The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Questions on the ether.  (Read 8141 times)

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Questions on the ether.
« on: 09/10/2005 13:29:37 »
Addressing a few unasked questions on the ether , many people would like to know why the ether theory , which had underpinned classical physics for so many years   was eventually discarded , in favour of  newer theories , chief of which was relativity. The Michelson and Morley interferometer experiments demonstrated that light has an apparent constant velocity independent of any particular frame of reference. Henri Lorentz   took this one observable characteristic of light, and, treating it as an absolute characteristic, developed in the Lorentz transformations a theory by which clocks in motion slow down, lengths contract in the direction of motion, and velocities of objects do not add in a common sense way. The Lorentz transformations , were in a sense a last ditch effort to save the ether theory. Lorentz wryly  stated that : "Einstein simply postulates what we have deduced". Against this Einstein realized that combining this new model ( Lorentz transofromations) with Newton's laws of conservation of energy and momentum then required also that mass increases with velocity ( more of this later). So what were the two criteria which Lorentz referred to when he stated that : “……. if we could find a way around two problems with Stokes' theory, it would give a very neat solution, with none of the maths -- no "Lorentz" transformation.” Stokes thought the ether was dragged along with the earth, with the amount of drag gradually tailing off into space. The velocity of the ether at the surface exactly matched that of the earth. Lorentz interpreted this as implying mathematically that the velocity should be definable in terms of an irrotational "deviating vector" field. But the existence of such a field was impossible. It meant that we had something like a fluid that flowed around the earth but with no sliding and no turbulence. Moreover, this fluid was incompressible. It had to be incompressible, it was thought, in order to transport transverse waves. The polarization of light indicated that electromagnetic waves were transverse and hence implied an elasticity of shear in the transmitting medium. But shear waves are impossible in a gas and very unusual in any fluids. A solid medium is implied. Pauli  says the ether had to be given up "...not only because it turned out to be unobservable, but because it became superfluous as an element of mathematical formalism..."  What are the drawbacks of a non ether theory ? The elimination of a physical medium for electromagnetic oscillations could be regarded as  part of the  transformation of physics during the 20th century away from physical models to mathematical equations. As Tyndall  has  stated: "Ask your imagination if it will accept a vibrating multiple proportion -- a numerical ratio in a state of oscillation."  Thus one the one hand we have the apparent incompatibility of the old ( Stokes ) ether model with the observed properties of light and on the other we have the equally disturbing trend of moving, in the post ether period , away from physical models to mathematical abstractions. Is there any compromise between the two. The answer is yes. There is a theory that could reconcile all the objections to an ether and at the same time be perfectly compatible with matter/energy equivalence.  This theory (  Gestalt Theory) argues for a “virtual” photon field (ether) , which pervades the whole of space and a model of the photon which proposes a symbiosis of the wave/particle properties. Thus , according to the theory , the photon is a symbiosis of a particle and a wave , it has both properties simultaneously . This makes the photon different from all other sub-atomic particles and therefore precludes wave-particle duality and since it accepts that the speed of light is constant , also accepts the matter energy equivalence which must inevitably follow such a proposition.


 

Offline Rincewind

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: Questions on the ether.
« Reply #1 on: 09/10/2005 15:02:30 »
Man, that's an intense block of text.  Reckon you could format it a bit?
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Questions on the ether.
« Reply #2 on: 10/10/2005 00:44:48 »
Andrew (Rince)

Man, that's an intense block of text. Reckon you could format it a bit?

Basically what this means is that if an ether model in fact does exist , which overcomes all the objections to Stokes original ether theory , then relativity cannot  exist ( I think… )at least not in its present form.  The strongest argument against an ether has always been the argument by Einstein that all inertial frames are equivalent. It is a strange ether indeed for which such a property could be true , since every point in space would then be connected to every other point in space , Euclidean geometry would apply and the premise of a preferred observer would be restored. However, it would be difficult to directly prove that this is so based on experimental evidence -- rather it would be a logical deduction resting on very good evidence.

« Last Edit: 10/10/2005 01:47:11 by McQueen »
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Questions on the ether.
« Reply #3 on: 10/10/2005 08:48:05 »
In order to try and make the situation , viz-a- viz the ether , a little clearer , it is probably best to  first enumerate the properties of the ether according to Stokes and then to see how these properties compare with the properties of the “virtual “ photon type of ether that is proposed in ‘Gestalt theory’.  According to the Stokes theory  the ether was : a colourless , tasteless , odourless , invisible substance , which permeated the whole Universe.  The ether according to Stokes theory was everywhere and in everything. The hardest  most impermeable substance known to nature was as porous as a sponge to the ether , it could literally pass through matter almost as if it were not there at all. Above all the Stokes ether was supposed to be  , absolutely , unequivocally , unmoving, although objects could move through the ether , the ether itself never moved. The ether was also thought to be an incompressible fluid like substance , it had to be incompressible if it were to transport transverse waves.  In an attempt to overcome these obstacles  McCauley proposed  an ether which was elastic in rotations only. The ether was thought to exist solely to account for the propagation of light , it had no other function.  However , as it turned out the ether did have a very important secondary  role aside from providing a medium through which light could propagate. The ether as described by Stokes , provided a frame of reference in which the laws of mechanics are completely valid. If the ether existed the co-ordinate system attached to it would be the co-ordinate system against which all others could be compared to see if they were moving or not !  Having give a fairly concise and accurate model of the Stokes theory of the ether , it is now possible to see how this compares with the ‘ Gestalt Model’ and to see where its implementation could lead viz-a-viz the theory of relativity. It turns out that a “virtual” photon field , would fulfill almost every characteristic of the Stokes model , it would be colourless , tasteless , odourless , invisible and even the most dense type of  matter would be absolutely permeable to such “virtual” photons.  The only difference is that the “virtual’ photon field is not unequivocally stationary , the “virtual” photons of the field are more or less stationary and are oriented at random. “Virtual” photons are photons of extremely low energy ( about 10 ^^ - 38 J ) , the ‘virtual’ photon field came into being simultaneously with the birth of the Universe , and thus permeates the whole Universe. The end product of all electromagnetic radiation are such ‘virtual’ photons. Yet the structure of these “virtual” photons is identical to that of real photons , the only difference being that they are of such low energies that they are unable to influence other “virtual” photons. Because all photons ‘virtual’ and real possess the property of polarity , in the presence of a real photon the ‘virtual’ photons ( till then randomly oriented ) 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 is conveyed along this line of ‘virtual’ photons. . Because ‘Virtual’ photons only interact with the real photon they are  immediately influenced by , it means that individual lines of propagating photons are kept distinct from propagating lines of photons having other energies , meaning that the original energies and identities of  the propagating photons is preserved regardless of the proximity of other propagating photons. So where does this leave relativity ? Since , ‘Gestalt Theory’ also accepts that the speed of light is constant , all phenomenon associated with relativity such as , length contraction , time dilation and variation of mass with velocity would remain untouched. However gravity would be completely revised , since it would now become a function of the ether. P.S. If the structure of the photon given in this post is studied , it shows unequivocally how such a structure could undergo polarization. Prediction , a polarized beam of light transmitted through space would very quickly lose its polarization.
 

Offline Infamous

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 74
    • View Profile
Questions on the ether.
« Reply #4 on: 18/03/2007 02:44:11 »
If I understand correctly, this theory proposes that the geometric character of space/time, what is commonly referred to as "the metric", is a creation of a photon field. Where the field is a profuse and homogenous medium through which wave energy can propagate. This concept causes me to recall another question I brought up in another thread.

"Does mass/energy cause the curvature of space/time or, does space/time 'the metric' create mass/energy?"

.....................Infy
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3821
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Questions on the ether.
« Reply #5 on: 18/03/2007 14:48:58 »
If the polarization of photons is quickly lost why does it matter which way up I mount my TV antenna or does this only apply to high energy photons
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
Questions on the ether.
« Reply #6 on: 24/03/2007 16:54:20 »
1.
" Physics it first of all Vacuum. "-
 many of physicists say.
2.
If  I ask :
"Please, give exact definition of a condition of Vacuum."
They answer:
“A perfect vacuum is a vacuum with a gaseous pressure of absolute zero.
 Perfect vacuum is never observed in practice,
 and it is only a philosophical concept.
 Partial vacuums are those that still have some amount of gaseous pressure.
There is no "absolute" definition of a vacuum.”
3.
Others say:
“The Vacuum has the lowest energy condition.”-
Such definition of Vacuum is not scientifically.
It sounds like the doctor - genecology will establish the diagnosis:
" She is approximately pregnant woman ".
 4.
Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
 (all elementary particles and all quarks and
their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks,
all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational,
 muons… gluons field ….. etc.) – was assembled in a “single point”.    
It is interesting to think about what had surrounded the “single point”.
The answer is :
 EMPTINESS- NOTHING….!!!
 Ok!
But why does everyone speak about EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
 common phrases rather than in specific, concrete terms?
 I wonder why nobody has written down this EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
the form of a physical formula ? You see, every schoolboy knows that
 is possible to express the EMPTINESS- NOTHING- VACUUM – ETHER
  condition by the formula  T=0K.
*       *       *
Once there was a “Big Bang”.
 But in what space had the Big Bang taken place
 and in what space was the matter of the Big Bang distributed?
Not in  T=0K?
It is clear, that there is only EMPTINESS, NOTHING, in  T=0K.
Now consider that the Universe, as an absolute frame of reference is
 in a condition  of  T = 2,7K  (rests relic radiation of the Big Bang ).
 But, the relic radiation is extended and in the future will change and decrease.
What temperature can this radiation reach?
Not  T=0K?
Hence, if we go into the past or into the present or into the future,
 we can not escape from EMPTINESS- NOTHING- ETHER: T=0K.
5.
About the theory of the “Big Bang” is written  the thick (very thick) books.
But anywhere do not write about the reason of the “Big Bang”.
Anybody does not know it.
I know.
Action, when the God opens his palm,
have named the “Big Bang”.
And action, when the God compresses his palm,
have named " a  single point”.
===========================     
 

lyner

  • Guest
Questions on the ether.
« Reply #7 on: 26/03/2007 12:09:48 »
Quote
If the polarization of photons is quickly lost why does it matter which way up I mount my TV antenna or does this only apply to high energy photons

Your TV aerial polarisation gets less and less plane once your signal has been reflected off other  (sloping) surfaces so interactions of photons with 'something else' might be expected to affect the polarisation in the same way. Absorption and re radiation  by an atom loses all polarisation, for example  and  Rayliegh scattering would affect it too.
The high coherence of the TV carrier wave  results in elliptical polarisation whereas, for independently produced photons (it's not a laser), the  result would be unpolarised.
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Questions on the ether.
« Reply #8 on: 26/03/2007 21:43:34 »
[...]
Do you have some idea of how to create regions of space with lower virtual photon's field energy density (and so, higher speed of light), apart from Casimir effect?
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
Questions on the ether.
« Reply #9 on: 28/03/2007 11:45:43 »
lightarrow wrote:
===
Do you have some idea of how to create
 regions of space with lower virtual photon's field energy density
(and so, higher speed of light), apart from Casimir effect?
================
To lightarrow:

It is possible only in the space of superconductivity.
===============
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
Questions on the ether.
« Reply #10 on: 30/03/2007 14:15:52 »
NOTHING LIKE A VACUUM
NEW SCIENTIST
Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent, the London Sunday Telegraph
From New Scientist, 25 February 1995, Vol.145, No.1966, pp. 30-33.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, New Scientist 1995 (posted with permission)
 
IT is all around you, yet you cannot feel it. Its effects may have lit up the Universe in the big bang but today just lights up your office. It is the source of everything, yet is nothing. Such are the paradoxical features of one of the hottest topics in contemporary physics - the vacuum. It is proving to be a wonderland of magical effects: force fields that emerge from nowhere, particles popping in and out of existence and energetic jitterings with no apparent power source.
 Many researchers see the vacuum as a central ingredient of 21st-century physics. "We now know that the vacuum can have all sorts of wonderful effects over an enormous range of scales, from the microscopic to the cosmic," says Peter Milonni of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Some even contemplate the prospect of harnessing the vacuum's bizarre properties to provide an apparently limitless supply of energy.
 The vacuum's miraculous properties all stem from a combination of quantum theory and relativity. As Werner Heisenberg showed almost 70 years ago, the mechanics of the subatomic world mean that an uncertainty is attached to any measurement of physical properties such as energy. This uncertainty manifests itself in random, causeless fluctuations in energy: the larger the fluctuation, the shorter the time it survives.
 Thanks to Einstein's famous equation E = mc2, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle also implies that particles can flit into and out of existence, their duration dictated only by their mass. This leads to the astonishing realisation that all around us "virtual" subatomic particles are perpetually popping up out of nothing, and then disappearing again within about 10-23 seconds. 
"Empty space" is thus not really empty at all, but a seething sea of activity that pervades the entire Universe.

 
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
Questions on the ether.
« Reply #11 on: 30/03/2007 14:36:05 »
=============
Everyone knows, that absolute temperature T=0K
cannot be reached. But is it enough reason to think
that space T=0K doesn’t exist?
If Columbus did not discover America,
there was not America, was it?
===============
 At first let’s think about radiation.
The radiation is closely tied with thermodynamics.
To understand the processes of thermodynamics the
scientists used the conception of “ ideal gas”.
What does “ ideal gas” mean?
Now everybody says the “ ideal gas”
 is an abstract  conception.
I don’t believe in it. I don’t believe that real processes
can be explained with the help of abstract  conception.
Now they say the abstract conception nearly coincided
with the real processes in the nature.
What is the result of this mentality?
As a result of this mentality the conception of
“ virtuality”, “viptual particles”, “ virtual displacement”
in Quantum physics were absorbed. But Feynman said that
the conception of “ virtuality” is abstract. So, we see, the
adoption of one abstraction gives birth to another one.
And it may go on to infinity. To stop this senseless abstraction
we must understand what the “ ideal gas” really means.
The “ ideal gas ” was given temperature zero degree Kelvin.
============
a)
The Classical physics says, that when we reach
the temperature T=0K all moving of particles
 stops, and the Energy of this space is equal to zero.
 It means that the space T=0K is died one.
Therefore it is impossible something to say about T=0K.
b)
But Quantum physics says that the Energy of this space
 is not equal to zero. Quantum physics says that in T=0K
 “ virtual” particles exist. Why does nobody recognize the
geometrical and physical parameters of “ virtual” particles?
For example: “ Can they have volume?”
No.
Because according to  J. Charles law ( 1787),
when the temperature falls down on 1 degree
the volume decreases on 1/273. And when the
 temperature reaches -273 degree the volume
disappears. The particles become flat figures.
From them the most optimal is circle: C/D=pi.
c)
According to SRT quantum of light flies
with speed c = 1. And in this moving it cannot
have volume. It means that quantum of light
has a geometrical form of circle: C/D = 3,14….
=================   
Planck studied the space of an absolute black body.
Laue called the model of absolute black body
“ Kirchhoff  vacuum”. Planck proposed , if light quanta
comes to the space of absolute black body and does not
reflect back the death of warmth and radiation will come.
As such death isn’t observed Planck suggested an idea:
absolute black body radiates light quanta, which is called
Planck,s coefficient (h).
The Planck,s coefficient (h) means the inner impulse of particle.
It means, it doesn’t depend on another forces.
The same is taken place with the speed of light quantum.
Its speed doesn’t depend on another forces, another  sources.
The physicists say that light quantum has Planck,s coefficient
equal to one (h=1) and its speed is also equal to one (c=1).
Thus we can understand the interaction between impulse
and speed of light quanta, why light quanta has the same
 constant  qualities of impulse and speed .
But if the impulse and speed of light quanta don’t depend
on another forces and sources so, it means
light quanta is independent , privileged particle.
==============
I tried to explain my ideas simply.
I don’t know if you understand me.
Maybe you, like others, will ignore my article.
But it means nothing. I know that I am right.
Why?
Before everything has begun from VACUUM,
and still nobody knows what it is.
=========   
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
Questions on the ether.
« Reply #12 on: 31/03/2007 07:47:58 »
A comment
===========
>
> At first let's think about radiation.
> The radiation is closely tied with thermodynamics.
> To understand the processes of thermodynamics the
> scientists used the conception of " ideal gas".
> What does " ideal gas" mean?
> Now everybody says the " ideal gas"
> is an abstract conception.
> I don't believe in it. I don't believe that real processes
> can be explained with the help of abstract conception.
> Now they say the abstract conception nearly coincided
> with the real processes in the nature.
> What is the result of this mentality?
> As a result of this mentality the conception of
> " virtuality", "viptual particles", " virtual displacement"
> in Quantum physics were absorbed. But Feynman said that
> the conception of " virtuality" is abstract. So, we see, the
> adoption of one abstraction gives birth to another one.
> And it may go on to infinity. To stop this senseless abstraction
> we must understand what the " ideal gas" really means.
> The " ideal gas " was given temperature zero degree Kelvin.
> ============

It is true, virtual particles lack absolute identity, they expose
their potentials briefly and do not persist, they lack "being". But
all electrons and positrons share this ghostly existence yet it is
useful to discus them.

> a)
> The Classical physics says, that when we reach
> the temperature T=0K all moving of particles
> stops, and the Energy of this space is equal to zero.
> It means that the space T=0K is died one.
> Therefore it is impossible something to say about T=0K.
> b)
> But Quantum physics says that the Energy of this space
> is not equal to zero. Quantum physics says that in T=0K
> " virtual" particles exist. Why does nobody recognize the
> geometrical and physical parameters of " virtual" particles?
> ============ ===

We know the behavior of these in quantum configuration state space
according to matrix mechanics. Each has two potentials, one right or
left handed and the other up or down, electrons ^>, v>, and positrons
^< and v<.

Electrons of like spin (up or down) interact by cancelling of equal
and opposite potentials via a virtual positron (vacuum energy), or
cross product of the two electrons, ^> X ^> = v<, there by occupying
independent state.

> Planck studied the space of an absolute black body.
> Laue called the model of absolute black body
> " Kirchhoff vacuum". Planck proposed , if light quanta
> comes to the space of absolute black body and does not
> reflect back the death of warmth and radiation will come.
> As such death isn't observed Planck suggested an idea:
> absolute black body radiates light quanta, which is called
> Planck,s coefficient (h).
> The Planck,s coefficient (h) means the inner impulse of particle.

Yes. it is units of action, or flux, Carver Mead calls them fluxoids.

> It means, it doesn't depend on another forces.
> The same is taken place with the speed of light quantum.
> Its speed doesn't depend on another forces, another sources.
> The physicists say that light quantum has Planck,s coefficient
> equal to one (h=1) and its speed is also equal to one (c=1).

We also see action at light speed locally, but action may be slower or
faster relatively.

Mead points out that the speed of quantum action is actually twice
light speed, but we only see light speed because the action has two
components, lateral and transverse such that the lateral speed is c=1.

> Thus we can understand the interaction between impulse
> and speed of light quanta, why light quanta has the same
> constant qualities of impulse and speed .
> But if the impulse and speed of light quanta don't depend
> on another forces and sources so, it means
> light quanta is independent , privileged particle.

I would disagree, or not say it that way. If it was independent we
could not slow light down, in a cold consondate. Locally it may still
be light speed, but what is manifest in our realm is slow light.

The light is not clocked independently but is clocked by its surroundings.

> ============ ==
> I tried to explain my ideas simply.
> I don't know if you understand me.

I think I understand you. Your metaphysical model is very cool.
However, when it comes to physics, I am not interested in metaphysical
models. Experiment is the only way to see exactly what is happening.
I do not expect that nature observes any such model.

> Maybe you, like others, will ignore my article.
> But it means nothing. I know that I am right.
> Why?
> Before everything has begun from VACUUM,
> and still nobody knows what it is.

I see no reason to not consider the vacuum ordinary energy from the
early universe consisting of uniform low frequency signals at about 3
degrees kelvin and down. It looks like zero because it is the lowest
energy. There is no lower energy it can flow to or be absorbed by.

I can't say how much of the 185 GeV/cm^3 is made of light (two
potentials) and how much is neutrinos (one potential) but I can say
with some confidence that it is composed of fluxoids or h units of
action.

We find increacing energy density of photons in an inverse relation,
from the highest energy down to the zero point. It is reasonable to
expect this relation to continue below the zero point down to the
energy of h, a single fluxoid. This is sufficient to account for the
vacuum energy. We can explain why we do not normally measure below
the zero point. There is no reason to think it is somehow different
than other energy.

> =========
http://www.socratus .com

What you say is true, for the most part, but is not the complete
truth. It may be suffucuent truth for most purposes but is not
sufficient to help me map quantum configuration state space to our
space and time.

For example, you make the quanta round so pi falls out easily. The
quanta is an orthogonal twist, not a circle, according to measurement,
I need to look a little more deeply to see how pi emerges. I will not
accept anything by definition.

I also object to putting God in the quanta. God gets in the quanta
because it's action is determined by the entire universe acting around
it. Its being is a simple propensity to act, consiousness or choice
belongs to the arrangement of the quantum system it belongs to, not
the quanta intrisically. Uncertainty is accounted for by missing
information about the quantum arrangement as we most often only
observe events representing a sparce random sampling of the quantum.
Where we have complete information, there is zero uncertainty.

I do think there is value in your model which is more sencible than
the standard model in my book. It just is not enough for me and I
choose to separate the spiriitual from the physical in the context of
science.

Jim
>
"Jim Whitescarver" <jimscarver@gmail.com>
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
Questions on the ether.
« Reply #13 on: 31/03/2007 14:40:55 »
To lightarrow:
==============
We know that everything in the universe is moving.
When you get down to -273 degree
   you get superconductivity.
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
Questions on the ether.
« Reply #14 on: 31/03/2007 16:10:52 »
=================
A superconductivity is possible to reach only
if there are space of helium II, helium I .
It means, what thinking about vacuum,
about approximately zero degree,
we must put in the foundation not protons,
not hydrogen, but the helium II, helium I.
===============
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
Questions on the ether.
« Reply #15 on: 31/03/2007 22:28:36 »
About Vacuum and superconductivity.
================ 
When you get down to -273 degree
   you get superconductivity.
A superconductivity is possible to reach only
if there are space of helium II, helium I .
It means, what thinking about vacuum,
about approximately zero degree,
we must put in the foundation not protons,
not hydrogen, but the helium II, helium I,
the particles of helium II,
 the particles of helium I.
Maybe the “ Theory of quant gravitation” is closely
 tied with the “ Theory of superconductivity”…. ?
Maybe the “ Theory of star formation” is closely
 tied with the “ Theory of superconductivity”…. ?
===============
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
Questions on the ether.
« Reply #16 on: 01/04/2007 06:11:09 »
Question:
What is connection between vacuum and superconductivity?
============
The answers.
1.
A vacuum has nothing to do with superconductivity.
If you have a vacuum then you'll have nothing to conduct!
2.
If you allow a gas to expand it will cool.
One method of producing extremely cold temperatures
 is to create a near perfect vacuum and let a gas expand
into it causing a temperature drop. It is the low temperature
 achieved with vacuum technology and
not the vacuum that permits superconductivity.
3.
No connection between vacuum and superconductivity.
There is a connection with temperature though.
Many materials become super conductors at very low temperatures.
4.
The only connection with the two ,
the vacuum was used to insulate the super cooled amplifier
 which used superconductivity.

 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
Questions on the ether.
« Reply #17 on: 01/04/2007 10:43:07 »
Gravitomagnetic Fields in Rotating Superconductors
 to Solve Tate's Cooper Pair Mass Anomaly
Authors: M. Tajmar, C.J. de Matos
(Submitted on 20 Jul 2006)
Abstract: Superconductors have often been used to claim gravitational anomalies in the context of breakthrough propulsion. The experiments could not be reproduced by others up to now, and the theories were either shown to be wrong or are often based on difficult to prove assumptions. We will show that superconductors indeed could be used to produce non-classical gravitational fields, based on the established disagreement between theoretical prediction and measured Cooper-pair mass in Niobium. Tate et al failed to measure the Cooper-pair mass in Niobium as predicted by quantum theory. This has been discussed in the literature without any apparent solution. Based on the work from DeWitt to include gravitomagnetism in the canonical momentum of Cooper-pairs, the authors published a number of papers discussing a possibly involved gravitomagnetic field in rotating superconductors to solve Tate's measured anomaly. Although one possibility to match Tate's measurement, a number of reasons were developed by the authors over the last years to show that the gravitomagnetic field in a rotating quantum material must be different from its classical value and that Tate's result is actually the first experimental sign for it. This paper reviews the latest theoretical approaches to solve the Tate Cooper-pair anomaly based on gravitomagnetic fields in rotating superconductors.
=================   
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607086
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
Questions on the ether.
« Reply #18 on: 01/04/2007 11:15:23 »
Pleas, remember the helium II and helium I
 are different from all another elements of nature.
=============================
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
Questions on the ether.
« Reply #19 on: 02/04/2007 17:21:03 »
There is market of different opinions about vacuum.
If on this market we don't understand:
" what vacuum is ?" we never agree each another.
To say:
"absolute zero  is a philosophical concept
 that is never observed in practice ",
"a perfect vacuum is just a theoretical idea,
not a physical possibility" it means to refuse
from thinking. In this situation the brain not work.
I don't believe that the real processes of nature
can be explained with the help of abstract  conception.
I think that the adoption of one abstraction gives birth to another
one. And it may go on to infinity.
I think that at first we must understand the "philosophical concepts",
the " theoretical ideas ", the " abstract conceptions"  as
 the " ideal gas ", the " absolutely black body ",
  the " negative four-dimensional space ", etc.
 

Online Atomic-S

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 935
  • Thanked: 18 times
    • View Profile
Questions on the ether.
« Reply #20 on: 17/04/2007 09:28:16 »
This subject is largely incomprehensible. Allow me to further confuse it by adding the following observations:

The classical ether theory derives from Newtonian mechanics and Euclidian geometry, both of which were quite successful at describing the propagation of sound and various other waves, all of which required the existence of a classical material substance as a medium. Such a substance, of course, as required by Newtonian mechanics, has a definite location and motion description, and all propagation is in reference to that. With that kind of theoretical basis, scientists of the 19th century could only suppose that light would turn out to behave the same way, and perforce a classical substance must exist to explain its propagation.  Unfortunately, of course, experiment eventually established that light did not work that way, and it proved impossible to identify any substance whose state of motion could be defined.

Einstein's equations appeared to render the ether unnecessary, and describing light as particles that move at the speed limit of Einstein's theories made a medium even less necessary; but left unanswered just what we are to understand, then, of the wave properties of light. If they are not an undulation in a medium, then what are they?

A related problem had to do with the quantum mechanical observation: wave actions are found to be emitted and absorbed only in discrete quanta, that exhibit particle-like behavior. What does that mean? Some people have tried to explain it as the wave consisting of ranks of particles all moving in unison like soldiers, a picture which would permit us to have waves with no medium, but that picture quickly disintegrates if one attempts to merge it with the known mathematics of wave interference.

A deeper penetration into all these problems was given by Schroedinger himself. He was the one who developed the differential equation which describes, under the assumption that matter behaves in the limit of smallness analogously to the way waves do, the way in which a classical "particle" should be described at the quantum level. First, a system is described classically, by exhibiting its total energy as a function of its coordinates (e.g., position) and their time rates of change. That is, the total energy is viewed as a function of the coordinates and their rates of change, as in a mass and spring problem where the energy = 0.5 m V2 + 0.5 k X2. But when we say "rates of change", strictly speaking we mean the corresponding momenta. The corresponding momentum to any particular coordinate is the rate of change multiplied by some factor, e.g. mass, but in general it is something which is determined by using the Lagrangian form of the equation. I will omit further elaboration upon this complexity; suffice it for now to observe that any classical system (of the type under consideration) can be set up to describe its total energy as a function of its coordinates AND "corresponding momenta" each being proportional to that coordinate's time rate of change. (Classically, specification of the coordinates and the momenta is both possible and necessary).

Schroedinger deduced that once we have a system thus described, its behavior at the microscopic level cannot be described by these classical values directly, but that there exists a function which describes the system (insofar as we can know anything about it, at least), and this function can be written either in terms of the coordinates or the momenta (which will give different form for each, but they are directly interconvertable between one another by processes analogous to Fourier transforms, so that if we have one form we can obtain the other any time we want). And that this function is the result of transforming the Hamiltonian equation for total energy H(q..., p...) into a differential equation and then solving it. The result of this solution, if viewed as a function of spatial coordinates, is a wave-like function, the physical significance of which includes the fact that if we perform measurements upon the object, the function defines the probability that those measurements will yield specific values; but which also includes the philosophical question of exactly what the function is. This latter question is usually avoided in discussions of quantum mechanics because for one thing no one really knows the answer, and for another thing, the answer is of little practical importance, because measurements never show the function itself, but only some consequence of it, such as an angular momentum value, and those values don't depend upon us knowing precisely what it means for the state function to exist.

But there still remains the difficulty of explaining how the electromagnetic field meshes with the notion of discrete photons. This problem was solved when certain scientiest observed that the energy of a classical electromagnetic wave is a function of the electric and magnetic field strengths; but because Maxwell's equations relate these to the time rates of change of each other, the energy thus is also a fuction of their time rates of change. As such, Schroedinger's equation should apply. (You will note, however, that using the equation this way produces a result which is based not upon spatial coordinates, but upon field strength values. Philosophically, this is an enigmatic fact, because waves in all classical ether theories are inherently functions of space and time, but not of nonspatial quantities. To say that the same mathematics applies to nonspatial quantities raises profound questions as to the true structure of everything.)

Solving this problem results in a new description of the electromagnetic field, in which photons appear automatically. The classical description of the electromagnetic field says that at each point in space, there are the functions Ex, Ey, Ez, Bx, By, and Bz, which are the components of the field, each  have certain values as a funxtion of X, Y, Z and T, connected by Maxwell's equations. The quantum description gives us a different picture: in it, we have not Ex, Ey, Ez...(X,Y,Z,T), but psi(Ex,Ey,Ez,Bx,By,Bz,X,Y,Z,T) . This function of numerous variables does not give a definite field value at each point, but rather a distribution of possible values at each point. Furthermore, the properties of any one mode of (classical) oscillation are, in general, indefinite in this description, unlike the classical case.  In the classical case, the mode of oscillation of a particular frequency (as in a hollow wave cavity) has a definite amplitude and therefore energy, and also has a definite phase relationship with respect to some reference start time.  In the quantum case, however, we find that if we want a definite energy, the phase of oscillation becomes compledtely indefinite; and if the phase is well established, then the energy is indefinite within a certain range of uncertainty. Now experimentally, photons are things which are seen during energy transfers, and they therefore are associated with the states of definite energy. Now owing to the discreteness of permissible solutions to the Shroedinger equation for a phenomenon operating within a parabolic potential curve (in this case, energy as a function of classical field strength), the electromagnetic oscillation can have only certain discrete, and equally spaced,  energies, meaning , of course, that energy that is emitted into or absorbed out of a wave of a particular classical frequency must take place only between discrete energy states -- i.e., PHOTONS. A photon is thus nothing other than a difference between permissible adjacent energy states of the electromagnetic field. 



The same calculation that derives the existence of photons, also tells us that the energy state zero is not permissible. That implies that even in "total darkness", electromagnetic energy is present.

Similar calculations have been carried out for other particles, notably the electron. One view of the electron has it that it is some kind of a difference in energy states of the "Dirac field".

Another feature of the Shroedinger equation related to the possible existence of an ether is what happens when we use it to describe electrons in an atom jumping to a lower state and emitting a photon: To do so, the equation must end up with one more particle than it started out with (the photon emitted). This creates a fundamental mathematical difficulty: the equation must end up with more variables than it started with, due to the addition of the photon at some point, whose coordinates must now be present, whereas they were absent before. Differential equations can do wonderous things but changing the number of independent variables in mid-stream is not one of them. Therefore it appears that the photon must have pre-existed, and if so, its emission might be described not so much as the creation of a photon, as the kicking of it from a state of invisibility to a state of visibility, due to the energy given up by the electron. So in other words, the photon appears to have pre-existed in some latent state.

There is also the matter of pair production and annihilation. As noted elsewhere in this thread, quantum uncertainty permits, and even requires, that the process whereby a particle and antiparticle unite and annihilate in a burst of radiation, be reversible and actually take place spontaneously over brief intervals (but quickly reverse themselves if there is not energy available to make the conversion stick). Studies of the magnetic properties of the electron by spectroscopic means have supported this theory: the evidence is that the photons whereby the electron exerts its force, undergo such spontaneous pair production and annihilation, producing additional photons, positrons, and electrons, so that the observed charge of the electron actually is not the true charge, but the true charge combined also with the charges of all these additional particles that pop in and out,  and that this fact leads to different spectroscopic properties for the electron than the simple model would suggest.

All this of course leads into the theory of virtual particles, painting a picture of a universe filled with quantum activity: wave states jumping around from state to state even in a totally dark totally cold vacuum.

Raising again the question of just what the true nature of empty space is.

The classical ether has been pretty well debunked. There may, however, be an ether of some kind, consisting of all this quantum activity, or perhaps being the substrate in which it occurs. It is important to note, however, that an ether of this kind must not be thought of as a classical substance. In particular, its state of motion or rest has no meaning. In special relativity, objects moving with respect to each other occupy world lines which are at an angle. Speed simply is the angle at which one world line lies with respect to another. If we were to draw 2 lines at an angle on a chalkboard, we could rightly ask what the rate of divergence of one from the other was, that is to say, the angle between them. But if someone were to ask, what is the angle between one of the lines and the chalboard itself, we would have to say that the question was meaningless (within the context of 2-D geometry). Likewise, to attempt to inquire into the speed of any  object with respect to the (4-dimensional Einsteinian quantum) ether is meaningless. Just as the angle at which a chalkboard lies within its own plane is meaningless, so also the speed at which an Einsteinian quantum ether moves within its own dimensions is meaningless.

Further thoughts regarding a possible ether, that is, an underlying nonclassical medium upon which matter and energy may be inscribed by means of state functions in space and time:  Various baffling enigmas regarding the nature of subatomic particles, such as the fact that some particles move straightforwardly with no rest mass under basically wavelike contions (e.g., light) whereas others can rest in place but are oscillating all the time with various different essential frequencies (e.g., electrons, neutrons, protons; which oscillate at quantum frequencies proportional to their mass-energies), and the paradoxes associated with the notion that some particles can have zero radii (electrons, positrons), have led many to speculate that there exist additional ways for wave functions to be arrayed, in addition to the space and time we are familiar with. Thus, it is theorized that for each point in space in time, there may exist a loop (possibly multidimensional), covering a tiny distance but in some other dimension or dimensions, through which wave functions circle, obeying therein the quantization effects associated with waves that must satisfy boundary conditions when going around a loop or otherwise confined. One can envision that in such a space, waves could propagate in various different modes, as in a waveguide, having different and discrete standing frequencies and other properties. Those eigenstates could correspond to the various distinct subatomic particles we know -- different modes would have different standing frequencies and therefore different mass-energies, and would appear to us as distinct subatomic particles.

This leads us into string theory. I am not an expert on string theory, but in rough terms it is of the nature just described. Actually there are several string theories, and no one at this point known just which of them, if any, is correct; but a general consensus seems to have emerged that a string theory of some kind underlies all quantum reality. What still is a problem is how to merge gravitation into this picture. Einsteinian views of gravitation view a geometry capable of distortion. That must be somehow meshed with a space-time filled with or composed of virtual particles, and with the idea that gravitation should itself be quantizable. These remain difficult areas of science which are not well understood.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Questions on the ether.
« Reply #20 on: 17/04/2007 09:28:16 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums