The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is there any evidence for aether?  (Read 11517 times)

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #50 on: 30/04/2016 01:40:42 »
Show me where on planet McQueen that I mentioned electrons. I did mention photons. Or are you trying to deliberately mislead your audience into thinking I said something that I definitely did not. That is not a very honest way to behave and says a lot about your approach to debate.

Surely photons originate in or from electrons ? Why is that so completely off-topic that I am misleading the 'audience' ?
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #51 on: 30/04/2016 03:44:24 »
Show me where on planet McQueen that I mentioned electrons. I did mention photons. Or are you trying to deliberately mislead your audience into thinking I said something that I definitely did not. That is not a very honest way to behave and says a lot about your approach to debate.

Surely photons originate in or from electrons ? Why is that so completely off-topic that I am misleading the 'audience' ?
The answer to your question is very clear. If indeed you asserted that Jeff said or implied that he said, something that he didn't then that'd be quite misleading. Did you say that Jeff mentioned electrons?
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #52 on: 30/04/2016 03:53:03 »
Quote from: McQueen
Yes, of course sound needs a medium  and light must do so too, which is the whole point of this discussion.
That is absolutely wrong. In no way does light require a medium to travel. There's noting in EM theory which requires it to do so. Light is a time varying electromagnetic wave which means that an electric and magnetic fields, which require no medium to exist, when varying in time become detached from their sources and propagate in space as an EM wave. That's quite different than the kinds of waves which require a medium. In fact what we refer to as "waves which require a medium" is actually the medium itself varying in time and space, quite unlike and EM wave.

It would be best if you didn't make claims about something when you're not knowledgeable in it. If it's your own theory then you're posting it in the wrong forum.
 

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 194
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #53 on: 30/04/2016 03:59:59 »
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.

It is the chaotic nature of the aether which is the It is the vacuum energy. It is the chaotic nature of the aether which causes the Casimir effect. The following is analogous to the chaotic nature of the aether and how it causes the Casimir effect.


 

Offline Atomic-S

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 928
  • Thanked: 18 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #54 on: 30/04/2016 04:53:10 »
What is the Higgs field, what is the Dirac field, what is the electromagnetic field, and how do they relate to all this?  They must relate in some way, because each of these fields is associated with a type of particle.
 

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 194
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #55 on: 30/04/2016 05:06:34 »
What is the Higgs field, what is the Dirac field, what is the electromagnetic field, and how do they relate to all this?  They must relate in some way, because each of these fields is associated with a type of particle.

Particles of matter are condensations of the aether. It is often incorrectly stated that the Higgs gives mass to matter. The Higgs does not give mass to matter. The aether has mass. The Higgs describes the mechanism by which aether condenses into particles of matter.

Maxwell's displacement current is a physical 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."
 

Offline Atomic-S

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 928
  • Thanked: 18 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #56 on: 30/04/2016 05:09:06 »
Here's another thing that needs to be  explained:  If the waves associated with gravity, with the double-slit experiment, and electron diffraction are all waves in the aether, then there needs to be some explanation as to why the three waves in question behave differently. Specifically, the mathematics of the gravitional wave indicate a quadrupolar character, which, if a linearly polarized beam of such waves were to be scattered at right angles to the direction of propagation by an appropriate target, the scattered energy would vary in intensity with respect to angle in the scattered plane according to cos2(2Θ), Θ being the directional angle. If a beam of linearly polarized electromagnetic waves is scattered at right angles by a suitable target, we find that its intensity varies with angle according to cos2(Θ) .  If a polarized beam of electrons is similarly scattered, the scattered intensity varies as cos2(Θ/2) .  So it appears the vibrations are not alike.  Interestingly, the spins of the associated particles are, theoretically for the gravtion if it exists: 2; for the photon: 1; for the electron: 1/2.  So that in general, we have the situation that the wave associated with a paricle of spin n, will scatter as cos2(nΘ) .   A right understanding of aether must be able to account for this.
 
The following users thanked this post: jeffreyH

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #57 on: 30/04/2016 05:24:41 »
The answer to your question is very clear. If indeed you asserted that Jeff said or implied that he said, something that he didn't then that'd be quite misleading. Did you say that Jeff mentioned electrons?

No, I did not say that electrons were mentioned, what I did say was that electrons were pertinent to the subject and therefore not off topic. How can you talk of electromagnetic radiation OR photons without talking about electrons ? Was a complaint made to you in this regard, or is this investigation something done  on your own initiative  ?
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #58 on: 30/04/2016 05:28:15 »
That is absolutely wrong. In no way does light require a medium to travel. There's noting in EM theory which requires it to do so. Light is a time varying electromagnetic wave which means that an electric and magnetic fields, which require no medium to exist, when varying in time become detached from their sources and propagate in space as an EM wave. That's quite different than the kinds of waves which require a medium. In fact what we refer to as "waves which require a medium" is actually the medium itself varying in time and space, quite unlike and EM wave.

Forgive if I am mistaken but I was under the impression that the idea that it was electrons that created the electric and magnetic fields through which electromagnetic radiation propagates was no longer acceptable, the electric and magnetic fields have a separate existence.
Is this not acceptable to you as a medium ???
 

Offline Atomic-S

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 928
  • Thanked: 18 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #59 on: 30/04/2016 05:32:37 »
Quote
Particles of matter are condensations of the aether.
"Condensations" may not be the correct term. The electromagnetic field is regarded as a quantum field, which means that it can, for a specific propagation mode, take on only discrete amplitudes that are determined by the wavelength. Note that I did not say that it takes on only discrete wavelengths, which is also true if it is confined to a specific region, but that its amplitude takes on only specific values (and when it does, it loses classical properties of definite phase). Such behavior is impossible for a classical wave such as described by Maxwells equations, but requires a different kind of wave equation. We should not regard this as a contradiction to Maxwell's equations, but can regard Maxwell's equations as the macroscopic expression of this quantum situation in the aggregate of probable behavior when dealing with substantial quanties of energy.  But the important point here is that if the electromagnetic field is thus quantized, then it automatically exhibits discrete units of energy, and that this explains what we call photons.  However, it is not a good picture to speak of such discrete energy legvels as condensations.  It would be better to refer to them as differences in energy level. And interestingly enough, one consequence of this view of the photon is that, because it is not a condensation of anything but rather a wave property, it  need not have a definite location. However, being a wavelike phenomenon, it would appear compatible with an aether of some kind, so that we end up with the interpretation that the photon is simply an energy difference between two permissible energy states of the aether.
 

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 194
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #60 on: 30/04/2016 05:34:05 »
Here's another thing that needs to be  explained:  If the waves associated with gravity, with the double-slit experiment, and electron diffraction are all waves in the aether, then there needs to be some explanation as to why the three waves in question behave differently. Specifically, the mathematics of the gravitional wave indicate a quadrupolar character, which, if a linearly polarized beam of such waves were to be scattered at right angles to the direction of propagation by an appropriate target, the scattered energy would vary in intensity with respect to angle in the scattered plane according to cos2(2Θ), Θ being the directional angle. If a beam of linearly polarized electromagnetic waves is scattered at right angles by a suitable target, we find that its intensity varies with angle according to cos2(Θ) .  If a polarized beam of electrons is similarly scattered, the scattered intensity varies as cos2(Θ/2) .  So it appears the vibrations are not alike.  Interestingly, the spins of the associated particles are, theoretically for the gravtion if it exists: 2; for the photon: 1; for the electron: 1/2.  So that in general, we have the situation that the wave associated with a paricle of spin n, will scatter as cos2(nΘ) .   A right understanding of aether must be able to account for this.

There are no such things as gravitons. Aether has mass which physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. The state of displacement of the aether is curved spacetime. The state of displacement of the aether is gravity. The aether displaced by the Earth pushing back and exerting pressure toward the Earth is gravity.

[0903.3802] The Milky Way's dark matter halo appears to be lopsided
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3802

Quote
"the emerging picture of the dark matter halo of the Milky Way is dominantly lopsided in nature."

The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter traveling along with the Milky Way. 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 physicists mistake for the density of the dark matter is actually the state of displacement of the aether. What they fail to realize is the state of displacement of the aether is curved spacetime.

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 ćther)."

I don't think any of the articles specifically refer to gravitational waves as waves in the aether. However, they have to do with gravitational aether and also how aether is compatible with a superfluid dark matter filling 'empty' space. They might help you get a better understanding of how the aether has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

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

Quote
"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

Quote
"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

Quote
"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

Quote
"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

Quote
"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

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."

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

Quote
"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

Quote
"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

Quote
"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

Quote
"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

Quote
"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

Quote
"In this paper we shall show that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as a ubiquitous back ground field is a super fluid medium."
« Last Edit: 30/04/2016 05:46:40 by stacyjones »
 

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 194
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #61 on: 30/04/2016 05:44:20 »
"Condensations" may not be the correct term. The electromagnetic field is regarded as a quantum field, which means that it can, for a specific propagation mode, take on only discrete amplitudes that are determined by the wavelength. Note that I did not say that it takes on only discrete wavelengths, which is also true if it is confined to a specific region, but that its amplitude takes on only specific values (and when it does, it loses classical properties of definite phase). Such behavior is impossible for a classical wave such as described by Maxwells equations, but requires a different kind of wave equation. We should not regard this as a contradiction to Maxwell's equations, but can regard Maxwell's equations as the macroscopic expression of this quantum situation in the aggregate of probable behavior when dealing with substantial quanties of energy.  But the important point here is that if the electromagnetic field is thus quantized, then it automatically exhibits discrete units of energy, and that this explains what we call photons.  However, it is not a good picture to speak of such discrete energy legvels as condensations.  It would be better to refer to them as differences in energy level. And interestingly enough, one consequence of this view of the photon is that, because it is not a condensation of anything but rather a wave property, it  need not have a definite location. However, being a wavelike phenomenon, it would appear compatible with an aether of some kind, so that we end up with the interpretation that the photon is simply an energy difference between two permissible energy states of the aether.

In de Broglie's double solution theory there are two waves. There is the wave-function wave which is statistical, non-physical and is used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments. It is a mathematical construct only. It doesn't physically exist. There is also a physical wave in a "hidden medium" which guides the particle. The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether.

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf

Quote
“When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles. ... any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium”

The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether.

Quote
"For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant, forms on the v wave a small region of high energy concentration, which may be likened in a first approximation, to a moving singularity."

A particle may be likened in a first approximation to a moving singularity which has an associated wave in the aether.

Quote
"the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave"

The particle occupies a very small region of the associated wave in the aether.

Wave-particle duality is a moving particle and it's associated wave in the aether.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

Quote
"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field"

The electromagnetic field is a state of the aether. Particles of matter are condensations of aether.

'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A. EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf

Quote
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2."

The mass of the body does diminish. However, the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished; it still exists, as aether. Matter evaporates into aether. As matter evaporates into aether it expands into neighboring places; which is energy. Mass is conserved.

When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether. The evaporation is energy. Mass is conserved.
« Last Edit: 30/04/2016 05:49:15 by stacyjones »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #62 on: 30/04/2016 08:22:22 »
 Is there any evidence for aether?


Other than the word Aether , no. Aether is an invented word for something that doe's not exist, you are discussing nothing . It is presumptuous to think that electromagnetic radiation  needs a ''medium'' to pass through. 
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #63 on: 30/04/2016 08:32:33 »
Other than the word Aether , no. Aether is an invented word for something that doe's not exist, you are discussing nothing . It is presumptuous to think that electromagnetic radiation  needs a ''medium'' to pass through.

 What about 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' that is getting so much attention now-a-days ?  Would you consider an electromagnetic field to be a medium ?  What about a gravitational field ??
« Last Edit: 30/04/2016 08:34:37 by McQueen »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #64 on: 30/04/2016 08:42:48 »


 What about 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' that is getting so much attention now-a-days ?

More ''god'' talk and make  believe at this time.


 
Quote
Would you consider an electromagnetic field to be a medium ?

Yes, look at magnetic bottling



 
Quote
What about a gravitational field ??

Yes, but I think that is something we already know and it is more like an electrodynamic field which is associated with the electrodynamics of moving bodies.


added - I had the flu when I made this, I just wanted to show I have experimented and it was weird the paper did not burn . In observation it seemed like the flame curved around the magnetic field.
Also at one point I observed flames at the lighter end and flames at the end of the magnets, but in the middle the flame was seemingly vanished.


flame→no flame→flame which made me scratch my head big time.



added- whoa, I have just had a huge thought, the north and south magnetic poles are compressed by the rotation of the earth, this causes the field to bulge out, the same as my magnets in the video create a reverse of magnetic bottling, in my video the magnetic field is not confining the plasma to a central position, it is stopping the plasma entering the magnet space, whoa what a thought . The Earth is protected by magnet space, we are bottled for protection and the plasma is outside our magnet space.

added- sorry I have no idea if this diagram is relevant to the discussion, but the voices in my head told me to draw it lol







« Last Edit: 30/04/2016 09:16:59 by Thebox »
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #65 on: 30/04/2016 11:55:14 »
flame→no flame→flame which made me scratch my head big time.

Nice video ! Well to begin with magnets do strange things.  A circular magnet is impossible to drill through, if  you do succeed, it is no longer a magnet just a piece of metal. Heating a magnet should destroy the magnetism, but you already know that.  So if the flame does go 'on' and 'off' for some reason, I wouldn't be surprised.  You could also try the levitating magnet, since you already have  the right type of magnet.

 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #66 on: 30/04/2016 12:21:46 »
flame→no flame→flame which made me scratch my head big time.

Nice video ! Well to begin with magnets do strange things.  A circular magnet is impossible to drill through, if  you do succeed, it is no longer a magnet just a piece of metal. Heating a magnet should destroy the magnetism, but you already know that.  So if the flame does go 'on' and 'off' for some reason, I wouldn't be surprised.  You could also try the levitating magnet, since you already have  the right type of magnet.

I think the mass of the magnets I used may of been a bit on the heavy side to obtain magnetic levitation and I no longer have those magnets it was a couple of year back.

I find it interesting that magnetic levitation is liking to ''buoyancy'', the equal and opposing polarities creating a like ''force field'' of ''buoyancy'.

I do not see why this can't be extended for bigger bodies and a similarity to electrodynamic ''buoyancy'' of bodies.

Like wise charge or likewise polarity repels, maybe the combination of both is what creates radius .


I think the ''aether'' is a combination of  interwoven physical energies that occupy the nothing.





 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 554
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #67 on: 30/04/2016 12:46:32 »
Sound waves require a medium. Photons do not. In space no one can hear you scream.

Sometimes you exceed all expectations with your brilliantly insightful statements! Yes, of course sound needs a medium  and light must do so too, which is the whole point of this discussion. An electron is a tiny particle about 10-16m in diameter, it has a limited charge 1.6 x 10-19 C. Yet here you are happily rounding on everyone else, claiming that the vibration of that tiny electron and that tiny charge can create a self sustaining wave that will travel for millions and billions of kilometres, while all the time  dispersing its energy in accordance with the inverse square rule. AND you see absolutely nothing wrong with this scenario ????


The speed of light is the ground state of the universe. This can be inferred from the observation that there is a net conversion of matter to energy in our universe. Matter, which occupies inertial reference, is net converting into energy, which exists in a speed of light reference. This conversion into energy occurs independent of relative inertial reference, since the laws of physics are same in all "inertial" references.

I used the analogy of sea level or C-level, where all the water on the earth flows toward the ocean; C-level. This is independent of reference; mountain or stream.

One leg of energy is anchored at the speed of light. Energy move at the speed of light. Energy also has a second leg which shows finite expressions; wavelength and frequency, which are inertial dependent. At the speed of light, the universe will appears as a point-instant, which means finite wavelength can't be seen at the speed of light. The diversity of wavelength and frequency are all  inertial reference dependent.

Picture a spring attached at one end to a fixed location; grounded at the speed of light. The spring is always defined, in part, by this absolute position, that is the same in all references. The free end of the spring is inertial reference dependent. Inertial reference  has the impact of stretching the spring away from the ground state, adding potential. The inertial references can pull or contract the spring, with the C-anchor never changing.

Since C is the ground state, the pulling of the spring by inertial references adds potential. While the continuous lowering of potential in the spring, back to the ground state, releases potential. This allows energy to propagate via the inverse square rule and not violate energy conservation. The entire affect is a renewable wave motion due to the persistence of the speed of light ground state, and the persistence of inertial reference.   

The aether is a logical artifact of physics still using a relative reference as the ground state. Energy appears to be in relative motion, if we assume an inertial reference, like the earth, is the ground state. But if we assume light at C is the state of lowest potential, light does not move. Motion is only as an artifact of choosing a relative reference.

Let me try to demonstrate this with an example. Instead of assuming sea level is the ground state for all the surface water of the earth, let us assume the ground state is at the head of the Mississippi River. This will be like using our earth reference as the ground state. We choose this because it is easy for us to use. In many respects, this reference is less abstract, since everyone living in Chicago can see the same thing. We don't have to imagine the ocean.

All references; Chicago, London and Tokyo still see the sea level. However, sea level now begins with a potential, relative to Chicago. The head of the Mississippi River is not moving, since this is the ground state. Instead the oceans are moving relative to Chicago. The question becomes how does the ocean and sea level aways stay in constant motion relative to all city references? This gets very abstract.

A medium, like the aether, seems reasonable, but it has never been found. The paradox is an artifact of using an arbitrary relative reference, instead of an absolute reference as the ground state; Chicago instead of C-level.

This debate may never end, because physics will not change its reference. Too many people benefit by the confusion that is created by using inertial as the ground state. A change to a C-level ground state will cause a changing of the guard, with the horse and buggy superseded by the horseless carriage.
« Last Edit: 30/04/2016 12:56:38 by puppypower »
 

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 194
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #68 on: 30/04/2016 13:41:11 »
Is there any evidence for aether?


Other than the word Aether , no. Aether is an invented word for something that doe's not exist, you are discussing nothing . It is presumptuous to think that electromagnetic radiation  needs a ''medium'' to pass through.

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

In a double slit experiment the particle is always detected traveling through a single slit because it always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.
 

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 194
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #69 on: 30/04/2016 13:46:36 »
What about 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' that is getting so much attention now-a-days ? 

Our visible Universe is a larger version of what is represented by the blue lines in the following.



'Supermassive Black Holes Transport Matter into Cosmic Voids, Astronomers Say'
sci-news.com/astronomy/supermassive-black-holes-matter-cosmic-voids-03658.html

Quote
“Some of the matter falling towards the holes is converted into energy. This energy is delivered to the surrounding gas, and leads to large outflows of matter, which stretch for hundreds of thousands of light years from the black holes, reaching far beyond the extent of their host galaxies,” the astronomers explained.

At the scale of our Universe the energy referred to above is dark energy. A Universal black hole is powering our visible Universe causing the galaxy clusters to accelerate away from us.

Dark energy is aether/dark matter continuously emitted by the Universal black hole powering our visible Universe, pushing the galaxy clusters, causing them to accelerate away from us.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3913
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #70 on: 30/04/2016 13:56:39 »
The answer to your question is very clear. If indeed you asserted that Jeff said or implied that he said, something that he didn't then that'd be quite misleading. Did you say that Jeff mentioned electrons?

No, I did not say that electrons were mentioned, what I did say was that electrons were pertinent to the subject and therefore not off topic. How can you talk of electromagnetic radiation OR photons without talking about electrons ? Was a complaint made to you in this regard, or is this investigation something done  on your own initiative  ?

You were talking about electrons traveling millions or billions of miles so I actually think you meant photons since not a lot of electrons reach relativistic speeds. So you could just admit your mistake and we can get over it and move on.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #71 on: 01/05/2016 19:37:09 »
Quote from: McQueen
Forgive if I am mistaken but I was under the impression that the idea that it was electrons that created the electric and magnetic fields ...
An electric field can be created by a charge distribution or by a time varying magnetic field with a zero charge density. If you wave a magnet around then it will produce such a field. However that does come down to moving charges even though the total charge density is zero.

Quote from: McQueen
...through which electromagnetic radiation propagates was no longer acceptable, the electric and magnetic fields have a separate existence.
I don't know where you go that idea from. See this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

Quote from: McQueen
Is this not acceptable to you as a medium ???
I'm sorry but I don't understand your question. What is the medium that you have in mind in that question?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #72 on: 02/05/2016 09:09:38 »

An electric field can be created by a charge distribution or by a time varying magnetic field with a zero charge density.



Pete - space has no net charge, doe's this mean that any volume of space has no entropy and this shows us that a aether doe's not exist?

 

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #73 on: 02/05/2016 09:48:29 »
Is there any evidence for aether?


Other than the word Aether , no. Aether is an invented word for something that doe's not exist, you are discussing nothing . It is presumptuous to think that electromagnetic radiation  needs a ''medium'' to pass through.

OK, this is from the view point of the bottom looking up, plumber not astrophysicist...

There used to be this thing called Aether which was thought to be necessary to explain how light worked. It was debunked because there is nothing in empty space.

But! Hang on, empty space is not nothing.

More recently we have found that even seemingly empty space has both mass and energy. Sometimes lots of it. Dark mass/energy and all that.

Whilst the term Aether might be out of fashion space time is OK. I don't know if there is a real difference between the terms...

Certainly the idea that all of the "stuff" of the universe is some sort of projection of the standing waves and stuff of the underlying fabric/spacetime/aether fite with some of the dumbed down high level physics I have seen on the tele.

Right that should do for the Noble prize....... not.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #74 on: 02/05/2016 11:01:13 »
I have thought more about the Aether or to put in laymen terms a transmission medium.   We know that darkness allows light to pass through it and all forces to pass through it.


If we was to define dark space as the Aether that would be surely a misconception, we already know that the light whole of space is an affective way of transmission, if we defined the relative fixed constant of light to be the aether and we send light through light, then surely the aether is that which allows itself to pass through itself and is light or putting it into full perspective electromagnetic radiation.  This suggesting that a light wave is a disturbance in the fixed constant.


So in reconsideration yes I believe the aether exists, but the aether is also the very same thing has passes through it. Evidently light carries information, even a laser in the dark passes through electromagnetic radiation.   


Do we consider the light from the sun travelling through space or do we consider a satellite transmission travelling through the light of space?


Do we consider  the very medium of natural day  light and the whole to be an optical ''invisible'' medium/aether that allows sight to pass through it?









« Last Edit: 02/05/2016 11:09:50 by Thebox »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #74 on: 02/05/2016 11:01:13 »

 

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