Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: dhjdhj on 31/12/2015 15:27:33
-
Michelson/Morley proved that there was no ether drift, and Einstein showed that there was an interpretation of the transportation of energy that did not require it.
But wouldn't life be much simpler if there was an ether that carried energy? Could it be that we just don't have the means to detect it ? If you consider the wave forms in the macro world the energy creates the wave by distorting or modifying the medium through which it travels. The medium determines the velocity( not the observer), The amount of energy the amplitude, and the frequency and wavelength are inter-dependant on the velocity. In addition there is no force along the axis of travel. The fisherman's float goes up and down as the ripple passes and does not travel laterally. There is angular momentum which causes the curve in the wave. Finally the energy distorts before the crest of the wave arrives as per the beach emptying prior to the Tsunami arriving. This is all very similar to the behaviour of a photon. My problem with the duality of the photon is the I don't see how a wave can be formed without something connecting subsequent photons together and yet a wave is unquestionably formed. After the first photon has left the radiator and disappeared over the horizon at the speed of C. How does the second photon with its new quanta know where the first photon is? let alone form a wave between them. How can dimensionless particles spin? Some thing is spinning but what? and how can a massless particle have any kind of momentum? We are now told that there is dark matter and dark energy which we cant see or measure if so why not an ether?
-
Michelson/Morley proved that there was no ether drift and Einstein showed that there was an interpretation of the transportation of energy that did not require it.....................We are now told that there is dark matter and dark energy which we cant see or measure if so why not an ether?
Why not an ether? Absolutely no reason whatsoever. It's just that we don't call it ether. We now call it Spacetime.
Michelson/Morley proved that the ether did not have the qualities they were testing for. It did not prove there was no ether.
Einstein on the other hand had these things to say on the subject;
As to the mechanical nature of the Lorentzian ether, it may be said of it, in a somewhat playful spirit, that immobility is the only mechanical property of which it has not been deprived by H A Lorentz. It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility.
The space-time theory and the kinematics of the special theory of relativity were modelled on the Maxwell-Lorentz theory of the electromagnetic field. This theory therefore satisfies the conditions of the special theory of relativity, but when viewed from the latter it acquires a novel aspect. The electromagnetic fields are not states of a medium, and are not bound down to any bearer, but they are independent realities which are not reducible to anything else, exactly like the atoms of ponderable matter. This conception suggests itself the more readily as, according to Lorentz's theory, electromagnetic radiation, like ponderable matter, brings impulse and energy with it, and as, according to the special theory of relativity, both matter and radiation are but special forms of distributed energy, ponderable mass losing its isolation and appearing as a special form of energy.
More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which I shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity.
So according to Einstein Electromagnetism does not require the presence of the Ether to propagate.
That does not imply that there is no ether. Relativity requires an ether, just not a Michelson/Morley, or a Lorentz, static ether.
An ether that is stripped of it's "last mechanical characteristic" and so allowed to move.
An ether is a fact; Spacetime is not nothing. It has physical attributes. It can be described by it's coordinates Those coordinates may appear static to matter observers but are not.
Even after 100 years, we are still under the false impression that Einstein said that there is no ether.
But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view. For the mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system hovering freely in empty space depends not only on relative positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the system in itself. In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space "Ether"; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real.
So you are right. There is an ether. Relativity theory demands it. It is called "Spacetime" and is different to Michelson/Morley and Lorentz versions, in that it is not static.
Another important difference;
We have conservation laws covering Matter/Energy.
We have no such laws covering Spacetime/ether. It can be created (Dark Energy), and Destroyed.
-
Thank you space flow for your reply. I was however alluding to an ether WITH mechanical properties. Although being a retired civil engineer rather than a physicist I fully understand SR, its maths and posits. I am NOT a time dilation denier, but I do think there could be another explanation other than adding another dimension space time. My concept of time is that time makes things exist. Every thing in the universe moves, when movement stops things simply cease to exist in our reality. If there is matter in space that is not moving it will have no time component and not be detectable to anything in the real cosmos. Can not energy being applied to this matter make it real by moving it? This would explain how mass energy equivalence might work. So is it not possible for a photon to create a tiny piece of real matter as it goes, passing on energy not by radiation but by conduction and in the process creating a totally immeasurable but never the less real mechanical ether. This might also explain how entanglement could work. Information transmitted instantly would not require the ether to 'wake up' as there would be no time element. Having worked on model analysis and sea wave energy projects I have a great reluctance to abandon dimensional symmetry. Space time strikes me as being a mix of sugar and salt.
-
A boat traveling over water will create a wake. The wake is created due to the friction between the hull of the boat and the medium, which in this case is water. The wake is also due to the displacement of the water, so the boat can occupy that space. Because of the friction and displacement that causes the wake, the boat needs to constantly use energy. If we cut off the engine and let the boat coast, the needs of friction and displacement will slow the boat, and the wake will diminish to zero. To maintain a wake of any given size, we need a constant supply of energy.
The boat and wake analogy is similar to the particle and wave nature of energy. The wake of the boat spreads out and can go through two tunnels; dual slit experiment, while the boat can only go through one tunnel at time. If there was a medium, such as the aether, since photons maintain speed and don't lose energy; naturally red shift, as they propagate in the aether, that means there would have to be no friction and no force vector due to displacement. However, without friction and displacement there would be no wake in the medium. A loud speaker in a vacuum has no friction or displacement and therefore make no sound wave. Therefore we need a source of energy to compensate for the friction and displacement needed to make the wake/wave.
The needed potential is easy to provide, if you assume the speed of light is the ground state of the universe. In this assumption, the speed of light is the reference of lowest potential, which is the same for all references. With this assumption, it follows that any and all inertial references are at higher potential.
Photons try to maintain lowest potential by moving at C. Since they also interact with matter and the inertial reference of our universe, this adds constant potential for the friction/displacement of space-time/aether.The cyclic nature of energy are the photons continually returning to lowest potential; speed of light, after being potentiated by inertial.
-
Thank you space flow for your reply. I was however alluding to an ether WITH mechanical properties. Although being a retired civil engineer rather than a physicist I fully understand SR, its maths and posits. I am NOT a time dilation denier, but I do think there could be another explanation other than adding another dimension space time. My concept of time is that time makes things exist. Every thing in the universe moves, when movement stops things simply cease to exist in our reality. If there is matter in space that is not moving it will have no time component and not be detectable to anything in the real cosmos. Can not energy being applied to this matter make it real by moving it? This would explain how mass energy equivalence might work. So is it not possible for a photon to create a tiny piece of real matter as it goes, passing on energy not by radiation but by conduction and in the process creating a totally immeasurable but never the less real mechanical ether. This might also explain how entanglement could work. Information transmitted instantly would not require the ether to 'wake up' as there would be no time element. Having worked on model analysis and sea wave energy projects I have a great reluctance to abandon dimensional symmetry. Space time strikes me as being a mix of sugar and salt.
dhjdhj, That's quite a name!
What you are saying as I understand it is that the ether is not totally frictionless. A photon in it's passing losess some infinitesimal amount of energy to a friction that then translates to new Ether.
If I got that right, that would make the photon redshift as it travels making more Ether.
Photon = Dark energy.
Logically I can't see anything wrong with such an idea. It is contrary to current popular beliefs as it changes our view of cosmology. Red shift would still equate to distance, but not to speed.
Photons try to maintain lowest potential by moving at C. Since they also interact with matter and the inertial reference of our universe, this adds constant potential for the friction/displacement of space-time/aether.
In a way Puppypower you are also describing part of the mechanical nature of spacetime.
My own view on this is that spacetime/ether, is not only physical but has a fluid nature. So far I have been considering it as a 0 viscosity fluid. But perhaps if that viscosity wasn't quite 0?
On the other hand I don't think that photons exist. There is no duality.
dhjdhj, you should like this. A bit different but very mechanical.
I am of the opinion that Electromagnetic Waves (Light) are a spherical shockwave through this physical ether, carrying the information of how they were created.
The kinetic energy attributed to the particle like nature of light being no more than the kinetic energy attributed to the part of this shockwave that is intercepted.
In my view spacetime is totally crisscrossed with these shockwaves.
I am probably of course totally wrong. But I enjoy the speculation.
-
My TNS name is my initials twice. My given name is David. I actually think that for my idea to work the transfer of energy must be frictionless. If this bit of matter exists it must be like our old friend Democritus suggested the smallest possible piece of matter that can exist. In that circumstance the particle will be perfectly spherical AND inelastic. None of the energy transmitted will be lost to friction. I am not quite sure of the point being made about the frame of reference. A wave can be created by a single event. A single pebble falling into a pond will create a wave which will ripple outwards. Its wavelength will depend on the mechanical properties of the medium. A wave of specific (designed) wave length can be created by dropping successive stones in the same pond with a specified time interval. The energy from the second and subsequent stones catches up previous stones and a smooth wave form occurs. This a local situation but it exactly mirrors what happens to a photon. A double slit barrier will create interference whether one stone is dropped or a succession of stones. I have previously argued that similar particles spinning within atoms and larger particles will create all the experimental effects predicted by SR including exact mathematics but with the result of creating absolute time for absolute particles. Space becomes a three dimensional ether. Further more these little bits of spinning matter in the photon will create a gravitational field which will satisfy the mathematics of GR and the existence of a null time ether would create a universe size local situation. Looks OK to me, where the catch? Like Space Flow I like to speculate and he's right I do like his idea although how you would test I don't know.
-
The new word for ether is field, whose medium is charge.
The immassive fòtòns don't really exist; all are virtval. Excitations of charge interact with other polarizations and thus acquire a mass by the Goldstone effect; the only waves are polaritòns.
-
While the broken symmetry of Lagrangians and the Higgs Mechanism may be fascinating they don't really have a bearing on the 'ether'.
-
A perfect vacvum doesn't exist so any medium's refractive index cannot be 1. You get van der Waals, London, and Casimir fields.
Only later authors took the æther for Galilean. That property doesn't belong to its etýmon.
http://oed.com/view/Entry/64728
classical Latin aether upper regions of space, heaven, ethereal matter surrounding a deity, inhabitants of heaven, air, sky, upper air, light of day, in post-classical Latin also any of various chemical compounds analogous to diethyl ether (1760 in aether nitrosum , or earlier) < ancient Greek αἰθήρ heaven, sky, air < the base of αἴθειν to kindle, burn, shine (see aethionema n.); compare αἴθρα fair weather < the same base.
I. In literal, physical senses.
1. In ancient cosmological speculation: an element conceived as filling all space beyond the sphere of the moon, and being the constituent substance of the stars and planets and of their spheres (sphere n. 2a). Now hist.
Ether was variously regarded as a purer form of fire or of air, or as differing in kind from all of the four elements. By some it was imagined to be the constituent substance, or one of the constituents, of the soul.
[▸a1398 J. Trevisa tr. Bartholomaeus Anglicus De Proprietatibus Rerum (BL Add. 27944) (1975) I. viii. ii. 447 By þat name ethera is vndirstonde al þe space þat is fro þe mone anon to þe sterres..in þe whiche space beþ roundenes and cercles [of] þe seuene planetis.]
▸a1398 J. Trevisa tr. Bartholomaeus Anglicus De Proprietatibus Rerum (BL Add. 27944) (1975) I. viii. v. 455 Isidir seiþ þe ouere parties of fuyre and of ayer hatte ether.
1573 T. Cooper Briefe Expos. f. 89, All that is aboue vs is deuyded into two partes, the one called Aether, which is the vpper part of the Firmament wherein the Starres & Planets are, the other called the Aire.
2. Chiefly literary.
a. The clear sky; the upper regions of space beyond the clouds; the medium supposed to fill the upper regions of space, as the air fills the lower regions.
1587 Sir P. Sidney & A. Golding tr. P. de Mornay Trewnesse Christian Relig. ix. 139 What will hee answere to Plato, who saith that the Heauen or Skye is called Aether.
b. spec. The refined medium supposed to surround God or the gods in heaven; the refined element supposed to be breathed in heaven or by the gods.
1689 W. Sherlock Pract. Disc. Death i. §2. 52 Gross earthly Bodies, as we now carry about with us, cannot live and subsist in those pure regions of Light and Glory, which God inhabits; no more than you can lodge a stone in the Air, or breathe nothing but pure Æther.
c. Air; the gaseous substance that is breathed; a form of this.
1713 Guardian 1 May 2/2 They sucked in so condensed and poisonous an Aether.
3.
a. Physics. An extremely rarefied and elastic substance formerly thought to permeate all space, including the interstices between the particles of ordinary matter, and (in later use) to be the medium by whose vibrations light and other electromagnetic radiation is propagated. Also more fully luminiferous ether. Now hist.
Later views of the ether were that it provided an absolute frame of reference for the universe, with respect to which Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism or other field equations are valid, but that it possibly lacked any material properties. Following the negative result of the Michelson–Morley experiment (see Michelson–Morley n. 1) in 1887, and the proposal of the special theory of relativity by Einstein in 1905 (which assumed that there is no such frame of reference), the concept was gradually discarded.
1644 K. Digby Two Treat. i. xxxii. 281 The Ether..like an immense Ocean, tossed with all varieties of motion.
1693 R. Bentley Boyle Lect. vii. 31 These Phænomena are produced either by the intervention of air or Æther or other such medium, that communicates the Impulse from one Body to another.
a1727 I. Newton Opticks (1730) iii. i. 326 Æther (like our Air) may contain Particles which endeavour to recede from one another.
1778 Dict. Arts & Sci. Æther, an imaginary fluid, supposed by several authors, both ancient and modern, to be the cause of gravity, heat, light, muscular motion, and, in a word, of every phænomenon in nature..Perrault represents it as 7200 times more rare than air; and Hook makes it more dense than gold itself.
1802 T. Young in Philos. Trans. (Royal Soc.) 92 14 A luminiferous Ether pervades the Universe, rare and elastic in a high degree.
1872 T. H. Huxley Lessons Elem. Physiol. (ed. 6) ix. 219 The vibrations of ether..constitute the physical basis of light.
1887 A. A. Michelson & E. W. Morley in Amer. Jrnl. Sci. 34 341 It appears..reasonably certain that if there be any relative motion between the earth and the luminiferous ether, it must be small.
1910 Pop. Sci. Monthly Aug. 112 Einstein abandons the ether, which he declares to be the totally unnecessary conception.
1951 E. T. Whittaker Hist. Theories Aether & Electr. (ed. 2) I. p. v, It seems absurd to retain the name ‘vacuum’ for an entity so rich in physical properties, and the historical word ‘aether’ may fitly be retained.
1995 C. Sagan Demon-haunted World xxiii. 391 Many physicists were deeply troubled by the demise of the ‘luminiferous’ aether. They had needed some mechanical model to make the whole notion of the propagation of light in a vacuum..understandable.
2008 Sci. News 19 July 2/3 The Higgs simply must exist. It's as sure a bet as the existence of ether was at the end of the 19th century.
b. colloq. The atmosphere or space as the medium through which radio or television is broadcast. Now also: the Internet or other computer network as the medium of digital communication.
1917 Pop. Sci. Monthly July 3/1 Each actor is equipped with a tiny wireless telephone transmitter, and his speech is sent through the ether by ‘radio’ to a receiving station.
4. Any of various extremely rarefied or intangible substances imagined or inferred to exist; cf. aura n. 2, 3. Now hist.
In later use influenced by sense 3a.
1691 E. Taylor J. Behmen's Theosophick Philos. xvi. 22 The Elements themselves pass into their Ethers.
5. Chem.
a. A sweet-smelling, volatile, flammable liquid made by distilling ethanol with sulphuric acid and used as a solvent, as an intermediate in chemical synthesis, and (esp. formerly) as a general anaesthetic. Also called diethyl ether.
Systematic names: diethyl ether (cf. sense 5c), ethoxyethane; (CH3CH2)2O. Also called (esp. formerly) common ether, ethyl ether, ethylic ether, sulphuric ether, etc.: see the first element.
1730 A. S. Frobenius in Philos. Trans. 1729–30 (Royal Soc.) 36 286 Æther then is certainly the most noble, efficacious and useful Instrument in all Chymistry and Pharmacy,..inasmuch as Essences and essential Oils are extracted by it immediately, without so much as the Mediation of Fire, from Woods, Barks, Roots, [etc.].
b. Any of a large number of neutral, volatile organic compounds (chiefly esters but also including halides, anhydrides, etc.) prepared in a similar manner to diethyl ether, typically by the reaction of ethanol or another alcohol with an acid or with a salt or other compound in the presence of sulphuric acid. Now chiefly hist. except as in sense 5c.
Freq. with modifying word indicating the source compound, as acetic ether, butyric ether, chloric ether, citric ether, muriatic ether, nitric ether, nitrous ether, oenanthic ether, tartaric ether, etc. For these and also compound, petroleum ether: see the first element.
1756 W. Cullen in Ess. & Observ. (Philos. Soc. Edinb.) II. 155 In another experiment made with the nitrous æther, when the heat of the air was about 53 degrees, we set the vessel containing the æther in another a little larger containing water.
c. Any of a class of organic compounds (typified by diethyl ether) having a molecule in which two alkyl or aryl groups are linked by an oxygen atom.
Ethers have the general formula R2O (with identical groups R) or R′OR″ (with different groups).
Frequently in names, with modifying word(s) indicating the groups present, as dimethyl ether, ethyl methyl ether, ethyl phenyl ether, etc.
crown ether: see the first element.
[1852 Rep. Brit. Assoc. 1851 i. 130 If the term, compound ether, be retained at all, it should be restricted to bodies like those produced by Williamson, in which a simple ether is united with an ether radical, as the oxide of ethyl with methyl or with amyl.]
II. fig. Chiefly literary.
6. Something likened to ether (esp. in senses 3, 4); the distinctive quality or character that seems to surround or be generated by a person, thing, or place; aura, ambience, atmosphere.
1791 J. Boswell Life Johnson anno 1763 I. 228 My mind was..strongly impregnated with the Johnsonian æther.
1793 Scots Mag. Aug. 373/1 The luminous æther of his life was not obscured by any shade dark enough to be denominated a defect.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/αἴθω
From Proto-Indo-European *h₂eydʰ- (“burn; fire”). Cognate with Latin aestus, aestās, poss. aedis and Sanskrit इन्द्धे (inddhé, “to light, set on fire”).
1. I ignite, kindle, light
2. (passive) I burn, blaze
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aestus
From Proto-Indo-European *h₂eydʰ- (“burn; fire”). Cognate with Latin aestās, poss. aedis, Ancient Greek αἴθω (aíthō)), Old English ād (“pyre”).
1. heat
2. fire
3. tide
4. surge of the sea
5. (figuratively) passion
6. (figuratively) hesitation
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aestuarium
1. tidal marsh or opening
2. creek
3. estuary of a river
4. air shaft of a mine
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aestas
1. summer
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aedis
Originally "place with a hearth," from Proto-Indo-European *h₂eydʰ- (“burn; fire”). Cognate with Latin aestus, aestās, Ancient Greek αἴθω (aíthō)), Old English ād (“pyre”).[1]
1. temple, shrine
2. tomb
3. room
4. sing. dwelling (of gods) pl. house, abode (for people)
Derived terms
• aedicula
• aedifico
• aedificium
• aedilis
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ad
1. fire, funeral pyre
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anneal
From Middle English anelen, onelen, from Old English anǣlan, onǣlan (“to set fire to, ignite, heat, inspire, incite, kindle, inflame, enlighten, burn, consume”), from Proto-Germanic *ana (“on”) + Proto-Germanic *ailijaną (“to burn”), from Proto-Indo-European *h₂eydʰ- (“to burn”). Related to Old English onāl (“burning, incense, that which is burnt”), Old English āl (“fire, burning”), Icelandic eldur (“fire”), Swedish eld (“fire, flame”), Danish ild (“fire”).
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Germanic/ail%C4%85
From earlier *aillan, from Pre-Germanic *oidlom, *h₂eydʰlom, from Proto-Indo-European *h₂eydʰ- (“to burn”).
1. fire
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Germanic/aidaz
From Proto-Indo-European *h₂eydʰ- (“to burn, shine”), apparently continuing an extension *h₂ey-dʰh₁- (“to put to the fire”).[1] Related to Ancient Greek αἴθω (aíthō, “to ignite, kindle”).
1. fire, pyre
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Aidan
Anglicized form of the Irish saints' name Aodhán, and of the Scottish Gaelic Aodhàn, diminutives of Aodh (literally "fire", the name of a Celtic sun god).
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Aodh
From Old Irish Áed, from áed (“fire”).
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Áed
From áed (“fire”).
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/áed
From Proto-Celtic *aydus, from Proto-Indo-European *h₂eydʰ- (“to burn, kindle”).
1. fire
-
I don't know what all that is about what I meant in laymen's terms when I asked the question was whether a mechanical ether could possibly exist despite Einstein, Michelson, Morley etc. Now a secondary related question is :- If there is sufficient free matter in space( electrons, positrons and neutrinos) to create a space temperature of 2.8 degrees K? Alternatively if dark matter exists as being 80% of total matter wouldn't that create a much higher temperature unless its thermal mass was incredibly small? Some form of mechanical ether would satisfy the temperature question.
-
I don't know what all that is about what I meant in laymen's terms when I asked the question was whether a mechanical ether could possibly exist despite Einstein, Michelson, Morley etc. Now a secondary related question is :- If there is sufficient free matter in space( electrons, positrons and neutrinos) to create a space temperature of 2.8 degrees K? Alternatively if dark matter exists as being 80% of total matter wouldn't that create a much higher temperature unless its thermal mass was incredibly small? Some form of mechanical ether would satisfy the temperature question.
I am not sure about your temperature reference David, but the mechanical properties of ether/spacetime I believe are well proved.
You can not reference the spin of any particle or collection of particles, without at the same time ascribing mechanical properties to the reference point.
And although I personally am not a fan of GR's treatment of curved spacetime, that too would not be possible to reference without the medium that is said to be so manipulated by matter, having mechanical properties.
If a medium can be described by physical descriptions then it has a physical presence. If that physical presence can in any way be manipulated and distorted then it has mechanical properties.
There are many other examples within currently accepted theory that support the physical and mechanical nature of this medium (ether/spacetime). As such I believe your postulations about possible further mechanical interactions have a good base to work from. The only mechanical property of this medium that you can not include in your postulations is to consider it as static. SR and the Michelson/Morley experiments have totally ruled that out.
-
I absolutely agree I'm not a fan of space/time either, but an ether whilst being mechanical would have to be totally mobile either as some form of super fluid or be switched on and off in tiny quantities that wouldn't register anywhere on an interference experiment no matter how accurate.
-
Spacetime is very much misunderstood. It is discussed using frames of reference which are abstract concepts. Spacetime itself is an abstract concept. It is a dimensional convenience with no physical substance. Matter has physical substance.
-
Is there is sufficient free matter in space (electrons, positrons...) to create a space temperature of 2.8 degrees K?
The current average density of space does not directly affect the temperature of the CMBR. (But it is true that the density will continue to decline, as will the CMBR temperature, as the universe continues to expand.)
What matters is the amount that space has expanded since the matter became transparent (ie since the temperature of the universe dropped below about 3000C, which is thought to have happened about 400,000 years after the Big Bang).
This corresponds to a cosmological redshift of about 1,100.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#Features
enough neutrinos ....to create a space temperature of 2.8 degrees K?
Neutrinos interact with light much less than electrons & protons, and so the universe became transparent to neutrinos much earlier (about 2 seconds after the big bang), when it was at a much higher temperature. In fact, the temperature was so high that temperature is somewhat meaningless; it is quoted as a thermal energy of 2.5MeV.
But the universe has also experienced more cosmological redshift since then.
Cosmological neutrinos (if we could possibly detect them) are expected to have a temperature of about 1.95K
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_neutrino_background
-
Thanks again guys. The question was not so stupid as it may first have appeared I am very grateful helps me to think my way round the issues.
-
Matter has physical substance.
Or more to the point, "matter" defines "physical substance" (and visa versa if you want, I guess)? Space-time being just the concept of the ruler(s) we use to measure/denote the dimensions of matter and the dimensions of a place where matter could be.
-
Quote from: jeffreyH on 11 January 2016, 10:10:49
Matter has physical substance.
Or more to the point, "matter" defines "physical substance" (and visa versa if you want, I guess)? Space-time being just the concept of the ruler(s) we use to measure/denote the dimensions of matter and the dimensions of a place where matter could be.
Here I would have to strongly dis-agree.
Physical substance is defined by having physical properties and a physical influence.
This in our accepted view of reality is not just a property of matter.
If you take a volume and extract all the matter and all the Energy, the volume can still be defined by physical attributes. It can by todays understanding of physics still have a shape that can be changed by gravity in GR.
It would still require time to physically cross this "empty of everything matter", space.
Matter is only one of the ways of defining "Physical Substance".
-
Quote from: jeffreyH on 11 January 2016, 10:10:49
Matter has physical substance.
Or more to the point, "matter" defines "physical substance" (and visa versa if you want, I guess)? Space-time being just the concept of the ruler(s) we use to measure/denote the dimensions of matter and the dimensions of a place where matter could be.
Here I would have to strongly dis-agree.
Physical substance is defined by having physical properties and a physical influence.
This in our accepted view of reality is not just a property of matter.
If you take a volume and extract all the matter and all the Energy, the volume can still be defined by physical attributes. It can by todays understanding of physics still have a shape that can be changed by gravity in GR.
It would still require time to physically cross this "empty of everything matter", space.
Matter is only one of the ways of defining "Physical Substance".
Let me try to clarify what Jeffrey said so you understand, space time is a virtual representation , an abstract creation to navigate space, space time is not an ether.
In our universe we have 3 things, we have mass , we have massless and finally we have a void.
mass is things of substance such as particles/matter that can be observed
massless is things that are physically present but can not be observed such as dark energy , force, gravity, em radiation propagating through space
a void is empty of everything.
The ether you search for is the last thing in the chain before the void, dark energy I presume at 80%.
This dark energy is not like a conventional energy which we associate with positive things, it is a negative energy that will freeze you at an instant.
This energy is also disguised by em radiation and cbmr, the three are merged to be observed as one which is very clear and very neutral until there is a reactant.
Physically exists and physically present are two different things of ''viscosity'', the more present something is, the more it exists to observation and exists.
A planet physically exists, light is physically present , two entirely different things,
When Einstein refers to space time curvature, that is when he refers to the ether, but not knowing what the ether that is he suggests curves is, so he leaves it unsolved. He did not know , but he was partly wrong.
Space time is a linearity of points, the linearity does not curve because we can see through space and space is clear, so the straight lines we see remain straight lines because they are virtual.
And as for future misconceptions, place a bar between the earth and the most distant planet/star, I bet you it remains a linearity and we do not see the planet/star in any sort of future.
It is simultaneous actions ,
Light is a linearity , the light does not curve from a to b and b to a.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
I understand Einstein, however we always have a direct line of sight.
added
[ Invalid Attachment ]
and until you understand this, you will continue to clutch at straws.
the net is zero, 1-1=0
-
and to be quite clear.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
c represents light or sight, because if A follows B with a telescope, and B follows A with a telescope, the simultaneous moment remains a linearity.
added - and just in case you don't understand that.
We see the Photon leaving the sun and arriving at the exact same time , we see the photon leaving, because we don't actually see the Photon leaving, we see directly through the Photon's.
-
I absolutely agree I'm not a fan of space/time either, but an ether whilst being mechanical would have to be totally mobile either as some form of super fluid or be switched on and off in tiny quantities that wouldn't register anywhere on an interference experiment no matter how accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_vacuum_theory
and to be quite clear.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
c represents light or sight, because if A follows B with a telescope, and B follows A with a telescope, the simultaneous moment remains a linearity.
A and B take up the room of c and beyond; they may make a linear path or not. Celerity is not infinite; therefore waves take up room, are smooth not square, and heed Doppler effects.
added - and just in case you don't understand that.
We see the Photon leaving the sun and arriving at the exact same time , we see the photon leaving, because we don't actually see the Photon leaving, we see directly through the Photon's.
gibberish
-
Thanks very interesting. My reasoning wasn't so daft