Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: jeffreyH on 04/05/2016 18:54:46

Title: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: jeffreyH on 04/05/2016 18:54:46
I ask because I am at a loss to understand it. Is it simply because people find relativity so hard to grasp properly and an aether becomes easier to imagine since it has no mathematics attached to it.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: chiralSPO on 04/05/2016 19:26:01
I suspect that proponents of aether-based models feel that light waves must require some medium to propagate through. After all, sound waves, ocean waves and earthquakes all require media, and cannot propagate through empty space.

Of course, this is an improper generalization. Electromagnetic waves, probability density waves and others are very different animals from compression waves in a medium, even if the math used to describe each is very similar...
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 04/05/2016 19:40:06
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum

Quote
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:
It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.

Matter, quantum solids and fluids, a piece of window glass and 'stuff' have mass.

'Empty' space has mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment, the mass which fills 'empty' space.

Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality, both are waves in the mass which fills 'empty' space.

The mass which fills 'empty' space displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: alancalverd on 04/05/2016 20:10:50
'Empty' space has mass
What is the density of space? You keep trotting out the same assertion, with no numbers to back it up.

Quote
which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
What is the ealstic modulus of space?  You keep trotting out the same assertion, with no numbers to back it up.

I don't agree with Jefffrey that it's an escape from relativity, because the propagation of electromagnetic radiation does not require relativitic explanation or calculation. I suspect the attraction of aether is that it helps those of simple mind to equate wholly unrelated phenomena that make the same pretty patterns. Such a pity that they don't look at water waves spreading from a single slit - I flew over Lulworth as the tide was turning a few days ago: utterly unlike any quantum phenomenon, but very similar to the diffraction of radio waves.

In short: an unwillingness to observe and think.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 04/05/2016 20:35:47
What is the density of space? You keep trotting out the same assertion, with no numbers to back it up.

In terms of Maxwell's equations you keep insisting no one equates them with the aether when Maxwell himself does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Luminiferous_aether

Quote
James Clerk Maxwell said of the aether, "In several parts of this treatise an attempt has been made to explain electromagnetic phenomena by means of mechanical action transmitted from one body to another by means of a medium occupying the space between them. The undulatory theory of light also assumes the existence of a medium. We have now to show that the properties of the electromagnetic medium are identical with those of the luminiferous medium."

In short: an unwillingness to observe and think.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: puppypower on 04/05/2016 21:05:04
Since EM waves are part of the debate, whether there is an aether or not, are there any experiments, besides using EM waves, that can propagate waves without a medium, to show a medium is not needed? If you had a tangible lab analogy, this could end the debate. If this is not possible, except on paper, that tells us something different.



 
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 04/05/2016 22:13:18
Since EM waves are part of the debate, whether there is an aether or not, are there any experiments, besides using EM waves, that can propagate waves without a medium, to show a medium is not needed? If you had a tangible lab analogy, this could end the debate. If this is not possible, except on paper, that tells us something different.

See Maxwell quote in previous post.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 05/05/2016 00:51:10
In the following two articles the aether is what waves in a double slit experiment.

'From the Newton's laws to motions of the fluid and superfluid vacuum: vortex tubes, rings, and others'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3900

Quote
"This medium, called also the aether, has mass and is populated by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it"

... and displace it.

'EPR program: a local interpretation of QM'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.5612

Quote
"Wave particle duality is described as the compound system of point particle plus accompanying wave (in the æther)."

A moving particle has an associated wave in the aether. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment?
A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.

The wave of wave-particle duality is a wave in the aether.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: McQueen on 05/05/2016 04:38:13
I ask because I am at a loss to understand it. Is it simply because people find relativity so hard to grasp properly and an aether becomes easier to imagine since it has no mathematics attached to it.
One of the reasons that an aether would be useful is in explaining the fact that the speed of light remains constant regardless of the motion of the observer. In the same manner as  the speed of light is constant relative to all frames of reference.

First taking the example of light imagine what this means:

Suppose that a car is driving along the highway at 70 Km per hour and a truck is approaching from the opposite direction at 60 Km/hr then the combined speed would be 130Km/hr, similarly if  another car moving in the same direction overtakes at 100 km/hr then the relative speed of the car would be 100-70 = 30 Km/hr. However if  the truck as it approaches is moving at 60 Km/hr and it is blowing its horn, the speed of sound, provided the medium doesn't change, would remain the same (say 340 m/s)at whatever speed it moves in that medium irrespective of the speed of the truck or of the observer. Of course exactly the same phenomena applies to light, since we cannot detect a medium it is much more mystifying than sound, where the medium is easy to detect.

Sound simply cannot travel through the air faster than the speed of sound in air at those conditions. No matter how fast the vehicle moves, the sound will always move away as fast as it can in the medium. Sound speed is a property of the medium. Sound is not an object, but a disturbance in a given medium, so it will always travel at the rate the medium prescribes.
Thus if an aether does exist it would solve the huge mystery of why the speed of light is a constant.

What is the density of space? You keep trotting out the same assertion, with no numbers to back it up. What is the ealstic modulus of space?  You keep trotting out the same assertion, with no numbers to back it up.

If the aether does exist it would be undetectable but still be all around us. When walking from one room to another in your house, the atmosphere around you is chock full of emanations that you cannot see, and cannot possibly suspect to be there unless you happen to have a device that can detect the Electro- magnetic radiation in the air.  In the GAT , the aether would consist of photons with very low energy, of about 10-40 J to 10 -50J. When a real photon is released these low energy 'virtual photons' that are all around us line up in the direction of propagation of the real photon forming a line whose ends rest on infinity, and the energy of the real photon travels along this line of aligned 'virtual photons', so the aether functions exactly  like a medium.  So when considering the aether consider light propagating through light ! Similarly the aether because of its extremely low energy can move through matter as if it did not exist, no electron will react with photons of such low energy, matter passes through the aether, and the aether passes through matter effortlessly, without the slightest change being recorded.   The lamb shift experiment and its results indicate that electrons do interact with the 'virtual photon aether' but do so in such short time intervals in accordance with HUP:
4e81392406ab31a5b93910e42ed5a376.gif
 that the laws of conservation of energy are not disturbed.  GAT holds that it is  these interactions that result in the force of gravity. Thus the aether moves through matter and matter moves through aether and the result is gravity !

Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 05/05/2016 04:56:42
Thus the aether moves through matter and matter moves through aether and the result is gravity !

The Earth displaces the aether. The aether displaced by the Earth pushes back and exerts pressure toward the Earth. The aether displaced by the Earth pushing back and exerting pressure toward the Earth is gravity.

The geometrical representation of gravity as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: McQueen on 05/05/2016 06:23:00
Continuing from the earlier example: Car (a) moving at 70 kmph car (b) moving at 60 kmph then their combined speed is 130 kmph. If their initial distance apart is 2 kms then Given that car (a) is moving at 19.4 m/s and car (b) is moving at 16.6 m/sec then their combined speed per sec equals 36 m/s . Therefore time T equals 2000/36 = 55.5 secs. During this time car (a) would have traveled 1078 m and car (b) would have travelled 921.3 m. Whereas if car (b) is travelling towards the sound emanated by horn (a) then if the sound is travelling at 340m/s, they would meet after 2000/340 = 5.8 secs regardless of how fast car (b) is travelling. Car (b) would have traveled only 97.6 m during this time.


Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: jeffreyH on 05/05/2016 07:55:45
Why do virtual photons seem to crop up a lot with these ideas? Does anyone actually stop to think what virtual photons are? Anybody got a definition for virtual photon that can enlighten the aetherists?
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: alancalverd on 05/05/2016 08:44:33
In terms of Maxwell's equations you keep insisting no one equates them with the aether when Maxwell himself does.
And you consistently refuse to state the mechanical properties (density, elastic modulus) of the medium you insist that we should believe in.  So nobody does.

To give you yet another clue, the speed of a compression wave is √(K/ρ), where K is the elastic modulus and ρ is the density of the medium.

All you need to do is state K and ρ for a vacuum. Come on, you know the answer, just tell us!
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: McQueen on 05/05/2016 09:11:47
Why do virtual photons seem to crop up a lot with these ideas? Does anyone actually stop to think what virtual photons are? Anybody got a definition for virtual photon that can enlighten the aetherists?
For the simple reason that ill-informed people ( not referring to you necessarily) prefer to ignore Richard Feynman and Paul Dirac. But of course also because it is a part of Quantum Mechanics that is acceptable. Quantum Mechanics has borrowed freely ( whole- sale would be a better word) from classical physics. Why shouldn't any new model of physics borrow, from Quantum Mechanics ?
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: McQueen on 05/05/2016 09:27:06
To give you yet another clue, the speed of a compression wave is √(K/ρ), where K is the elastic modulus and ρ is the density of the medium.

Once again, not germane to the topic we are talking about sound waves NOT shock waves.

Quote
And you consistently refuse to state the mechanical properties (density, elastic modulus) of the medium you insist that we should believe in.  So nobody does.

You have almost as much stamina in questioning what has already been answered as a person one third your age!

Photons are traditionally said to be massless.  This is a figure of speech that physicists use to describe something about how a photon's particle-like properties are described by the language of special relativity. The logic can be constructed in many ways, and the following is one such.  Take an isolated system (called a "particle") and accelerate it to some velocity v (a vector).  Newton defined the "momentum" p of this particle (also a vector), such that p behaves in a simple way when the particle is accelerated, or when it's involved in a collision.  For this simple behaviour to hold, it turns out that p must be proportional to v.  The proportionality constant is called the particle's "mass" m, so that p = mv.

Having stated that the charge on a 'virtual photon ' of the 'virtual photon aether' might be in the vicinity of 10 -40 J it should be possible from this to calculate the mass. Of course 'virtual photons' have no momentum, they are more or less stationary, so a new e = mc2 type of approach will be needed,  but still.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: McQueen on 05/05/2016 09:54:31
Of course, this is an improper generalization. Electromagnetic waves, probability density waves and others are very different animals from compression waves in a medium, even if the math used to describe each is very similar...

Could  'probability density waves'  be re-phrased as "dense probability waves" ?
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: jeffreyH on 05/05/2016 12:31:16
Virtual particles never leave the confines of a Feynman diagram. Can you please explain to us dolts why that is McQueen?
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 05/05/2016 12:44:41
Why do virtual photons seem to crop up a lot with these ideas? Does anyone actually stop to think what virtual photons are? Anybody got a definition for virtual photon that can enlighten the aetherists?

There are no such things as virtual photons. The aether is chaotic. What is thought to be virtual particles is the chaotic nature of the aether. In the following video the water wave Casimir effect is analogous to the chaotic nature of the aether.


You are trying to use something which doesn't exist, virtual photons, to try and refute something which does, the aether.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 05/05/2016 12:46:49
And you consistently refuse to state the mechanical properties (density, elastic modulus) of the medium you insist that we should believe in.  So nobody does.

Do you at least understand Maxwell himself said his equations have to do with the aether?

The following article describes gravity as a pressure exerted by aether toward matter.

'The aether-modified gravity and the G ̈del metric'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5654

"As for the pressure, it is equal to p = 53−αg,6a2 so, it is positive if αg < 3 which is the weaker condition than the previous one. One notes that the results corresponding to the usual gravity are easily recovered. Also, it is easy to see that the interval αg < 15 corresponds to the usual matter."

The following article describes the aether as an incompressible fluid resulting in what the article refers to as gravitational aether caused by pressure or vorticity.

'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old Cosmological Constant Problem'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3955

"One proposal to address this puzzle at the semi-classical level is to decouple quantum vacuum from space-time geometry via a modification of gravity that includes an incompressible fluid, known as Gravitational Aether. In this paper, we discuss classical predictions of this theory along with its compatibility with cosmological and experimental tests of gravity. We argue that deviations from General Relativity (GR) in this theory are sourced by pressure or vorticity."

The following article describes a gravitating vacuum where aether is the quantum vacuum of the 21-st century.

'From Analogue Models to Gravitating Vacuum'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.1155

"The aether of the 21-st century is the quantum vacuum, which is a new form of matter. This is the real substance"

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid, which is described in the following article as the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. The article describes a 'back reaction' associated with the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. This is the displaced aether 'displacing back'.

'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3458

"We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide further evidence of the “fluidic” nature of space itself. This "back-reaction" is quantified by the tendency of angular momentum flux threading across a surface."

The following article describes the aether as that which produces resistance to acceleration and is responsible for the increase in mass of an object with velocity and describes the "space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."

'Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and fluidic inertia'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4611

"It is shown that the force exerted on a particle by an ideal fluid produces two effects: i) resistance to acceleration and, ii) an increase of mass with velocity. ... The interaction between the particle and the entrained space flow gives rise to the observed properties of inertia and the relativistic increase of mass. ... Accordingly, in this framework the non resistance of a particle in uniform motion through an ideal fluid (D’Alembert’s paradox) corresponds to Newton’s first law. The law of inertia suggests that the physical vacuum can be modeled as an ideal fluid, agreeing with the space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."

The relativistic mass of an object is the mass of the object and the mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the object which is displaced by the object. The faster an object moves with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists the greater the displacement of the aether by the object the greater the relativistic mass of the object.

The incompressible fluid described in the following article is the gravitational aether which "the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."

'Empty Black Holes, Firewalls, and the Origin of Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4176

"But why an incompressible fluid? The reason comes from an attempt to solve the (old) cosmological constant problem, which is arguably the most puzzling aspect of coupling gravity to relativistic quantum mechanics [13]. Given that the natural expectation value for the vacuum of the standard model of particle physics is ∼ 60 orders of magnitude heavier than the gravitational measurements of vacuum density, it is reasonable to entertain an alternative theory of gravity where the standard model vacuum decouples from gravity. Such a theory could be realized by coupling gravity to the traceless part of the quantum mechanical energy-momentum tensor. However, the consistency/covariance of gravitational field equations then requires introducing an auxiliary fluid, the so-called gravitational aether [14]. The simplest model for gravitational aether is an incompressible fluid (with vanishing energy density, but non-vanishing pressure), which is currently consistent with all cosmological, astrophysical, and precision tests of gravity [15, 16]:

__3__
32πGN Gμν = Tμν − Tα gμν + Tμν ,
Tμν = p (uμ uν + gμν ), T μν;ν = 0,

where GN is Newton’s constant, Tμν is the matter energy momentum tensor and T'μν is the incompressible gravitational aether fluid. In vacuum, the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."

The following articles describe what is presently postulated as dark matter is aether.

'Quantum aether and an invariant Planck scale'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3753

"this version of aether may have some bearing on the abundance of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in our universe."

"mass of the aether"

'Scalars, Vectors and Tensors from Metric-Affine Gravity'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.5168

"the model obtained here gets closer to the aether theory of [other authors and articles listed], which is shown therein to be an alternative to the cold dark matter."

'Unified Dark Energy-Dark Matter model with Inverse Quintessence'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.4758

"We consider a model where both dark energy and dark matter originate from the coupling of a scalar field with a non-conventional kinetic term to, both, a metric measure and a non-metric measure. An interacting dark energy/dark matter scenario can be obtained by introducing an additional scalar that can produce non constant vacuum energy and associated variations in dark matter"

'Singular-Turbulent Structure Formation in the Universe and the Essence of Dark Matter I. Unified model for dark matter and quintessence'
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0610135

"Superfluid dark matter is reminiscent of the aether and modeling the universe using superfluid aether is compatible."

'Vainshtein mechanism in Gauss-Bonnet gravity and Galileon aether'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.1892

"the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of ”aether” because of the presence of the background field"

'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum medium and the inertial motion of particles'
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0701155

"In this paper we shall show that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as a ubiquitous back ground field is a super fluid medium."
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: McQueen on 05/05/2016 12:50:10
Virtual particles never leave the confines of a Feynman diagram. Can you please explain to us dolts why that is McQueen?

Where are you living Mr (amateur physicist) JeffreyH. In the stone Age , like Fred Flint stone ?  Here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle) is a passage from your favourite source:

"In physics, a virtual particle is a transient fluctuation that exhibits many of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, but that exists for a limited time. The concept of virtual particles arises in perturbation theory of quantum field theory where interactions between ordinary particles are described in terms of exchanges of virtual particles. Any process involving virtual particles admits a schematic representation known as a Feynman diagram, in which virtual particles are represented by internal lines."

Is that clear enough, Or do we need to go round once again?

Check out the video posted below by stacyjones also, it is by Laurence Krauss, one of the most esteemed physicist of today !
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 05/05/2016 12:51:30
Virtual particles never leave the confines of a Feynman diagram. Can you please explain to us dolts why that is McQueen?

Not according to Laurence Krauss. Kruass says 'empty' space is a sea of virtual photons, with mass, popping into and out of existence out of nothing. What Krauss fails to realize is that what he thinks of as virtual particles, with mass, popping into and out of existence out of nothing is actually the chaotic nature of the mass which fills 'empty' space. In the following video, at the 1:52 mark, is a visual representation of the mass which exists in the proton unoccupied by the quarks. Where the quarks exist the mass has been displaced.

Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: chiralSPO on 05/05/2016 13:43:28
Since EM waves are part of the debate, whether there is an aether or not, are there any experiments, besides using EM waves, that can propagate waves without a medium, to show a medium is not needed? If you had a tangible lab analogy, this could end the debate. If this is not possible, except on paper, that tells us something different.

How about cathode rays?

100 keV electrons propagate through ultra-high vacuum in electron microscopes with a wavelength of 3.7 pm (and a velocity of 1.6x108 m/s, the frequency is 4.32x1019 Hz) http://www.microscopy.ethz.ch/properties.htm

We can observe the wavelike properties of the cathode ray as it interacts with the sample being observed. When looking at crystalline samples by TEM, one can easily see the diffraction pattern. (google image search of tem diffraction shows many beautiful examples)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_diffraction
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: PmbPhy on 05/05/2016 13:51:57
Quote from: jeffreyH
I ask because I am at a loss to understand it. Is it simply because people find relativity so hard to grasp properly and an aether becomes easier to imagine since it has no mathematics attached to it.
Based on my 20 years of experience, from 1995 to 2015, I've seen two basic reasons for it: (1) a lack of knowledge relativity/physics and (2) a lack of knowledge of the scientific method.

There are several different meanings of the term Aether. For a list of them please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether

The term was based on the concept of an Aether which dates back to ancient Greece. The concept that you're speaking of is called the Luminous Aether which dates back to the 19th century. It was thought that light waves needed a medium through which it travels. It was later found that light is an electromagnetic wave which, as such, didn't need an aether through which it propagated because the waves themselves were really time-varying electromagnetic waves which had no use for a medium and therefore the previous idea of a luminiferous Aether which was varying in tim



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(mythology)
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 05/05/2016 14:14:52
Quote
We can observe the wavelike properties of the cathode ray as it interacts with the sample being observed. When looking at crystalline samples by TEM, one can easily see the diffraction pattern. (google image search of tem diffraction shows many beautiful examples)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_diffraction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_diffraction

Quote
Electron diffraction refers to the wave nature of electrons.

It's "wave nature" is its associated wave in the aether.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 05/05/2016 14:17:34
There are several different meanings of the term Aether.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum

Quote
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:
It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: McQueen on 05/05/2016 15:17:57
We can observe the wavelike properties of the cathode ray as it interacts with the sample being observed. When looking at crystalline samples by TEM, one can easily see the diffraction pattern. (google image search of tem diffraction shows many beautiful examples)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_diffraction

Water molecules which are also particles exhibit ALL of the properties quoted by you, including; interference, diffraction and so on. What is good for the goose is good for the ...........! Common sense to think that any 'particle' of that level of magnitude is going to demonstrate all of these properties not because it has wave like properties but because it is so small.  Incidentally, no-one is doubting for a minute that the electron is a charged particle and  can interact in the way it does.  However, a closer and more intense inspection of the phenomenon will probably reveal that the interaction is mediated by photons. In fact the GAT has a mathematically supported explanation for it.  I can post the explanation in New Theories if you like.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: chiralSPO on 05/05/2016 16:16:33
In fact the GAT has a mathematically supported explanation for it.  I can post the explanation in New Theories if you like.

Please do!
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: agyejy on 05/05/2016 17:34:36


Water molecules which are also particles exhibit ALL of the properties quoted by you, including; interference, diffraction and so on. What is good for the goose is good for the ...........! Common sense to think that any 'particle' of that level of magnitude is going to demonstrate all of these properties not because it has wave like properties but because it is so small.  Incidentally, no-one is doubting for a minute that the electron is a charged particle and  can interact in the way it does.

Too bad for you scientists have proven that objects with about a trillion or so atoms also behave according to quantum mechanics:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html

Quote from: The Link
Cleland and his team took a more direct measure of quantum weirdness at the large scale. They began with a a tiny mechanical paddle, or 'quantum drum', around 30 micrometres long that vibrates when set in motion at a particular range of frequencies. Next they connected the paddle to a superconducting electrical circuit that obeyed the laws of quantum mechanics. They then cooled the system down to temperatures below one-tenth of a kelvin.

At this temperature, the paddle slipped into its quantum mechanical ground state. Using the quantum circuit, Cleland and his team verified that the paddle had no vibrational energy whatsoever. They then used the circuit to give the paddle a push and saw it wiggle at a very specific energy.

Next, the researchers put the quantum circuit into a superposition of 'push' and 'don't push', and connected it to the paddle. Through a series of careful measurements, they were able to show that the paddle was both vibrating and not vibrating simultaneously.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: jeffreyH on 05/05/2016 18:19:50


Water molecules which are also particles exhibit ALL of the properties quoted by you, including; interference, diffraction and so on. What is good for the goose is good for the ...........! Common sense to think that any 'particle' of that level of magnitude is going to demonstrate all of these properties not because it has wave like properties but because it is so small.  Incidentally, no-one is doubting for a minute that the electron is a charged particle and  can interact in the way it does.

Too bad for you scientists have proven that objects with about a trillion or so atoms also behave according to quantum mechanics:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html

Quote from: The Link
Cleland and his team took a more direct measure of quantum weirdness at the large scale. They began with a a tiny mechanical paddle, or 'quantum drum', around 30 micrometres long that vibrates when set in motion at a particular range of frequencies. Next they connected the paddle to a superconducting electrical circuit that obeyed the laws of quantum mechanics. They then cooled the system down to temperatures below one-tenth of a kelvin.

At this temperature, the paddle slipped into its quantum mechanical ground state. Using the quantum circuit, Cleland and his team verified that the paddle had no vibrational energy whatsoever. They then used the circuit to give the paddle a push and saw it wiggle at a very specific energy.

Next, the researchers put the quantum circuit into a superposition of 'push' and 'don't push', and connected it to the paddle. Through a series of careful measurements, they were able to show that the paddle was both vibrating and not vibrating simultaneously.

Don't go posting evidence! Who needs evidence. Certainly not aetherists.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 05/05/2016 18:37:26
Don't go posting evidence! Who needs evidence. Certainly not aetherists.

You mean like the evidence that the particle is always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment because it always travels through a single slit?
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: jeffreyH on 05/05/2016 18:54:51
You need to read this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_rule (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_rule) and then look at results from the triple slit experiment then tell me you know how a wave behaves.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 05/05/2016 20:10:06
You need to read this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_rule (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_rule) and then look at results from the triple slit experiment then tell me you know how a wave behaves.

NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION by LOUIS DE BROGLIE

Quote
“Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of [the wave-function wave], arise from the interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium” which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty space”.”

The “subquantic medium” is the aether.

‘Fluid mechanics suggests alternative to quantum orthodoxy’
http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/fluid-systems-quantum-mechanics-0912

Quote
“The fluidic pilot-wave system is also chaotic. It’s impossible to measure a bouncing droplet’s position accurately enough to predict its trajectory very far into the future. But in a recent series of papers, Bush, MIT professor of applied mathematics Ruben Rosales, and graduate students Anand Oza and Dan Harris applied their pilot-wave theory to show how chaotic pilot-wave dynamics leads to the quantumlike statistics observed in their experiments.”

A “fluidic pilot-wave system” is the aether.

‘When Fluid Dynamics Mimic Quantum Mechanics’
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729111934.htm

Quote
“If you have a system that is deterministic and is what we call in the business ‘chaotic,’ or sensitive to initial conditions, sensitive to perturbations, then it can behave probabilistically,” Milewski continues. “Experiments like this weren’t available to the giants of quantum mechanics. They also didn’t know anything about chaos. Suppose these guys — who were puzzled by why the world behaves in this strange probabilistic way — actually had access to experiments like this and had the knowledge of chaos, would they have come up with an equivalent, deterministic theory of quantum mechanics, which is not the current one? That’s what I find exciting from the quantum perspective.”

What waves in a double slit experiment is the aether.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: alancalverd on 05/05/2016 20:57:12
'Empty' space has mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.


Therefore it has density and an elestic modulus. I've shown you how to calculate one if you know the other, and you consistently refuse to answer the question, so I must assume you are lying about its existence, or are complete ignoramus. Your choice, but I won't waste any more time arguing with you in either case, and I strongly advise others to do likewise.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: jeffreyH on 05/05/2016 21:40:27
Stacyjones you really don't have a clue fo you? I think I'll take Alan's advice
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 05/05/2016 21:53:36
Therefore it has density and an elestic modulus. I've shown you how to calculate one if you know the other, and you consistently refuse to answer the question, so I must assume you are lying about its existence, or are complete ignoramus. Your choice, but I won't waste any more time arguing with you in either case, and I strongly advise others to do likewise.

'From the Newton's laws to motions of the fluid and superfluid vacuum: vortex tubes, rings, and others'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3900

Quote
"This medium, called also the aether, has mass and is populated by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it"

... and displace it.

'EPR program: a local interpretation of QM'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.5612

Quote
"Wave particle duality is described as the compound system of point particle plus accompanying wave (in the æther)."
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 05/05/2016 21:56:40
Stacyjones you really don't have a clue fo you? I think I'll take Alan's advice

When de Broglie says, "“subquantic medium” which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty space”” he is referring to the aether which fills 'empty' space and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. He is also referring to chaos theory which allows for a correct understanding of what occurs physically in nature which leads to the probabilistic results of experiments.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: McQueen on 06/05/2016 00:05:55
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html

Saw the video on youtube, not very convincing to tell you the truth!
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: agyejy on 06/05/2016 00:15:23
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html

Saw the video on youtube, not very convincing to tell you the truth!

I guess it is a good thing that your inability to comprehend something as now impact on the validity of that thing.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: puppypower on 06/05/2016 00:24:21
The speed of sound, in various media, is a function of the medium. For example, sound moves at 1100ft/second in air. If the aether is a medium and the speed of light is constant, then the medium would need to be fairly uniform, since fluctuations in density, pressure or temperature  would cause the speed of light to speed up or slow down, as it moves through the aether.

Here is a unique observation that might help the aether theory people. 

Liquid water is an interesting medium for sound. The aether may have an analogy to water. The speed of sound in the oceans has a minimum speed at about 1000 m deep, where the increase in speed due to increasing pressure, balances the decreasing speed with drop in temperature. Sound waves are trapped and propagate horizontally in this SOFAR channel. Submarines can hide below the SOFAR channel, because the sound waves, from ships above, get trapped horizontally and can't penetrate the SOFAR channel.

If the aether was the medium for EM waves, a parallel for the SOFAR channel would result in waves above and below the channel propagating  uniformly in a horizontal way.


In my last post, I asked if anyone was aware of an experiment that can propagate waves without a medium? Science sort of assumes light uses no medium. However, since this theory came after the aether theory, did anyone in the past, ever show if waves without a medium was even possible? Or was this just a new tradition that formed out of consensus, but without any analogous proof of concept?

I can show a way to propagate a wave without a medium. What you do is hang a spring vertically, that is attached at one side; top, so it can't move. Next, you pull the spring, down and let it bounce up and down. Now we have a wave. Next, the vibrating spring stays put, but the  observation reference moves. If you follow any point in the spring you will see a wave moving. The way the trick works, is your reference has to belief it is not moving, but rather the spring/wave is moving.

The speed of light is the ground state of the universe. This does not move, in an absolute sense. This is the attached end of the spring. Moving slower than C has the potential.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: arcmetal on 06/05/2016 01:19:43

In my last post, I asked if anyone was aware of an experiment that can propagate waves without a medium? ...

I can show a way to propagate a wave without a medium. What you do is hang a spring vertically, that is attached at one side; top, so it can't move. Next, you pull the spring, down and let it bounce up and down. Now we have a wave. Next, the vibrating spring stays put, but the  observation reference moves. If you follow any point in the spring you will see a wave moving. The way the trick works, is your reference has to belief it is not moving, but rather the spring/wave is moving.

I'm sorry I don't quite see how that is an example of a wave without a medium. What is the metal spring, if its not the medium that sustains the wave?   I do see your tricks with the reference points, but the wave is still riding the spring.  (I was hoping to finally see an example of a wave without a medium).
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 06/05/2016 01:58:14
(I was hoping to finally see an example of a wave without a medium).

The aether fills 'empty' space so there is no such thing as a wave without a medium.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: arcmetal on 06/05/2016 21:02:57
(I was hoping to finally see an example of a wave without a medium).

The aether fills 'empty' space so there is no such thing as a wave without a medium.

Yeah, it appears to be looking like that is the case.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 06/05/2016 21:13:14
(I was hoping to finally see an example of a wave without a medium).

The aether fills 'empty' space so there is no such thing as a wave without a medium.

Yeah, it appears to be looking like that is the case.

Yup, and with that you get to understand what relates general relativity and quantum mechanics. Since people can't handle the term 'aether' I will not use it.

What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the mass which fills 'empty' space.

Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality; both are waves in the mass which fills 'empty' space.

The mass which fills 'empty' space displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: Colin2B on 07/05/2016 08:59:33
Since people can't handle the term 'aether' I will not use it.
It's more that it has connotations of specific properties that don't align with recent experiments. The few physicists who use the term are referring to something with very different properties.
Apologies, I had intended to give you a fuller reply on how your 'aether' might be detected, unfortunately I am working on a project with is taking most of my free time and so the short answers I have given may have been misunderstood. I'll try and put something together in the odd bits of time I can grab.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: arcmetal on 07/05/2016 09:31:05
Yup, and with that you get to understand what relates general relativity and quantum mechanics. Since people can't handle the term 'aether' I will not use it.

What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the mass which fills 'empty' space.

Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality; both are waves in the mass which fills 'empty' space.

The mass which fills 'empty' space displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.

I have read plenty material on what you list here.  It feels like I have read almost all there is on this topic, but I still get surprised by new material I hadn't seen, like the Weber and Kohlrausch's experiment of 1855, and so on.

To contribute to the original post I'd rather not explain its uses for EM devices, but a brief analogy using gravity can be useful.

If one needed to create a machine that would navigate the solar system one would need to use Newton's equation for gravity. On the Earth this equation simplifies to calculate the acceleration on a mass (9.8 m/s2, or it can be measured), but out in space it gets more complicated since the mass of the Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn has a different value.  So the engineers would say that knowledge of the force of gravity is a requirement.... On the other hand if one needed to design a machine that controls a beam line inside of a particle accelerator, inclusion of the force of gravity for the calculations would be unnecessary and therefore cumbersome (if I can avoid a few pages of code, I will :P). 

So, the beam line engineers would say that inclusion of gravity is superfluous, while the celestial mechanical engineers would say its a requirement. And so it is with the ether.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 07/05/2016 11:51:33
Apologies, I had intended to give you a fuller reply on how your 'aether' might be detected, unfortunately I am working on a project with is taking most of my free time and so the short answers I have given may have been misunderstood. I'll try and put something together in the odd bits of time I can grab.

The aether is 'detected' every time a double slit experiment is performed, it's what waves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum

Quote
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:
It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.

Matter, quantum solids and fluids, a piece of window glass and 'stuff' have mass and so does the aether.

Particles of matter move through and displace the aether. A moving particle has an associated wave in the aether.

Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment?
A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 07/05/2016 11:54:35
but a brief analogy using gravity can be useful.

Aether has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

The geometrical representation of gravity as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

The Earth displaces the aether. The aether displaced by the Earth pushes back and exerts pressure toward the Earth. The aether displaced by the Earth pushing back and exerting pressure toward the Earth is gravity.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/05/2016 20:31:40
Aether has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

But you cannot or will not tell us its density or elastic modulus, despite the fact that these numbers determine the speed of light in vacuo.

May I respectfully suggest that you put up or shut up?
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 07/05/2016 20:46:47
Aether has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

But you cannot or will not tell us its density or elastic modulus, despite the fact that these numbers determine the speed of light in vacuo.

May I respectfully suggest that you put up or shut up?

'Empty Black Holes, Firewalls, and the Origin of Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4176

Quote
"But why an incompressible fluid? The reason comes from an attempt to solve the (old) cosmological constant problem, which is arguably the most puzzling aspect of coupling gravity to relativistic quantum mechanics [13]. Given that the natural expectation value for the vacuum of the standard model of particle physics is ∼ 60 orders of magnitude heavier than the gravitational measurements of vacuum density, it is reasonable to entertain an alternative theory of gravity where the standard model vacuum decouples from gravity. Such a theory could be realized by coupling gravity to the traceless part of the quantum mechanical energy-momentum tensor. However, the consistency/covariance of gravitational field equations then requires introducing an auxiliary fluid, the so-called gravitational aether [14]. The simplest model for gravitational aether is an incompressible fluid (with vanishing energy density, but non-vanishing pressure), which is currently consistent with all cosmological, astrophysical, and precision tests of gravity [15, 16]:

__3__
32πGN Gμν = Tμν − Tα gμν + Tμν ,
Tμν = p (uμ uν + gμν ), T μν;ν = 0,

where GN is Newton’s constant, Tμν is the matter energy momentum tensor and T'μν is the incompressible gravitational aether fluid. In vacuum, the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

Quote
James Clerk Maxwell said of the aether, "In several parts of this treatise an attempt has been made to explain electromagnetic phenomena by means of mechanical action transmitted from one body to another by means of a medium occupying the space between them. The undulatory theory of light also assumes the existence of a medium. We have now to show that the properties of the electromagnetic medium are identical with those of the luminiferous medium."

In the quote above Maxwell is saying his equations refer to the "luminiferous medium". I respectfully ask you answer if you understand he is referring to the aether or shut up.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: Colin2B on 08/05/2016 06:22:53
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum

Quote
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:
It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.
.
This is an excellent example of why physicists today avoid the term aether. The Aether that Laughlin is talking about is very different from the luminiferous aether that Maxwell was talking about.  I'll be honest and say that, despite his determination to put false emotions into posts which I write in a very neutral frame of mind the way I view the vacuum Laughlin is talking about as much closer to McQueen's view than yours.
To understand the difference you need to understand what Maxwell was talking about, and the physics he was familiar with. I'm going to go over this because I know a lot of school age folks read these pages, so this is for their benefit.
Firstly, Maxwell understood relativity. Not Special Relativity, because Einstein hadn't yet discovered it, but Galilean Relativity (after Galileo who first described it) . Maxwell would have understood  observers, reference frames, and inertial frames, because it was Galileo who specified that the laws of motion are the same in all inertial frames (Galilean Invariance). When Einstein wrote his SR he used terms familiar to those around him. So everything that follows refers to Galilean relativity.

The speed of a wave in a medium such as air or water is referred to as celerity. Most of my definitions are in textbooks and course notes so rather than scan I'll quote Hyperphysics site:
"ocean waves obey the basic wave relationship c=fλ , where c is traditionally used for the wave speed or "celerity". The term celerity means the speed of the progressing wave with respect to stationary water - so any current or other net water velocity would be added to it."
This is true for both sound and ocean waves, and means that the measured speed depends on the reference frame of the observer (Galilean relativity again). So if you are drifting in a balloon carried on the wind you will measure the speed of sound to be different from the measurement of an observer positioned on a tower. The relationship is simple, effective speed of sound=adiabatic speed of sound +scalar of the wind vector component in the direction you want to calculate.
It was discovered in the 1850s and explained why cannon fire could be louder upwind than downwind. It  is due refraction of the sound waves caused by the difference in speed of sound between ground level and at altitude due to wind vertical shear. Interestingly, you don't need much wind, a wind of 4mph can cause a 12dB difference 150 feet from the source. The person who discovered this was also the first person at the Royal Society to receive Maxwell's formal submission of his famous paper (small world!).  This same celerity also applies ocean waves, when comparing the speed of waves, of the same wavelength, measured from a boat drifting with the current to that measured by an observer in still water or on the shore. Both observers will measure the same wave speed in their local reference frames, but the observer in the still water reference frame will measure the speed of wave in the current as greater (Galilean relativity).
Today this is common knowledge to anyone who has studied acoustics or oceanography, less talked about in acoustics at degree level because most is to do with windless spaces (although I've suffered a few draughty concert halls). I was fortunate enough to study both subjects and can assure you that in oceanography this relativity is emphasised very strongly "be clear about your reference frame, the speed of a wave measured from a drifting research vessel is not the same as that from an observer positioned in the shore reference frame".
This was also common knowledge to Maxwell and his contemporaries so it is hardly surprising that he used c (celerity) for the speed of light, assuming it was carried on a medium (the luminiferous aether) and its speed would vary with the motion of the aether relative to the observer.

This is very different to the vacuum referred to by Laughlin, and most physicists would abhor his use of the term aether for vacuum. In Laughlin's aether there is not much you would recognise other than the name, it is not dark matter, matter doesn't displace it, the speed of light does not vary relative to its motion, in fact it is not a medium in the classical sense. It also obeys the rules of Special Relativity, so from now on any mention of relativity is SR or GR.
We discussed this and virtual particles last year in another forum, so those members here will be familiar with the concepts.
This vacuum (or vacuum state) is widely accepted by physicists. It does not contain any matter, just fields eg electromagnetic field (photon field), Higgs field etc. Due to quantum fluctuations it is possible for particles to briefly appear and disappear. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state
Virtual particles in these fields are the most often misunderstood. They are transitory disturbances in the electromagnetic field (also called the photon field because longer lived disturbances of this field are photons). This sounds very esoteric and metaphysical, but it is really quite simple. For example, when 2 electrons pass close by each other, their charges will interact causing them to repel one another and they change direction. This charge interaction causes a brief disturbance in the em field, termed a virtual photon for historical reasons, doesn't move at the speed of light.
Many fields require matter eg meteorological wind field requires air, sound field requires gas or liquid (solids are different). However, in this vacuum there are fields called relativistic fields which do not require matter in its classical sense, the em field is one of these. The formula for these specify a fixed speed for em radiation. Although they are fully accepted by physicists there is still debate as to whether underlying the fields is a none classical medium. Such a medium would not have the same properties as the luminiferous ether.

As you can see, most physicists (other than Laughlin and a few others) don't use the term aether for the very reason that people will confuse it with luminiferous aether as you have done.

PS this was prepared offline, as I posted I noticed McQueen has posted something that I'm sure will add to this. Too long to read at present, but a quick skim I think he is proposing a candidate for the underlying medium.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: alancalverd on 08/05/2016 10:49:07
We have now to show that the properties of the electromagnetic medium are identical with those of the luminiferous medium."
So please do so. Just give us the two numbers I asked for, and we might believe you. Or are you a priest, politican or philosopher, and therefore incapable of answering any factual question?
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 08/05/2016 11:19:51
This was also common knowledge to Maxwell and his contemporaries so it is hardly surprising that he used c (celerity) for the speed of light, assuming it was carried on a medium (the luminiferous aether) and its speed would vary with the motion of the aether relative to the observer.

This is very different to the vacuum referred to by Laughlin, and most physicists would abhor his use of the term aether for vacuum. In Laughlin's aether there is not much you would recognise other than the name, it is not dark matter, matter doesn't displace it, the speed of light does not vary relative to its motion, in fact it is not a medium in the classical sense. It also obeys the rules of Special Relativity, so from now on any mention of relativity is SR or GR.
We discussed this and virtual particles last year in another forum, so those members here will be familiar with the concepts.

Both Maxwell and Laughlin are referring to the same 'stuff'. They are both referring to the relativistic aether. Everything is with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists, including the rate at which an atomic clock ticks which is used to determine the speed of light. This is why the speed of light is always determined to be 'c'. That's what makes it relativistic.

What you mistake for virtual particles popping into and out of existence out of nothing is the chaotic nature of the aether.

The vacuum energy is the chaotic nature of the aether.

It is the chaotic nature of the aether which causes the Casimir effect. The following is a water wave analogy of the Casimir effect which is analogous to the chaotic nature of the aether.

NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION by LOUIS DE BROGLIE

Quote
Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of [the wave-function wave], arise from the interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium” which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty space”.

The “subquantic medium” is the aether.

Fluid mechanics suggests alternative to quantum orthodoxy

Quote
The fluidic pilot-wave system is also chaotic. It’s impossible to measure a bouncing droplet’s position accurately enough to predict its trajectory very far into the future. But in a recent series of papers, Bush, MIT professor of applied mathematics Ruben Rosales, and graduate students Anand Oza and Dan Harris applied their pilot-wave theory to show how chaotic pilot-wave dynamics leads to the quantumlike statistics observed in their experiments.

A “fluidic pilot-wave system” is the aether.

‘When Fluid Dynamics Mimic Quantum Mechanics’

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729111934.htm

Quote
If you have a system that is deterministic and is what we call in the business ‘chaotic,’ or sensitive to initial conditions, sensitive to perturbations, then it can behave probabilistically,” Milewski continues. “Experiments like this weren’t available to the giants of quantum mechanics. They also didn’t know anything about chaos. Suppose these guys — who were puzzled by why the world behaves in this strange probabilistic way — actually had access to experiments like this and had the knowledge of chaos, would they have come up with an equivalent, deterministic theory of quantum mechanics, which is not the current one? That’s what I find exciting from the quantum perspective.

What waves in a double slit experiment is the aether.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 08/05/2016 11:24:06
So please do so. Just give us the two numbers I asked for, and we might believe you. Or are you a priest, politican or philosopher, and therefore incapable of answering any factual question?

When Maxwell said "we will show" he is referring to himself. He is saying he will show how the electromagnetic medium and the luminiferous medium are one in the same.

When Maxwell refers to the "luminiferous medium" you do realize he is referring to the aether, correct?
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: PmbPhy on 08/05/2016 17:33:18
Quote from: stacyjones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum
So what? That contributes nothing in a discussion of the existence of the Luminiferous aether. Such a thing does not exist. What you lack in knowledge is the fact that an undetectable thing has no place in physics because its not a falsifiable concept and such concepts can play no role in the scientific method. Have you never studied the philosophy of science?
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 08/05/2016 19:28:52
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum

Quote
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:
The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: arcmetal on 08/05/2016 19:40:01

Quote
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:
It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.
.

As you can see, most physicists (other than Laughlin and a few others) don't use the term aether for the very reason that people will confuse it with luminiferous aether as you have done.

I have always found this concept extremely silly.

Consider the use of the term "water" for the complex molecule of H2O.  It is an ancient term which at one time was considered an element.  Except that today we know that it is not an element, but rather it consists of a molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom.  In its liquid form it can contain ions and sometimes other impurities.... I can go on, but my point is that we should be using its more modern name: "Dihydrogen Monoxide", instead of the older more taboo term "water" so that people don't confuse it with its ancient elemental form.


Things tend to follow a cycle of nonsense when you introduce demagoguery into the path of people searching for answers.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 08/05/2016 20:01:30
You can label it whatever you want. 'Empty' space has mass which is displaced by matter.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: alancalverd on 08/05/2016 21:29:26
You can label it whatever you want. 'Empty' space has mass which is displaced by matter.

Please tell us at least the density of this mass. Every time I measure it, I get zero.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 08/05/2016 21:45:14
Please tell us at least the density of this mass. Every time I measure it, I get zero.

'Quantum aether and an invariant Planck scale'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3753

"this version of aether may have some bearing on the abundance of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in our universe."

"However, as being argued here, if there is an invariant scale, one may also consider it as an upper cut-off Λ (with or without an invariant lower cut-off), and then for the choice N =
√aπ/Λ, and N = (3mπ/Λ3 1/2 for Λ & m and Λ ≪ m respectively (again, m being the mass of the aether quanta, or that of its fundamental constituents, if thought of as a fluid) the
integral in (2), which go as Λ2 and Λ3/m in these limits, is finite"

Please tell us how, "The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether" is interpreted to mean there is no such thing as an ether.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: alancalverd on 08/05/2016 22:29:33
Just as soon as you answer my very simple question. You repeatedly assert that the aether has mass, and I ask you "how much". You say it supports waves, and I ask you for its elastic modulus.

If you don't answer within 48 hours I may lock this topic and others associated with the subject. This is, after all, a science forum, and real science involves numbers, not handwaving.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 08/05/2016 22:47:40
'From the Newton's laws to motions of the fluid and superfluid vacuum: vortex tubes, rings, and others'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3900

Quote
"This medium, called also the aether, has mass and is populated by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it"

... and displace it.

'EPR program: a local interpretation of QM'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.5612

Quote
"Wave particle duality is described as the compound system of point particle plus accompanying wave (in the æther)."

'Null Aether Theory: pp-Wave and AdS Wave Solutions'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.02266v2.pdf

Quote
Among such models are vector-tensor theories with preferred direction established at every point of spacetime by a fixed-norm vector field. The dynamical vector field defined in this way is referred to as the aether. In this work, we study plane wave metrics in such a theory ... The field equations reduce to two coupled scalar field equations and one of the scalar fields represents the massive spin-0 aether field.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: arcmetal on 09/05/2016 01:16:24
Just as soon as you answer my very simple question. You repeatedly assert that the aether has mass, and I ask you "how much". You say it supports waves, and I ask you for its elastic modulus.

Since the ether is probably a superfluid it would make more sense to find its bulk modulus rather than the elastic modulus. I suspect the people studying superfluid vacuum theory would have decent information on this.  Or, since the folks studying condensed matter have found transmission of transverse waves in their superfluid helium they may also have respective models of the properties you seek.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 09/05/2016 04:32:51
Since the ether is probably a superfluid it would make more sense to find its bulk modulus rather than the elastic modulus. I suspect the people studying superfluid vacuum theory would have decent information on this.  Or, since the folks studying condensed matter have found transmission of transverse waves in their superfluid helium they may also have respective models of the properties you seek.

'Singular-Turbulent Structure Formation in the Universe and the Essence of Dark Matter I. Unified model for dark matter and quintessence'
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0610135

Quote
"Superfluid dark matter is reminiscent of the aether and modeling the universe using superfluid aether is compatible."
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 09/05/2016 04:51:46
'Derivation of the Maxwell's Equations Based on a Continuum Mechanical Model of Vacuum and a Singularity Model of Electric Charges'
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609027

Quote
We speculate that the universe may be filled with a visco-elastic continuum which may be called aether. Thus, the Maxwell’s equations in vacuum are derived by methods of continuum mechanics based on a continuum mechanical model of vacuum and a singularity model of electric charges.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 09/05/2016 04:55:04
'Frame Indifferent Formulation of Maxwell's Elastic Fluid and the Rational Continuum Mechanics of the Electromagnetic Field'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.2930v2

Quote
We show that the linearized equations of the incompressible elastic medium admit a ‘Maxwell form’ in which the shear component of the stress vector plays the role of the electric field, and the vorticity plays the role of the magnetic field. Conversely, the set of dynamic Maxwell equations are strict mathematical corollaries from the governing equations of the incompressible elastic medium. This suggests that the nature of ‘electromagnetic field’ may actually be related to an elastic continuous medium
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 09/05/2016 04:58:57
'Théorie des champs des contraintes et déformations en relativité générale et expansion cosmologique: Theory of stress and strain fields in general relativity and cosmological expansion'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.0611v2

Quote
In this article we propose to add stress-energy tensor to the Einstein equations, assuming that the matter-energy and the metric space-time is nothing but a continuous medium with some elastic properties. We first give a general expression of the stress tensor which is linearly related to the strain tensor. Then, we give the particular expression of the stress tensor for a spatially homnogeneous and isotropic cosmological medium. After that we derive the modified Friedmann equations. In first approximation, we end up with the usual term Λgμν , where the cosmological constant Λ=Kε is related with the bulk modulus K and the relative variation of volume (dilatation). Then we derive corrections to the standard model in second approximation, which depend on these two new parameters.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: alancalverd on 09/05/2016 08:32:16
Since the ether is probably a superfluid it would make more sense to find its bulk modulus rather than the elastic modulus.
OK, let's have it. Can't be difficult to calculate if you know the density, which SJ claims, and the speed of light, which we all know.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 09/05/2016 11:39:26
OK, let's have it. Can't be difficult to calculate if you know the density, which SJ claims, and the speed of light, which we all know.

'Théorie des champs des contraintes et déformations en relativité générale et expansion cosmologique: Theory of stress and strain fields in general relativity and cosmological expansion'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.0611v2

Quote
In this article we propose to add stress-energy tensor to the Einstein equations, assuming that the matter-energy and the metric space-time is nothing but a continuous medium with some elastic properties. We first give a general expression of the stress tensor which is linearly related to the strain tensor. Then, we give the particular expression of the stress tensor for a spatially homnogeneous and isotropic cosmological medium. After that we derive the modified Friedmann equations. In first approximation, we end up with the usual term Λgμν , where the cosmological constant Λ=Kε is related with the bulk modulus K and the relative variation of volume (dilatation). Then we derive corrections to the standard model in second approximation, which depend on these two new parameters.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 09/05/2016 17:24:03
'The Mechanics of Spacetime - A Solid Mechanics Perspective on the Theory of General Relativity'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.07655v1

Quote
We present an elastic constitutive model of General Relativity where we identify the vacuum of three-dimensional space with a Cosmic Fabric embedded in four-dimensional spacetime and having a small thickness along the time dimension. We show a correspondence between the gravitational phenomena described by General Relativity and the kinematic and kinetic properties of the Cosmic Fabric. We propose, in agreement with modern cosmological observations (Collier, 2012; Perlmutter et al., 1999; Riess et al., 1998) and with theoretical results from Quantum Field Theory (Rugh and Zinkernagel, 2002), that the space vacuum is really not a vacuum in the purest sense but is a Cosmic Fabric that has energy density and as such mass density. We further propose that the Cosmic Fabric deforms due to matter in space, which acts as inclusions, in a manner analogous to the deformation of a conventional thin plate (Efrati et al., 2008). By introducing a constitutive model for General Relativity, we lay the groundwork for subsequently applying Solid Mechanics concepts to Cosmology. In particular, we show that strain along the time dimension manifests as a gravitational potential and contraction along the time dimension as gravitational time dilation. By identifying the action integral based on the elastic energy density of the Cosmic Fabric with the Hilbert-Einstein action integral, we derive an expression for the Cosmic Fabric's elastic modulus in terms of its thickness. Assuming a thickness about a Planck's length, we calculate the elastic modulus and density to be about 10113Nm−2, and 1096kgm−3, respectively.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: alancalverd on 09/05/2016 17:57:37
Thank you.

Using those figures we can calculate the speed of light as 3.04 meters/second, only a factor of 100,000,000 too low.

And the density of 1096 kg/cubic meter is slightly greater than that of water, as against the measured value of zero.

I think that ends this correspondence.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: Colin2B on 09/05/2016 18:01:39
Consider the use of the term "water" for the complex molecule of H2O.  It is an ancient term which at one time was considered an element.  Except that today we know that it is not an element, but rather it consists of a molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom.  In its liquid form it can contain ions and sometimes other impurities.... I can go on, but my point is that we should be using its more modern name: "Dihydrogen Monoxide", instead of the older more taboo term "water" so that people don't confuse it with its ancient elemental form.


Things tend to follow a cycle of nonsense when you introduce demagoguery into the path of people searching for answers.

Ok, we are getting close to understanding this naming issue. I did explain why this is so, but perhaps it was not clear enough. I'll give another try.

I agree, what you call a medium doesn't change its properties. However, if you use the same word to describe mediums with different properties you create confusion.

I am very happy to use the ancient term water to describe the medium H2O, but I refuse to reuse it to describe H2SO4.

Tools and weapons used to be made of bronze, today we use high speed steel, I refuse to use the ancient term for a tool medium for HSS. They are different.

If you must use the word aether you have to differentiate them. You could call one luminiferous aether and the other vacuum aether, or even better embed the properties in the name eg nonrelativistic aether and relativistic aether. Then I personally would have no problem with that, but others might say that it could still cause confusion.


SJ
The luminiferous aether that Maxwell knew was a theoretical nonrelativistic aether, it was defined and described as such. The expected light to behave in the same way as sound behaves in air, hence the controversy at the time. That was the reason for Michelson Morley experiment, to detect a change in the speed of light due to the motion of an observer through the aether.
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/ether.htm
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 09/05/2016 18:21:14
Thank you.

Using those figures we can calculate the speed of light as 3.04 meters/second, only a factor of 100,000,000 too low.

And the density of 1096 kg/cubic meter is slightly greater than that of water, as against the measured value of zero.

I think that ends this correspondence.

Quote
In the above expressions, ℏ is the reduced Planck constant, 𝐺 is the gravitational constant, and 𝑐 is the speed of light. The computation of the density 𝜌 of the Cosmic Fabric uses the formula for the shear wave speed 𝑐 = √𝜇⁄𝜌 and the fact that shear waves in the Fabric propagate at the speed of light (see §4.6).
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 09/05/2016 18:26:48
SJ
The luminiferous aether that Maxwell knew was a theoretical nonrelativistic aether, it was defined and described as such. The expected light to behave in the same way as sound behaves in air, hence the controversy at the time. That was the reason for Michelson Morley experiment, to detect a change in the speed of light due to the motion of an observer through the aether.
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/ether.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum

Quote
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:
The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.

The reason for the near null result of the MMX experiment is the relativistic nature of the aether.


'NASA's Gravity Probe B Confirms Two Einstein Space-Time Theories'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html

Quote
"Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey. As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it's the same with space and time," said Francis Everitt, GP-B principal investigator at Stanford University.

Honey has mass and so does the aether. The 'swirl' is the state of displacement of the aether. The reason for the near-null MMX result is due to the state of the aether being determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of the aether in neighboring places.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: jeffreyH on 09/05/2016 21:46:31
The swirl of honey may be an apt representation of the cognitive ability of stacyjones' mind to grasp the errors in logic.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 09/05/2016 21:54:23
The swirl is the state of displacement of the aether.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: arcmetal on 10/05/2016 08:09:41
Consider the use of the term "water" for the complex molecule of H2O.  It is an ancient term which at one time was considered an element.  Except that today we know that it is not an element, but rather it consists of a molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom.  In its liquid form it can contain ions and sometimes other impurities.... I can go on, but my point is that we should be using its more modern name: "Dihydrogen Monoxide", instead of the older more taboo term "water" so that people don't confuse it with its ancient elemental form.


Things tend to follow a cycle of nonsense when you introduce demagoguery into the path of people searching for answers.

Ok, we are getting close to understanding this naming issue. I did explain why this is so, but perhaps it was not clear enough. I'll give another try.

I agree, what you call a medium doesn't change its properties. However, if you use the same word to describe mediums with different properties you create confusion.

Sure, I can partly agree with that.

I am very happy to use the ancient term water to describe the medium H2O, but I refuse to reuse it to describe H2SO4.

Tools and weapons used to be made of bronze, today we use high speed steel, I refuse to use the ancient term for a tool medium for HSS. They are different.

Well, that's not quite what I meant.  You can have three substances: H2O, H2S04, and Hg.  They have differing names: water, acid, mercury, these terms exist because of differing properties, but they also have the encompassing term: "liquid".  I would find it silly if it was taboo to use the term "liquid" to describe those substances.... The same goes for the other example of "tools" and "weapons".  Some tools may be made of stone, bronze, wood, or HSS, but they are all still "tools".

A bit closer to what I meant is about a single substance that somehow, magically, it hasn't changed its properties since the beginning of civilization, let's say H2O.  If in ancient times it was called "water", then during the days of alchemy it was called "lead washer", then in the 19th century it was changed to "watertricity" and then in 21st century some are suggesting that we should just call it "water" again, and many cry foul.

If you must use the word aether you have to differentiate them. You could call one luminiferous aether and the other vacuum aether, or even better embed the properties in the name eg nonrelativistic aether and relativistic aether. Then I personally would have no problem with that, but others might say that it could still cause confusion.

Here, we can agree since it looks like this is what's already happening ... that a variety of extensions to the term "aether" is being used to describe differing theories.

SJ
The luminiferous aether that Maxwell knew was a theoretical nonrelativistic aether, it was defined and described as such. The expected light to behave in the same way as sound behaves in air, hence the controversy at the time. That was the reason for Michelson Morley experiment, to detect a change in the speed of light due to the motion of an observer through the aether.



I just find it silly when people get all bent out of shape when someone says that
they want to study the aether, or that it makes no sense to think about
a wave with no medium, etc.  I think if something is not well understood then
it probably deserves some study.  It raises my curiosity even further
when I am told "no, there is nothing to see there because we can't detect it".

I mean what do people think of Feynman when he says that the magnetic
potential, A, is more real than E, or B?  If "A" is what is propagating
through the vacuum, then I don't see how its generating itself on
every cycle. It makes more sense that its a propagating disturbance through
a medium.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: arcmetal on 10/05/2016 08:22:01
Since the ether is probably a superfluid it would make more sense to find its bulk modulus rather than the elastic modulus.
OK, let's have it. Can't be difficult to calculate if you know the density, which SJ claims, and the speed of light, which we all know.


I couldn't find a measured quantity for the density of the ether, but I did find a theorized one given by Lord Kelvin.  So, yeah, sure I'll take a crack at it.
(kg -- kilograms, m3 -- meters cubed, s2 -- seconds squared, Pa -- Pascals)

Kelvin's derived aether density is 5e-6 kg/km3  which is 5e-15 kg/m3

The bulk modulus is B = density * (speed squared)

So,   B = 5e-15 * 9e16  = 450  (kg / m s2)  --- (Pascals)

the compressibility is 1/B = 2.2e-3  ( 1 / Pa ).

and, comparing this to other compressibilities:

air --- 7.04e-6  ( 1 / Pa )
water --- 4.76e-10  ( 1 / Pa )
mercury --- 4e-11  ( 1 / Pa )
diamond --- 2.25e-12   ( 1 / Pa )

So, it looks like the aether would be very compressible, about a thousand times more compressible than air.

Of course, these are just based on estimates but its still interesting that the numbers aren't way off like some crazy infinity here or there...

If there is some other funky way to find its density, I'd be interested.

-----

I did some other fun calculations.  If I use the upper estimate for the mass of a photon (3e-27 eV), as the aether particle's mass, Kelvin's density, and packed the particles end to end in a cube with a one Angstrom on edge, I get that the size of the aether particle can be 1.036e-16 meters.  Which is still bigger than the Planck length (1.6e-35 m) ... so there is still plenty of wiggle room for these figures.


----
edit: I had missed a zero in an exponent of the "fun calculations", I had the aether particle diameter at: 1.06e-25 m, it should read 1.036-16 m.
----
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: jeffreyH on 10/05/2016 08:37:54
At last a sensible discussion. Not just someone pronouncing they know better.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 10/05/2016 11:34:31
From the Newton's laws to motions of the fluid and superfluid vacuum: vortex tubes, rings, and others'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3900

"This medium, called also the aether, has mass and is populated by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it" ...

... and displace it.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/05/2016 12:18:05
So now we have galaxies orbiting in a dispersive medium, thus slowing down and spiralling in towards each other - exactly the opposite of what we observe.

Kelvin, although a fellow of Peterhouse and therefore an all-round good bloke, was wrong about several things.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 10/05/2016 12:24:10
So now we have galaxies orbiting in a dispersive medium, thus slowing down and spiralling in towards each other - exactly the opposite of what we observe.

Kelvin, although a fellow of Peterhouse and therefore an all-round good bloke, was wrong about several things.

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: jeffreyH on 10/05/2016 18:42:51
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_helium-4#/search (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_helium-4#/search)

"Superfluids, such as helium-4 below the lambda point, exhibit many unusual properties. (See Helium#Helium II state). A superfluid acts as if it were a mixture of a normal component, with all the properties of a normal fluid, and a superfluid component. The superfluid component has zero viscosity and zero entropy."

If the Aether has zero viscosity then it would flow in any direction that matter moved through it. If as you claim this is dark matter then how exactly are you going to reconcile a zero viscosity medium with observed gravitational effects? For a start this Aether would flow away from any celestial object that moved through it. This would suggest a locally repulsive nature to the Aether. There are all sorts of things wrong with your ideas that you don't even realise because of your ignorance of the physics.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 10/05/2016 19:15:59
A bowling ball rolled through a supersolid displaces the supersolid. By definition, the bowling ball rolls on forever through the supersolid.

Q. Is the bowling ball displacing the supersolid or is the supersolid displacing the bowling ball?
A. Both are occurring simultaneously with equal force and the bowling ball rolls on forever through the supersolid.

Roll the bowling ball fast enough and it will create an associated wave in the supersolid.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: jeffreyH on 10/05/2016 22:15:36
If you have a condensate you can throw an extra bit in or take a bit out and nothing changes. That is its nature. To have a superfluid or supersolid state you need a DETECTABLE particulate structure. Nothing like an Aether which is UNDETECTABLE. They are at odds. Nothing you say will change that.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: jeffreyH on 10/05/2016 22:17:49
I doubt if anyone has ever detected fairy dust so that might be an ideal medium for your Aether.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 10/05/2016 22:50:23
Spacetime has mass. The "missing mass" is the mass of the spacetime connected to and neighboring the matter which is displaced by the matter. The physical manifestation of curved spacetime is the state of displacement of spacetime.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: jeffreyH on 10/05/2016 23:33:56
About the Aether.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Aetherometry (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Aetherometry)
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 10/05/2016 23:49:30
Spacetime has mass. Spacetime physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by the matter which exists in it and moves through it. What is referred to geometrically as the curvature of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of spacetime. The "missing mass" is the mass of the spacetime connected to and neighboring the matter which is displaced by the matter.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/05/2016 00:05:03
I beg to differ. It is the transection of Hilbert coordinate space by the primal mass flow that accounts for the apparent nondispersivity of luminiferous aether. Your interpretation is inherently selfcontradictory.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 11/05/2016 00:09:25
Spacetime has mass. Spacetime physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by the matter which exists in it and moves through it. What is referred to geometrically as the curvature of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of spacetime. The "missing mass" is the mass of the spacetime connected to and neighboring the matter which is displaced by the matter.

A moving particle has an associated wave in spacetime. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in spacetime passes through both.

What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment, spacetime.

Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality, both are waves in spacetime.

Spacetime displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: arcmetal on 11/05/2016 05:36:54
So now we have galaxies orbiting in a dispersive medium, thus slowing down and spiralling in towards each other - exactly the opposite of what we observe.

Ah yes, that reminds that I have been meaning to calculate some properties of the ether by using the observation that the redshifts in galaxies is linearly related to their distances.  So this loss of energy can be some effect of a medium in its way.  And then compare those results to whatever lab scale properties might match up.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: arcmetal on 12/05/2016 21:40:33
'The Mechanics of Spacetime - A Solid Mechanics Perspective on the Theory of General Relativity'
Quote
... we derive an expression for the Cosmic Fabric's elastic modulus in terms of its thickness. Assuming a thickness about a Planck's length, we calculate the elastic modulus and density to be about 10113Nm−2, and 1096kgm−3, respectively.

Thank you.

Using those figures we can calculate the speed of light as 3.04 meters/second, only a factor of 100,000,000 too low.

And the density of 1096 kg/cubic meter is slightly greater than that of water, as against the measured value of zero.

I think that ends this correspondence.



Wo, what is going on here?  I don't see how you get a speed of light at 3.04 m/s  from those numbers: modulus of: 1e113, and density of: 1.11e96 ?? Maybe you missed some zeroes somewhere.

When I calculate it I get (using the relation of the bulk modulus, B):
( kg -- kilograms, m3 -- meters cubed, s2 -- seconds squared )

(speed squared) = B / density

(speed squared) = 1e113 / 1.11e96  ( kg m3 / m kg s2 )

(speed squared) = 9.009e16  ( m2 / s2 )

speed = 3.00e8 ( m / s )

... which looks about right.

Except that what looks odd is the density:  1.11e96  (kg/m3) ... it seems a bit high.

I thought I'd compare that to some other known densities:

water --- 1e3 kg/m3
white dwarf --- 1e9  kg/m3
neutron star --- 1e17 kg/m3
galactic black hole --- strange
     (this can vary from a super high value to a density of water, or air, or even vacuum, depending on its total mass)

a googol --- 1e100 (just a large number)

A density of 1.11e96 (kg/m3) makes it look like we are living inside something akin to a googol black hole?   [:P]
Could it be we don't notice this density since everything is a part of it, like a delicate jellyfish at the
bottom of the Mariana trench.

Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: Colin2B on 12/05/2016 22:35:55
Here, we can agree since it looks like this is what's already happening ... that a variety of extensions to the term "aether" is being used to describe differing theories.

Excellent, at least we are beginning to understand each other.

You will realise that some discussions are not worth pursuing. An extreme example is the poster who claims to understand what gravity really is, it is air pressure holding us down! I usually try a few posts to point them in the right direction, but mostly they are stubbornly attached to their idea, and do not have the capacity to understand the concepts - discussion is futile.  In these cases I withdraw, the poster makes a last post and assumes because there is no challenge that they have won the argument. That doesn't worry me, if I am confident of my information I don't have to prove anything to anyone.

In other discussions it is possible to see that although there is disagreement it is possible the person on the other side is capable of understanding the concepts and common understanding may be possible. In these cases it is worth continuing even if eventually we agree to differ. I am glad we continued.

Yes, I agree with your use of the umbrella terms liquid and metal, but within those groups we must be clear to separate the elements that are different. So the aether for sound can be any liquid or gas, but the speed of sound in a particular aether will depend on the properties of that aether. Also other properties will depend on the aether, for example sound in air is non-dispersive, but is dispersive in CO2. Also sound waves will propagate inside the space station, but water waves will not (assuming you could get an ocean up there!). So we must not assume that the behaviour of waves in one aether will mirror that in another aether.
Also, there is a tendency to talk about the vacuum aether, but the vacuum supports a range of fields so there could be a range of different aethers in the vacuum.

The only other issue is that we have to be clear about the properties of different aether types so we do not get confused. I come back to the luminiferous aether which SJ described as a relativistic aether and pointed me to the quantum vacuum. But the luminiferous aether was not relativistic, so I'm confused by the reference.
So we don't bounce this one back and forth, I will put it all down together.
Let's assume that in the vacuum there is a relativistic aether supporting electromagnetic radiation. Let's call it the EMR Vacuum aether.
At the time of Michelson & Morley it was assumed that light propagated in the same way as sound in air and waves in water. In other words light would propagate at a fixed speed in the luminiferous aether, but if an observer measures the speed of those light waves then if the aether moves relative to the observer, or if the observer moves through the aether then the measured speed of light would differ. That is a nonrelativistic aether and this behaviour is seen in sound and water waves. In a relativistic aether (EMR Vacuum aether) the speed of light will not vary either by motion of the aether or the observer. Below is a quote from Wiki on Maxwell's biography:

"Maxwell believed that the propagation of light required a medium for the waves, dubbed the luminiferous aether. Over time, the existence of such a medium, permeating all space and yet apparently undetectable by mechanical means, proved impossible to reconcile with experiments such as the Michelson–Morley experiment. Moreover, it seemed to require an absolute frame of reference in which the equations were valid, with the distasteful result that the equations changed form for a moving observer."

So when SJ describes the luminiferous aether as relativistic I am confused. If they had expected the luminiferous aether to be relativistic the M&M experiment would have hailed as a blinding success, parties for weeks etc. What am I missing?




Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 12/05/2016 23:13:01
So when SJ describes the luminiferous aether as relativistic I am confused. If they had expected the luminiferous aether to be relativistic the M&M experiment would have hailed as a blinding success, parties for weeks etc. What am I missing?

The MMX looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moves through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. The aether is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

You are correct, the MMX result is evidence of a relativistic aether.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum

Quote
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:
It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.

Matter, quantum solids and fluids, a piece of window glass and 'stuff' have mass and so does the aether.

The aether has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

Quote
"Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."

if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of particles which can be individually tracked through time. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

The following video represents the state of the aether connected to and neighboring the Earth which is displaced by the Earth. The state of the aether connected to and neighboring the Earth is, for the vast majority, determined by the Earth. It's the reason for the near-null result of the MMX experiment.


'NASA's Gravity Probe B Confirms Two Einstein Space-Time Theories'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html

Quote
"Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey. As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it's the same with space and time," said Francis Everitt, GP-B principal investigator at Stanford University.

Honey has mass and so does the aether. The swirl is the state of displacement of the aether.

Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: alancalverd on 13/05/2016 00:43:26
Wo, what is going on here?  I don't see how you get a speed of light at 3.04 m/s  from those numbers: modulus of: 1e113, and density of: 1.11e96 ?? Maybe you missed some zeroes somewhere.
The figures given were 10113 and 1096, not 1e113 and 1e96.  So now, using the new figures, it seems that the vacuum is completely full of stuff that is a zillion times stiffer than steel and denser than lead. But when I pump the air out of a container, it gets lighter and doesn't transmit sound. 

We have the answer to the question "what makes the idea of an aether so attractive?". The answer is nothing. The concept is obvious bullshit, and could only appeal to a complete moron.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 13/05/2016 00:56:59
The figures given were 10113 and 1096, not 1e113 and 1e96.  So now, using the new figures, it seems that the vacuum is completely full of stuff that is a zillion times stiffer than steel and denser than lead. But when I pump the air out of a container, it gets lighter and doesn't transmit sound. 

'The Mechanics of Spacetime - A Solid Mechanics Perspective on the Theory of General Relativity'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.07655v1

Quote
Having a negative value for the bulk modulus 𝐾 means that stretching the Cosmic Fabric, would result in an overall decrease of the material volume. Having a vanishing value for the p-wave modulus implies that the p-wave speed, 𝑣𝑝 = √𝑀⁄𝜌 = 0, where 𝜌 is the density of the material. This is actually consistent with observations since there are no known p-waves propagating in the Fabric. For example, neither gravity waves nor electromagnetic waves are p-waves because they do not propagate by volume compression but
by distorting the material. At the same time, the speed of the shear wave is given by 𝑣𝑠 = √𝜇⁄𝜌 ≠ 0. In fact, as demonstrated in §4.6, 𝑣𝑠 = 𝑐 is the speed of light.

Quote
We have the answer to the question "what makes the idea of an aether so attractive?". The answer is nothing. The concept is obvious bullshit, and could only appeal to a complete moron.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum

Quote
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:
The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: PmbPhy on 13/05/2016 01:56:02
Quote from: stacyjones
...
'The Mechanics of Spacetime - A Solid Mechanics Perspective on the Theory of General Relativity'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.07655v1
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum
...

Stacy: Do you mind if I ask you about your background in physics?

Let me give you some advice which applies here. Have you ever heard of Dr. John Wheeler? He's the physicist who coined the term Black Holes and was one of the physicists who created the hydrogen bomb, aka H-Bomb. He wrote a paper entitled Wheeler’s rules of writing. Do a search using Google and you'll find it. The paper contains what is basically a set of axioms for proper scientific writing. In it Wheeler wrote
Quote from: Dr. John Wheeler
Appeal to experiment or logic—not to the professions. Do not invoke “scientists” to enforce a point.
You do this all the time. You can't prove a point by quoting someone whose opinion is in the minority, i.e. is a dissenting opinion. You can always quote an authority when his opinion is in the majority. That's known as the Argument from Authority.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 13/05/2016 03:02:11
Quote from: stacyjones
...
'The Mechanics of Spacetime - A Solid Mechanics Perspective on the Theory of General Relativity'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.07655v1
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum
...

Stacy: Do you mind if I ask you about your background in physics?

Let me give you some advice which applies here. Have you ever heard of Dr. John Wheeler? He's the physicist who coined the term Black Holes and was one of the physicists who created the hydrogen bomb, aka H-Bomb. He wrote a paper entitled Wheeler’s rules of writing. Do a search using Google and you'll find it. The paper contains what is basically a set of axioms for proper scientific writing. In it Wheeler wrote
Quote from: Dr. John Wheeler
Appeal to experiment or logic—not to the professions. Do not invoke “scientists” to enforce a point.
You do this all the time. You can't prove a point by quoting someone whose opinion is in the minority, i.e. is a dissenting opinion. You can always quote an authority when his opinion is in the majority. That's known as the Argument from Authority.

Or, you could understand Robert Laughlin is correct and a relativistic ether is confirmed every day by experiment.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: arcmetal on 13/05/2016 08:39:47
Here, we can agree since it looks like this is what's already happening ... that a variety of extensions to the term "aether" is being used to describe differing theories.

Excellent, at least we are beginning to understand each other.


Yes, yes! Glory be, I am in agreement with all of your sane comments.
I will make brief points on your comments in the next post.

My disagreement has always been with the silly way that a mob mentallity has taken over the advancement of physics these past 70 years or so, and I don't think I am the only one that thinks this way.  I just started reading Carver Mead's book:  "Collective Electrodynamics, Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism" where in it, the first line of the introduction reads:

Quote
It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics.

There are many problems in both quantum mechanics and in electrodynamics, and he addresses them in his book.  Its great to read about these collected problems in one location after reading about them spread out all over many articles. 

So, what I see as the major problem with EM theory is this taboo with the study of the ether... it holds people back from just looking at the problem, and similarly in QM theory they have ignored De Broglie's pilot-wave theory.  A better study of these theories would probably help move the understanding of nature forward.

I subscribe to a determinstic emergent behavior in the mechanisms of nature. We have better technology these days, and experiments are showing that these theories have validity.  So this can go towards my answer to the original post: that I'd prefer an understanding of the ether so that we can advance our understanding of nature, and not because I don't understand relativity.

To pass along a couple of points that aren't in this thread yet: consider how experiments and new discoveries are made. If one starts out with garbage assumptions, one will end up with garbage solutions.  It would be a cold day in hell if someone, somehow, is able to achieve great breakthroughs in science from initial conditions that are nonsensical, but anything is possible.

So how did Maxwell arrive at such useful and groundbreaking equations to describe EM theory, while starting out with Kelvin's theory of rotating fluid vortices that tried to describe the ether?  To help him, there was Faraday's experiments, his own understanding of fluid dynamics, plus there were a couple fellows a few years earlier that had found a relationship between permittivity, permeability and the speed of light.  So one can say that Maxwell already had some of the answers to the main questions, which he then combined into a coherent theory.

And then there's Einstein.  So many articles, incorrectly, keep saying that "he did away with the ether". Instead he merely found the right set of equations that physicists and engineers can use to solve problems at high speeds without needing to have knowledge of some complex ether (Einstein explains it this way repeatedly). Sometime after 1916 he continued working on finding ways to incorporate properties of the ether, now his relativistic ether, that does not get all messy with it being a frame of reference, and so on.

His statements about the ether in articles and lectures is well known.  I like this line from the 1920 Morgan manuscript:

Quote
... Thus, once again, empty space appears as endowed with the physical properties, i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to special relativity. One can thus say that the ether is resurrected in the general theory of relativity, though in a more sublimated form.

I doubt that anyone can say Einstein finds the idea of an ether attractive because he is having a hard time grasping the theory of relativity.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: PmbPhy on 13/05/2016 08:47:38
Quote from: stacyjones
Or, you could understand Robert Laughlin is correct and a relativistic ether is confirmed every day by experiment.
You completely missed the point. My response in my last post had nothing to do with the aether. It was entirely about your reasoning process. I made that quite clear too. Posting a quote from someone in no way strengths your position whatsoever.

To be precise you made an error known as a fallacy of false authority. An authority is defined as follows
Quote
Authority[/i] - An expert other than ourselves.

The fallacy of false authority is an argument that violates any of the criteria for a legitimate appeal to authority. Thus,
1) if an argument uses an expert who in fact is not an expert in the appropriate field,
2) if there is not a consensus of expert opinion, or
3) if we cannot - even in theory - verify the claim for ourselves
then the argument offers as a premise something that is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

When you wrote reply 95 what did you know about Robert B. Laughlin? I looked him up using Google and came to his webpage on Wikipedia. There's nothing in that page which says that he is an expert on relativity. Does that mean that he has a poor understanding relativity? Most certainly not. But to be called an authority in a field a person must have extensive knowledge in that field, which he does not.

Quote from: stacyjones
Or, you could understand Robert Laughlin is correct and a relativistic ether is confirmed every day by experiment.
That is quite incorrect. If you understood what he wrote then you'd know that what he's talking about is not the luminiferous aether from special relativity. He's speaking about vacuum fluctuations. But that doesn't support the propagation of light.

If I were you I'd start from scratch. First obtain a solid understanding of algebra, trigonometry and calculus. Then pick up a text on basic physics and read the entire text, cover to cover. We'll all chip in and help you understand it. But it's hard work. I know because I had to do it. In fact I had two majors in college, physics and math.

Please don't take anything that I wrote in this thread to be insulting. I'm just trying to help. However if you don't want my help then please let me know and I'll stop trying.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: PmbPhy on 13/05/2016 08:55:57
Quote from: arcmetal
So, what I see as the major problem with EM theory is this taboo with the study of the ether... it holds people back from just looking at the problem, and similarly in QM theory they have ignored De Broglie's pilot-wave theory.  A better study of these theories would probably help move the understanding of nature forward.
There is no taboo that I'm aware of. The problem in many cases is that physicists have been pummeled with E-mail from every Tom, Dick and Harry who, while having no training in physics or relativity,  thinks that he's proved that the aether exists, such as McQueen, but who say that the aether is undetectable. The problem with that kind argument is that its incorrect. In physics for a concept to be a valid one then it has to be falsifiable. An undetectable aether is not falsifiable. These poor physicists keep getting e-mail all day long and have to sort out the garbage from the sane stuff.

If someone knew what they were talking about then that person would be heard.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: arcmetal on 13/05/2016 09:11:24
Quote from: arcmetal
So, what I see as the major problem with EM theory is this taboo with the study of the ether... it holds people back from just looking at the problem, and similarly in QM theory they have ignored De Broglie's pilot-wave theory.  A better study of these theories would probably help move the understanding of nature forward.
There is no taboo that I'm aware of. The problem in many cases is ...

If someone knew what they were talking about then that person would be heard.

Well then that's great to hear.  So then maybe progress can be made, even if slowly.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 13/05/2016 12:07:28
I doubt that anyone can say Einstein finds the idea of an ether attractive because he is having a hard time grasping the theory of relativity.

Einstein was most correct as a teenager.

'Alert Einstein's 'First Paper''
http://www.straco.ch/papers/Einstein%20First%20Paper.pdf

Quote
"The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces."

Einstein is referring to the state of displacement of the aether.

The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause its propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether displaced by these forces.

This is also what Robert Laughlin is referring to when he uses terms like matter, quantum solids and fluids, a piece of window glass and 'stuff' to describe the aether.

They are both referring to a relativistic aether which has mass.

The notion of dark matter as a weakly interacting clump of stuff that travels with the matter is incorrect. Aether has mass and is displaced by matter. Einstein's gravitational wave and de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality are both waves in the aether. The "missing mass" is the mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the matter which is displaced by the matter. The Milky Way's halo is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the aether, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 13/05/2016 12:12:25
That is quite incorrect. If you understood what he wrote then you'd know that what he's talking about is not the luminiferous aether from special relativity. He's speaking about vacuum fluctuations. But that doesn't support the propagation of light.

Vacuum fluctuations are the chaotic nature of the aether. The following water wave Casimir effect is analogous to the chaotic nature of the aether.

Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 13/05/2016 12:24:22
If someone knew what they were talking about then that person would be heard.

'Selected Queries from Newton’s Opticks, 4th ed.'
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~mcgrew/nq.htm

Quote
Qu. 20. Doth not this Aethereal Medium in passing out of Water, Glass, Crystal and other compact and dense Bodies into empty Spaces, grown denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the Rays of Light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve Lines? And doth not the gradual condensation of this Medium extend to some distance from the Bodies, and thereby cause the Inflexions of the Rays of Light, which pass by the edges of dense Bodies, at some distance from the Bodies?

Newton is referring to the state of displacement of the aether.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Luminiferous_aether

Quote
James Clerk Maxwell said of the aether, "In several parts of this treatise an attempt has been made to explain electromagnetic phenomena by means of mechanical action transmitted from one body to another by means of a medium occupying the space between them. The undulatory theory of light also assumes the existence of a medium. We have now to show that the properties of the electromagnetic medium are identical with those of the luminiferous medium."

Maxwell's displacement current is a physical displacement of the aether.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

Quote
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"

The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum

Quote
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:
The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: McQueen on 13/05/2016 12:27:55
There is no taboo that I'm aware of. The problem in many cases is that physicists have been pummeled with E-mail from every Tom, Dick and Harry who, while having no training in physics or relativity,  thinks that he's proved that the aether exists, such as McQueen, but who say that the aether is undetectable. The problem with that kind argument is that its incorrect. In physics for a concept to be a valid one then it has to be falsifiable. An undetectable aether is not falsifiable. These poor physicists keep getting e-mail all day long and have to sort out the garbage from the sane stuff.

The Bible does say something about Pharisees and whited sepulchers, where would be the joy in physics, if one did not have the freedom to think ? Stick to your tombs PmbPhy, you might finally realize something. Without answering any of the questions I have put such as “What is the reason that Einstein gives for the speed of light being constant?” Or for that matter do you have a calculation that shows the speed of light is constant ? I am pretty sure you don’t so don’t bother. BUT at least admit that you don’t know. Don’t obfuscate and don’t be derogatory.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 13/05/2016 12:33:11
“What is the reason that Einstein gives for the speed of light being constant?”

Everything is with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists, including the rate at which the atomic clocks tick which are used to determine the speed of light. This is why the speed of light is always determined to be 'c'.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: arcmetal on 14/05/2016 20:48:36
Here, we can agree since it looks like this is what's already happening ... that a variety of extensions to the term "aether" is being used to describe differing theories.

Excellent, at least we are beginning to understand each other.

You will realise that some discussions are not worth pursuing. An extreme example is the poster who claims to understand what gravity really is, it is air pressure holding us down! I usually try a few posts to point them in the right direction, but mostly they are stubbornly attached to their idea, and do not have the capacity to understand the concepts - discussion is futile.  In these cases I withdraw, the poster makes a last post and assumes because there is no challenge that they have won the argument. That doesn't worry me, if I am confident of my information I don't have to prove anything to anyone.

Yes, I have also seen all sorts of these odd theories.  Most of the time it is easy to rule them out with some simple observations, so then I just move on.  But even if a few things are way off in someone's theory, there may be nuggets of truth in there somewhere and maybe those can be dragged along to a better theory.  So yes, I can see how it would be tough to fish through all of that.

One guess for there being all of these crazy theories is simply because there is something there which we don't fully understand (the aether) and so people's imaginations run wild.  For example, we can't see beyond the edge of our observable universe until we get a better telescope, so what's out there is anyone's guess.  It could just be more of the same similar to what we see now, or it could be a couple of aliens on a couch munching on some cheesy puffs having a fun time watching us trying to wriggle out of this universe.

In other discussions it is possible to see that although there is disagreement it is possible the person on the other side is capable of understanding the concepts and common understanding may be possible. In these cases it is worth continuing even if eventually we agree to differ. I am glad we continued.

Thanks, same here.

Yes, I agree with your use of the umbrella terms liquid and metal, but within those groups we must be clear to separate the elements that are different. So the aether for sound can be any liquid or gas, but the speed of sound in a particular aether will depend on the properties of that aether. Also other properties will depend on the aether, for example sound in air is non-dispersive, but is dispersive in CO2. Also sound waves will propagate inside the space station, but water waves will not (assuming you could get an ocean up there!). So we must not assume that the behaviour of waves in one aether will mirror that in another aether.
Also, there is a tendency to talk about the vacuum aether, but the vacuum supports a range of fields so there could be a range of different aethers in the vacuum.

Exactly.  So its possible that there is a whole range of different types of mediums, each supporting a variety of waves.  Some for EM fields, some for gravity, some for electrons, etc.  Or, it could be one medium that is somehow able to support all of those effects at the same time.   I have not seen a coherent explanation to explain it all, but there are some explanations that help sort some of it out.

The only other issue is that we have to be clear about the properties of different aether types so we do not get confused. I come back to the luminiferous aether which SJ described as a relativistic aether and pointed me to the quantum vacuum. But the luminiferous aether was not relativistic, so I'm confused by the reference.
So we don't bounce this one back and forth, I will put it all down together.
Let's assume that in the vacuum there is a relativistic aether supporting electromagnetic radiation. Let's call it the EMR Vacuum aether.
At the time of Michelson & Morley it was assumed that light propagated in the same way as sound in air and waves in water. In other words light would propagate at a fixed speed in the luminiferous aether, but if an observer measures the speed of those light waves then if the aether moves relative to the observer, or if the observer moves through the aether then the measured speed of light would differ. That is a nonrelativistic aether and this behaviour is seen in sound and water waves. In a relativistic aether (EMR Vacuum aether) the speed of light will not vary either by motion of the aether or the observer. Below is a quote from Wiki on Maxwell's biography:

"Maxwell believed that the propagation of light required a medium for the waves, dubbed the luminiferous aether. Over time, the existence of such a medium, permeating all space and yet apparently undetectable by mechanical means, proved impossible to reconcile with experiments such as the Michelson–Morley experiment. Moreover, it seemed to require an absolute frame of reference in which the equations were valid, with the distasteful result that the equations changed form for a moving observer."

So when SJ describes the luminiferous aether as relativistic I am confused. If they had expected the luminiferous aether to be relativistic the M&M experiment would have hailed as a blinding success, parties for weeks etc. What am I missing?


Well, as you can probably guess its about putting the cart before the horse.

I think the important thing to keep in mind is the difference between simply reading what someone has written about a property of nature (thus its known and understood), versus trying to comprehend a property of nature that no one understands, that is, a property that has not been discovered or written about anywhere.

On the one hand you can just read the description of what someone did, and their observations, insights, equations, etc.  On the other hand you are trying to decipher what nature is doing, it may be something no one has every noticed before, and nature is not going to sit up and tell you.  Keeping this in mind, we can then read which experiments happened in which order, and a better picture can emerge....

The MM experiment happened in 1887, but Maxwell wrote his EM papers much earlier in and around 1865, which weren't really identified as significant until 20 years after.   So around 1885, people started running around trying to find a mechanical type of "rest frame" ether.  And so we get the MM experiment happening in 1887, which of course, was performed at a time when there was no notion whatsoever of any thing about "relativity".  It wasn't until after the results of the MM experiments that people started trying to explain it, and then you get some ideas swirling around about length contraction, time dialation, etc, to help explain the odd results of the MM experiment.

Thus, at the time of the MM experiment, no one had the idea of a "relativistic" ether since that idea didn't exist yet. At that moment in time, one could say the luminiferous aether had theories that described its mechanical properties, but these theorized properties were not well understood at the time  with the information that people had at that point in time.   It simply means it was poorly understood, too much information was missing (at that time no one had any ideas about the subatomic world, the quantum, lasers, etc...,  although they had some guesses, like knowing that gasses were made of tiny particles bouncing around).  But as time passes, technology gets better, we can get a more accurate understanding of it properties. Like finding that its "relativistic". It just becomes an improvement on the understanding of its properties.... Yet, its still the luminiferous aether.

At one time it was thought the sun was a bright chariot in the sky, then maybe we thought it was just made of fire, time passes and we get a more precise understanding of its components, like that its made of hot plasma... Yet we still know it as the "sun". The understanding of its properties have evolved, improved.  But why, since we now know that the sun is not a burning chariot riding around in the sky, why don't we have a bunch of people running yelling that its old fashioned buffoonery to say there is a "sun", and instead we should be saying its a G-type main-sequence star of hot plasma.  And that anyone that says there is a "sun" in the sky is talking pseudoscience.

If the luminiferous aether is now understood to be "relativistic", well then great. Maybe in a few years well find its made of electrons and positrons, well then super duper... Or we may find its made of Higgs particles. Great again!  Then in the future we may say that the "luminiferous aether" is a superfluid with relativistic properties and it has components of electrons, positrons or Higgs particles.... and so on....  We are just adding to our understanding of it.

"Luminiferous" just means its the light carrying medium, it may be that they find a separate medium for gravity, and call that the "gravitational" aether, or it may be the same medium, we can call it "grav-electic aether" or whatever.  We just don't know, and that's ok.  The world will not end tomorrow if we don't completely understand the largest structure in the universe.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: arcmetal on 14/05/2016 20:52:19
There is no taboo that I'm aware of. The problem in many cases is that physicists have been pummeled with E-mail from every Tom, Dick and Harry who, while having no training in physics or relativity,  thinks that he's proved that the aether exists, such as McQueen, but who say that the aether is undetectable. The problem with that kind argument is that its incorrect. In physics for a concept to be a valid one then it has to be falsifiable. An undetectable aether is not falsifiable. These poor physicists keep getting e-mail all day long and have to sort out the garbage from the sane stuff.

The Bible does say something about Pharisees and whited sepulchers, where would be the joy in physics, if one did not have the freedom to think ?

I'd go back to climbing mountains and mass producing portraits of sad clowns on black velvet.  [:P]
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: arcmetal on 14/05/2016 20:57:59
I doubt that anyone can say Einstein finds the idea of an ether attractive because he is having a hard time grasping the theory of relativity.

Einstein was most correct as a teenager.

'Alert Einstein's 'First Paper''
... papers/Einstein%20First%20Paper.pdf

I have enjoyed reading Einstein's earlier papers.  One can see hints of his thoughts evolving and progressing.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 14/05/2016 21:31:35
I have enjoyed reading Einstein's earlier papers.  One can see hints of his thoughts evolving and progressing.

If Einstein had maintained his correct notion that the aether has mass and its state is determined by its connections with the matter we never would have needed the notion of dark matter.

The "missing mass" is the mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the matter which is displaced by the matter.

The Milky Way's halo is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the aether, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.

What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

The aether displaced by the Earth pushing back and exerting pressure toward the Earth is gravity.

The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: alancalverd on 15/05/2016 00:44:54
You can always quote an authority when his opinion is in the majority. That's known as the Argument from Authority.


NB that is also invalid if it isn't confirmed by experiment. In scientific writing you can generally assume that the reader is familiar with "authority", especially widely-published experimental data like the values of fundamental constants, and the usual reason for quoting it is to challenge it. 
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: alancalverd on 15/05/2016 00:56:07
I doubt that anyone can say Einstein finds the idea of an ether attractive because he is having a hard time grasping the theory of relativity.

Another, but more subtle, argument from authority.

In fact the aether turns up in respectable electromagnetics textbooks until the 1950s because it's an easy concept for teaching military technicians, along with the Bohr atom and a few other tricks needed to bring conscripts up to speed for modern warfare. But in this more relaxed arena I think we would do better to avoid the absurdities inherent in both models.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 15/05/2016 01:05:14
In fact the aether turns up in respectable electromagnetics textbooks until the 1950s because it's an easy concept for teaching military technicians, along with the Bohr atom and a few other tricks needed to bring conscripts up to speed for modern warfare. But in this more relaxed arena I think we would do better to avoid the absurdities inherent in both models.

There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed, it's what waves.

Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single in a double slit experiment?
A. The particle always travels through a single slit, it is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: alancalverd on 15/05/2016 01:05:27
Or, you could understand Robert Laughlin is correct and a relativistic ether is confirmed every day by experiment.


Now arcmetal has calculated the aether as having

Quote
modulus of: 1e113, and density of: 1.11e96

neither of which is confirmed or even remotely approximated by experiment.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: alancalverd on 15/05/2016 01:08:37

Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single in a double slit experiment?
A. The particle always travels through a single slit, it is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.

Repeating nonsense does not turn it into sense. Why not learn some physics instead of wasting your life peddling outdated nonsense? Or join a church and get paid for it!
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 15/05/2016 02:01:33
Repeating nonsense does not turn it into sense. Why not learn some physics instead of wasting your life peddling outdated nonsense? Or join a church and get paid for it!

Wave-particle duality is a moving particle and it's associated wave in the aether whether you choose to understand it, or not.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: arcmetal on 15/05/2016 02:08:38
Now arcmetal has calculated the aether as having

Quote
modulus of: 1e113, and density of: 1.11e96

neither of which is confirmed or even remotely approximated by experiment.

Sorry to nitpick, but the modulus of: 1e113, and density of: 1.11e96 is from some article quoted before by stacyjones, and I didn't read far enough to see how they got those values.

The values I had calculated were a modulus of 450  (kg / m s2)  --- (Pascals), from Kelvin's density of: 5e-15 kg/m3...
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: McQueen on 17/05/2016 11:26:56
One thing that seems certain is that the aether does have a physical existence !
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: puppypower on 17/05/2016 13:05:40
The speed of light is the same in all references. On the other hand, the wavelength and frequency of light can change between references; red and blue shift.

Since the speed of a wave is dependent on the density of the medium, while the speed of light does not change with changes in space-time, then the aether needs to be something different from space-time. If the medium was connected to space-time, the speed of light would change with reference, since the density of the aether would change as time and distance changes the density of the medium. This is not observed.

For light to always propagate at the same speed, through an aether, that aether would need to be something that is not impacted by relativity, since the speed within the medium always holds constant regardless of relative reference. The one thing that comes to mind is the aether has a speed of light reference; same in all references. Photons are not really moving in the aether, since the aether is also at the speed of light.




Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: McQueen on 17/05/2016 13:29:50
Since the speed of a wave is dependent on the density of the medium, while the speed of light does not change with changes in space-time, then the aether needs to be something different from space-time. If the medium was connected to space-time, the speed of light would change with reference, since the density of the aether would change as time and distance changes the density of the medium. This is not observed.
You have to give up all preconceived notions of what you might think the aether is and evaluate the type of aether that seems to be indicated through evidence and circumstance.  Don’t be in any doubt about this, there is plenty and I do mean a whole lot of evidence that an aether does exist. Why do you have to persist in thinking of the aether along the lines of the luminiferous aether with its impossible qualities. Give up that notion of the aether and consider what newer  later evidence (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=3505.0) indicates.  The thread that has been highlighted shows how far from the luminiferous aether things have progressed.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 17/05/2016 17:43:22
The speed of light is the same in all references. On the other hand, the wavelength and frequency of light can change between references; red and blue shift.

Since the speed of a wave is dependent on the density of the medium, while the speed of light does not change with changes in space-time, then the aether needs to be something different from space-time. If the medium was connected to space-time, the speed of light would change with reference, since the density of the aether would change as time and distance changes the density of the medium. This is not observed.

For light to always propagate at the same speed, through an aether, that aether would need to be something that is not impacted by relativity, since the speed within the medium always holds constant regardless of relative reference. The one thing that comes to mind is the aether has a speed of light reference; same in all references. Photons are not really moving in the aether, since the aether is also at the speed of light.

Everything is with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists, including the rate at which the atomic clocks tick which are used to determine the speed of light.

A "relativistic aether" is one in which everything is relative to it. That is why the speed of light is always determined to be 'c'.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: arcmetal on 18/05/2016 05:53:50
I doubt that anyone can say Einstein finds the idea of an ether attractive because he is having a hard time grasping the theory of relativity.

Another, but more subtle, argument from authority.

In fact the aether turns up in respectable electromagnetics textbooks until the 1950s because it's an easy concept for teaching military technicians, along with the Bohr atom and a few other tricks needed to bring conscripts up to speed for modern warfare. But in this more relaxed arena I think we would do better to avoid the absurdities inherent in both models.

Of course, can agree with what I have highlighted.  My problem is with the prevailing common notion that has thrown the baby out with the bath water by saying "there is no aether", and so don't look for it. ... Nothing to see here folks just move along.... Yet, all these waves here waving without a medium.

Its interesting that now they are starting to find more hints of its existence, but this has only happened because our technology has gotten better.... With a new telescope one can find new stars.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 18/05/2016 06:29:22
Of course, can agree with what I have highlighted.  My problem is with the prevailing common notion that has thrown the baby out with the bath water by saying "there is no aether", and so don't look for it. ... Nothing to see here folks just move along.... Yet, all these waves here waving without a medium.

Physicists want to relate general relativity and quantum mechanics. In order to do so they would have to allow themselves to understand Einstein's gravitational wave and de Broglie's wave-particle duality wave are both waves in the relativistic aether. Therefore, physicists are unable to relate general relativity and quantum mechanics.

It is more important for them to deny the existence of the aether than it is to correctly understand what occurs physically in nature.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: Colin2B on 21/05/2016 00:56:06
Thus, at the time of the MM experiment, no one had the idea of a "relativistic" ether since that idea didn't exist yet.
Sorry, missed this.
Yes, we are agreed then. If an aether exists it will have to have relativistic properties eg vacuum and not the pre M&M idea of a non-relativistic medium such as air or water.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: jeffreyH on 21/05/2016 15:03:22
The only thing that could be said to be anything akin to an aether is the Higgs field.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: Colin2B on 21/05/2016 16:56:36
The only thing that could be said to be anything akin to an aether is the Higgs field.
I was wondering how these fields relate. I know the Higgs and Photon field interact, but I thought they were still very separate.
Can you expand on your thoughts?
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: jeffreyH on 21/05/2016 17:23:00
That is the point. Massless particles would have an entirely different interaction with the Higgs field. I am not saying the Higgs field is the aether. It is no more absurd than the alternatives.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 21/05/2016 22:46:13
The only thing that could be said to be anything akin to an aether is the Higgs field.

The aether has mass. Particles of matter are condensations of the aether. The Higgs is the process by which aether condenses into particulate matter.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: stacyjones on 21/05/2016 22:47:16
I was wondering how these fields relate. I know the Higgs and Photon field interact, but I thought they were still very separate.
Can you expand on your thoughts?

The aether has mass. Particles of matter are condensations of the aether. The Higgs is the process by which aether condense into particulate matter.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: jeffreyH on 24/05/2016 22:28:47
I was wondering how these fields relate. I know the Higgs and Photon field interact, but I thought they were still very separate.
Can you expand on your thoughts?

The aether has mass. Particles of matter are condensations of the aether. The Higgs is the process by which aether condense into particulate matter.

I have a suggestion. Change your user name to CutNPaste. It'll make things much clearer to your readership.
Title: Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
Post by: Colin2B on 24/05/2016 23:30:55
I was wondering how these fields relate. I know the Higgs and Photon field interact, but I thought they were still very separate.
Can you expand on your thoughts?

The aether has mass. Particles of matter are condensations of the aether. The Higgs is the process by which aether condense into particulate matter.

I have a suggestion. Change your user name to CutNPaste. It'll make things much clearer to your readership.