and I disagree on some other points. I believe gravity between two antimatter particles is attractive, regardless of which way you perceive the arrow of time. Consider a video of a ball's trajectory. Neglecting air resistance, the ball follows the same path backwards or forwards; running the scene backwards or forwards, the acceleration is toward the Earth. I am less certain about whether gravity between a matter planet and an antimatter planet would be attractive, but I suspect that it would be.
Mike sees alternate universes as black holes and white holes. I see our aether as an antimatter universe that shrank as our universe expanded. An observer in that antimatter universe would see his universe expanding and ours shrinking. Turning our clock back and the antimatter clock ahead, one might imagine a time when both universes existed at the same scale. (I am loathe to say that's what happened, but like the big bang, it is conceivable.) That would be a convenient definition for the beginning of time as we know it, but certainly not the beginning or end of everything. At that time, neither universe could serve as the aether of the other; so the particles that comprised both of them must have existed as particles in the aether of yet another universe.
I believe all of these scale-wise universes, infinite in number, are infinite in extent; they have finite but arbitrarily defined beginnings and perhaps endings. The infinite possibilities of pasts and futures for our own universe may also exists, in the sense that is often referred to as a multiverse; but that is a separate concept from the idea of an infinity of different scales of universes.
-
Thanks for setting record straight.
-
Back to the original post in this string: the Michelson Morley experiment does NOT prove that an ether does not exist. You are looking at it wrong. Michelson's and Morley's table and photons DO travel through an "ether" but contraction masks any effects.
-
"No aether" should be proved by experiment with clocks synchronization on satellite for start.Because time is some aether. :P
-
"No aether" should be proved by experiment with clocks synchronization on satellite for start.Because time is some aether. :P
Aether models which predict measurable disagreements with relativity have been proven false. This only demonstrates that those aether models are false. It does not prove that there is no aether. GPS can only verify what has already been proven.
If it can be proven that some phenomenon, such as quantum entanglement, are faster than light, that will prove the existence of a preferred reference frame in which the FTL phenomenon has the same speed in all directions. Special relativity proves that no FTL phenomenon can have the same speed in all directions, except in one preferred reference frame. When and if such a preferred reference frame is identified, it will lend credence to some aether models, and disprove others.
Experimenters working with quantum entanglement have claimed instantaneous (in some unspecified reference frame) transfer of information across distances up 16 km. Mainstream scientists claim that quantum entanglement cannot be used to communicate FTL. However, FTL communication may not be needed to prove, after the fact, that information was transferred FTL.
-
"No aether" should be proved by experiment with clocks synchronization on satellite for start.Because time is some aether. :P
Aether models which predict measurable disagreements with relativity have been proven false. This only demonstrates that those aether models are false. It does not prove that there is no aether. GPS can only verify what has already been proven.
If it can be proven that some phenomenon, such as quantum entanglement, are faster than light, that will prove the existence of a preferred reference frame in which the FTL phenomenon has the same speed in all directions. Special relativity proves that no FTL phenomenon can have the same speed in all directions, except in one preferred reference frame. When and if such a preferred reference frame is identified, it will lend credence to some aether models, and disprove others.
Experimenters working with quantum entanglement have claimed instantaneous (in some unspecified reference frame) transfer of information across distances up 16 km. Mainstream scientists claim that quantum entanglement cannot be used to communicate FTL. However, FTL communication may not be needed to prove, after the fact, that information was transferred FTL.
These data do not help us to do useful formulas. Therefore we need experiments with synchronization of clocks on a satellite (in beginning and end of the experiment).
-
These data do not help us to do useful formulas. Therefore we need experiments with synchronization of clocks on a satellite (in beginning and end of the experiment).
I think they're still scratching their heads over the apparently FTL neutrinos (https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=ftl+neutrinos+explained&pbx=1&oq=ftl+nutrinos&aq=1s&aqi=g-s4&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=0l0l1l3526l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=94a0f283ff435ce5&biw=960&bih=441). (I'll be very surprised if neutrinos can be FTL.) Clock synchronization errors can result in false conclusions. Clock synchronization is fully understood in theory, but the formulas can be complex when the reference frame is in a gravitational field, rotating once every 24 hours, and orbiting once every 365 days. If there is a flaw in the GPS system, experiments might reveal what it is. More likely, the flaw is in our application of relativity to GPS or our application of GPS to the neutrino experiments. (It could be as simple as ignoring the influence of the moon.) I don't think there is anything wrong with the relativity formulas, at least nothing that can be measured experimentally with our present technology. (GR assumes zero propagation delay for gravity at cosmological distances; that might introduce significant errors at the scale of galaxies, but not at the scale the CERN lab.) The speed of light is the same in all directions in every inertial reference frame, regardless of whether there is a substantive aether. The Earth reference frame is probably close enough to an inertial reference frame. I don't think Earth's acceleration is sufficient to account for the apparent error in measuring the speed of the neutrinos. Anyway, I assume the brilliant scientists at CERN have taken it into account.
-
These data do not help us to do useful formulas. Therefore we need experiments with synchronization of clocks on a satellite (in beginning and end of the experiment).
I think they're still scratching their heads over the apparently FTL neutrinos (https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=ftl+neutrinos+explained&pbx=1&oq=ftl+nutrinos&aq=1s&aqi=g-s4&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=0l0l1l3526l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=94a0f283ff435ce5&biw=960&bih=441). (I'll be very surprised if neutrinos can be FTL.) Clock synchronization errors can result in false conclusions. Clock synchronization is fully understood in theory, but the formulas can be complex when the reference frame is in a gravitational field, rotating once every 24 hours, and orbiting once every 365 days. If there is a flaw in the GPS system, experiments might reveal what it is. More likely, the flaw is in our application of relativity to GPS or our application of GPS to the neutrino experiments. (It could be as simple as ignoring the influence of the moon.) I don't think there is anything wrong with the relativity formulas, at least nothing that can be measured experimentally with our present technology. (GR assumes zero propagation delay for gravity at cosmological distances; that might introduce significant errors at the scale of galaxies, but not at the scale the CERN lab.) The speed of light is the same in all directions in every inertial reference frame, regardless of whether there is a substantive aether. The Earth reference frame is probably close enough to an inertial reference frame. I don't think Earth's acceleration is sufficient to account for the apparent error in measuring the speed of the neutrinos. Anyway, I assume the brilliant scientists at CERN have taken it into account.
I do not need especial accuracy .Я should know exactly that what clock can be slower(kinematic slowing).
-
These data do not help us to do useful formulas. Therefore we need experiments with synchronization of clocks on a satellite (in beginning and end of the experiment).
I think they're still scratching their heads over the apparently FTL neutrinos (https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=ftl+neutrinos+explained&pbx=1&oq=ftl+nutrinos&aq=1s&aqi=g-s4&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=0l0l1l3526l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=94a0f283ff435ce5&biw=960&bih=441). (I'll be very surprised if neutrinos can be FTL.) Clock synchronization errors can result in false conclusions. Clock synchronization is fully understood in theory, but the formulas can be complex when the reference frame is in a gravitational field, rotating once every 24 hours, and orbiting once every 365 days. If there is a flaw in the GPS system, experiments might reveal what it is. More likely, the flaw is in our application of relativity to GPS or our application of GPS to the neutrino experiments. (It could be as simple as ignoring the influence of the moon.) I don't think there is anything wrong with the relativity formulas, at least nothing that can be measured experimentally with our present technology. (GR assumes zero propagation delay for gravity at cosmological distances; that might introduce significant errors at the scale of galaxies, but not at the scale the CERN lab.) The speed of light is the same in all directions in every inertial reference frame, regardless of whether there is a substantive aether. The Earth reference frame is probably close enough to an inertial reference frame. I don't think Earth's acceleration is sufficient to account for the apparent error in measuring the speed of the neutrinos. Anyway, I assume the brilliant scientists at CERN have taken it into account.
I posted a link to an article that claims that the cause of the FTL was a dodgy cable!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=43181.0
GR assumes zero propagation delay for gravity at cosmological distances; that might introduce significant errors at the scale of galaxies, but not at the scale the CERN lab.
To clarify; GR allows the affect of a massive body to be not time delayed (horrible phrasing but I cannot think of a better one) - but a change in gravity is propagated at the speed of light and there is a delay. These are gravitational waves and travel at light speed. The difference is marginal
-
The M&M experiment certainly proved that the speed of light is fixed, however this doesn't justify the conclusion that there is no aether, which they and just about everybody accepts as a priori. There is at least one other conclusion which good science should ponder, namely that the aether is some mysterious medium which doesn't affect the speed of light.
Also the M&M experiment was only two dimensional. Had they stood their apparatus vertically they would have observed variations in the interference patterns.
-
The M&M experiment certainly proved that the speed of light is fixed, however this doesn't justify the conclusion that there is no aether, which they and just about everybody accepts as a priori. There is at least one other conclusion which good science should ponder, namely that the aether is some mysterious medium which doesn't affect the speed of light.
Also the M&M experiment was only two dimensional. Had they stood their apparatus vertically they would have observed variations in the interference patterns.
MM proved experimentally that, within the accuracy of the apparatus, the speed of light is constant with respect to clocks and meter sticks that are made of atoms. Einstein explained mathematically why that is so, in terms of special relativity.
My own model explains it in terms of the fine structure of matter, which consists of particles, which in turn consist of orbiting pairs of photons. The photons orbit one another at the speed of light, so their orbits have circular symmetry relative to the center of the orbit, but ellipsoidal relative to any reference frame which is in motion relative to the center of the orbit. In a moving reference frame it takes longer to complete one orbit, as explained in special relativity. (Photons may orbit one another due to the Higgs force, which results from individual photons disturbing the symmetry of the Higgs field around them. I call it the Higgs field and Higgs force because it accomplishes the results described by Higgs; but my description of the field is very different from how Higgs described it. I see it as aethereal pressure waves, which exchange momentum with photons which are aethereal shear waves.)
A fundamental particle is roughly analogous to two speed boats making loops at constant speed and radius around a rowboat. If you're in the rowboat, the speed boats make circles; if you're on the shore, they make ellipses.
-
I try as hard as i can to get away from a mathematical construct of the universe into a three plus dimensional construct. For example I see the inverse square rule for mass or charge as as the inverse d cubed/d rule, i.e inverse volume/distance rule. This asserts that the volume of influence of masses (including photons) or charges decreases proportionally with distance. The force between two masses or two charges is inversely proportional to the intersection of their respective volume strengths divided by the distance of separation. The maths develop the same result, but now I hold a 3D picture of the event, which in turn gives reinforces probability that the space about a mass or a charge has properties; an aether that doesn't affect the speed of light
-
The M&M experiment certainly proved that the speed of light is fixed, however this doesn't justify the conclusion that there is no aether, which they and just about everybody accepts as a priori. There is at least one other conclusion which good science should ponder, namely that the aether is some mysterious medium which doesn't affect the speed of light.
Also the M&M experiment was only two dimensional. Had they stood their apparatus vertically they would have observed variations in the interference patterns.
[/color]
I don't believe that there is any aether, in as much as it is something as yet unseen and undiscovered. I believe it to be empty space devoid of all but virtual particles and gravity. Also I think it is wrong to say that it does not affect the speed of light, it does. Light can be thought of as travelling at infinite speed and therefore not experiencing the passage of time. However, when we measure the speed of light it is found to be finite. I believe this discrepancy is due to gravity warping or curving space and as light has to follow this geodesic it is travelling further than it would in a straight line. The delay this causes is what we call 'time'.
Another way of looking at it is:- If you think of the curved geodesic as a pipe along which light has to travel, then the curvature introduces friction and causes a delay which we call time. Using this analogy and applying it to a black hole it is easy to see why the passage of time approaches zero at the EH of a black hole.
-
Unfortunately anyone who dares to suggest anything resembling an aether invariably gets tarred and feathered by mainstream scientists without a second thought. Special Relativity didn't shoot down the aether, it was simply that a classically based definition of its existence could not, at that time, be reconciled with the constancy of the velocity of light.
Funny thing though, once the aether was removed, it became necessary to invent force mediating particles which, in a sense, became the new aether. I personally believe that a form of the aether does exist that agrees with all of the experimental results from SR, GR, and the SM.
-
I actually have an aether type theory of my own. This one might not be so easy to dismiss, but you're welcome to try. ;D
<link removed by Mod>
-
Breadpudding, we prefer any theories be put on the boards rather than linked to. If you want to discuss your ideas then put a brief abstract up for us to read.