Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: rwjefferson on 15/09/2010 22:48:32
-
I asked this question as a new theory; http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=33609.0
and got the response I expected.
The currently known elementary states of matter are bose (einstein condensation), earth (solid), water (liquid), wind (gas), fire (plasma), and aether (dark matter).
How exactly is quantum aether disproved?
peace
~jefferson
...ether wasn't exactly disproved –
How does your own observation differ? Exactly how is aether disproved? Were m&m looking in the wrong direction?
ItS
peace
rwjefferson
-
Er, I don't think it's possible to disprove anything.
-
You missed the other part of the response:
. . . btw it's difficult to show something doesnt exist when the thing posited is universal and non-interacting
-
Additionally, the definition you're using for aether (dark matter) is different from the usual definition (the medium in which light propagates). If you want answers to the evidence for/against a kind of aether, you'll need to tell us what its properties are.
-
Luminiferous aether was disproved.
Einstein's views on the aether
In 1916, after Einstein completed his foundational work on general relativity, Lorentz wrote a letter to him in which he speculated that within general relativity the aether was re-introduced. In his response Einstein wrote that one can actually speak about a "new aether", but one may not speak of motion in relation to that aether. This was further elaborated by Einstein in some semi-popular articles (1918, 1920, 1924, 1930).[A 20][A 21][A 22][A 23][B 9][B 10][B 11]
In 1918 Einstein publicly alluded to that new definition for the first time.[A 20] Then, in the early 1920s, in a lecture which he was invited to give at Lorentz's university in Leiden, Einstein sought to reconcile the theory of relativity with his mentor's cherished concept of the aether. In this lecture Einstein stressed that, in general relativity, space is "endowed with physical quantities". He pointed out that the aether had been relativized, and thereby lost the last mechanical property that Lorentz had left it, namely, its state of motion. Thus he held that general relativity attributed physical properties to space, but no substance or state of motion can attributed to that "aether".[A 21][8]
In 1924, Einstein argued that Newton's absolute space is the "Aether of Mechanics". And within the electromagnetic theory of Maxwell and Lorentz one can speak of the "Aether of Electrodynamics", in which the aether possesses an absolute state of motion. After arguing that in special relativity motion is relative and acceleration is absolute, he said that even the "aether of special relativity" (aether = the four-dimensional space-time) is still "absolute", because matter is affected by the properties of the aether, but the aether is not affected by the presence of matter. This asymmetry was solved within general relativity. Einstein explained that the "aether of general relativity" is not absolute, because matter is influenced by the aether (aether = gravitational field), as well as matter influences the structure of the aether.[A 22]
So the only similarity of this relativistic aether concept with the classical aether models lies in the presence of physical properties in space. Therefore, as historians like John Stachel argue, Einstein's views on the "new aether" are not in conflict with his abandonment of the aether in 1905. For, as Einstein himself pointed out, no "substance" and no state of motion can be attributed to that new aether. In addition, Einstein's use of the word "aether" found no support in the scientific community, and played no role in the continuing development of modern physics.
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
-
Luminiferous aether was disproved.
It's existence has not been proven, but I don't think that's quite the same as saying it has been disproved.
Just because I have not been able to prove there is a tooth fairy, that does not mean she does not exist.
Personally, I think we will eventually determine that "the vacuum" actually is "something", but I can't prove it [:D]
-
Luminiferous aether was defined as a kind of ethereal matter surrounding us in which light has an absolute speed, meaning the speed of light is relative to the ether. So, if you are in a fixed referential frame relative to the ether you will measure a light speed of C, if you move at a speed of v relative to the ether, you will measure a light speed of C +/- V. Relativity disproved this kind of aether. You have to change its definition in order not to disproved it...
I can disproved i have blue eyes. It is important to have the same precise definition of what we are talking about...
-
I can disproved i don't have blue eyes. It is important to have the same precise definition of what we are talking about...
You can only disprove you don't have blue eyes by proving your eyes are blue.
"It is important to have the same precise definition of what we are talking about..."
-
Good post, ArkAngel.
rwjefferson, aether hasn't actually been disproved, it's just morphed away from the original concept, and the word has become rather taboo. Now we talk of "the vacuum" or "the Higgs field", or my personal favourite, plain old space. Empty space sustains fields and waves, it isn't nothing. Have a read of Einstein's 1920 Leyden Address (http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_Ether_Relativity.htm) and note this section:
"Mach’s idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gμν), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty".
That's Einstein talking about the aether of general relativity. So next time somebody tells you that Einstein did away with the aether (http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBF_en-GBGB240GB240&q=%22did+away+with+the+aether%22), take it with a pinch of salt.
-
"But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events."
The next sentences of the speech - something that has been so changed and re-defined could I think be well claimed to have been done away with. I realise you mentioned this, but I think the above section shows why the name ether is as you say 'taboo'; it leads to confusion and adds little. these are such difficult concepts that using contradictory terms doesn't help.
-
True, imatfaal. Space is a difficult concept. There's nothing there, it isn't "something", and yet it does sustain fields and waves, so it isn't "nothing" either. But IMHO the aether taboo thing is something else. It's kind of faddy, and rather hypocritical when it comes from people who talk about the Higgs field / quintessence / quantum foam or whatever.
-
and its use is not causing half as much trouble as the use of the term dark energy (dark matter brought enough nutters out of their mystical cupboards) but dark energy is a dream for the esoteric knowledge brigade.
-
That's not the half of it, imatfaal. Think about the word "quantum". It actually means "how much", but people bandy it around is if it means "weird" and "surpasseth all human understanding". There's a lot of that kind of stuff hanging around physics. Even some people inside physics rather enjoy making it all mystical and mysterious rather than clear and understandable.
By the way, talking of space and dark energy and difficult concepts, here's something interesting: space is dark, it has its innate vacuum energy, and it expands all on its own. So what would happen if you could somehow remove some of that dark energy out of the space? Let's say that space would contract. Then you've got less space. Think about it.
-
Hope it won't disturb all to much, me cherishing the idea that Einstein actually said "Thus he held that general relativity attributed physical properties to space, but no substance or state of motion can attributed to that "aether". " Seems both him and me attribute 'properties' to space, even though it primary being an absence of 'stuff'. Nice one CPT.
And on the matter :) of Aether. The idea was that there should be a 'medium' needed right? For all things to propagate in. And there isn't :) But that is also a description of our shortcomings in defining where we live I think. We look on spaceTime from a certain point of view, one of them being, as we are of matter, so shall matter be our platform of definition. But the 'matter universe' seems a very small part of SpaceTime. Most of the mass is made up of other strange things, as I understands it. So maybe the idea of a 'medium' isn't as wrong as we now think. Maybe it's our definitions that needs a overhaul. We do have a tendency to believe ourselves the crown of evolution :)
-
Maybe "cherish" is a bit much, yor-on. But I too pay attention to what Einstein actually said. And in that Leyden Address, I pay close attention to what he said about Weyl. I'm pretty sure I know how it works, to do with gauge change and displacement current, but I guess this isn't the place for it:
SPACE EXPLAINED
What the heck is space? We often think of it as nothing, but actually it’s impossible to imagine nothing. Nothing is a tricky concept that people take for granted. Close your eyes and try to imagine nothing. What colour is it? Blue? No. It can’t be nothing if it’s got a colour. How heavy is it? A kilogram? No, it can’t be nothing if it’s got a mass. How big is it? A metre across? No, it can’t be nothing if it’s got a size. Here’s a picture of it: Did you get that? Here it is again: Got the picture? There isn’t any picture. When you dig down to what nothing is, you find it has no properties at all, and you can’t hold it in your mind. It slips between your fingers. You can’t imagine nothing because it’s just not there. Nothing doesn't exist.
Space isn’t nothing. Space has got a size, so space definitely isn’t nothing. But that’s all it’s got. It’s a one-trick pony, and the only trick is distance. Yet just like Google, it’s pretty darn brilliant...
-
Well there are some more things too it, like that vacuum energy and those virtual photons but on the whole I agree Farsight. Distances is the really remarkable thing for a 'nothing' to contain. As for what he 'really said' there seems to be a lot of interpretations of what he 'really meant' by what he 'really said' :)
You choose yours and I'll choose mine ::))
It's a pity he isn't around.
-
The Aether has been resurrected with the works of Steven Rado - Aethro-Kinematics; in 1994. There Rado returns to the first real model of the Aether proposed by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier. Fatio was a friend of Isaac Newton, and presented an Aether Gas Theory as the cause for gravitation. Newton encouraged Fatio to present his work to the Royal Society. Which Fatio did! Fatio promised that someday he would write his own Principia. However this did not happen until 300 years later in 2010; when Robert Louis Kemp writes the Super Principia.
Newton decided that he would not propose a cause for Gravity, and left that job up to Fatio and others; with his "Non-Fingo hypothesis" for Gravitation. However, Newton stated that if there was a cause for Gravity it could possibly be described by Fatio's Aether Theory.
The various concepts of the Aether were described over the centuries by great scientist and physicist such as: Nicolas Copernicus (c. 1500), Johannes Kepler (c. 1600), Rene Descartes (c. 1600), Isaac Newton (c. 1700), Fatio de Duillier (c. 1700), Georges-Louis Le Sage (c. 1700), Michael Faraday (c. 1800), James Clerk Maxwell (c. 1800), Albert Einstein (c. 1900), Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (c. 1900), Alexander Friedmann (c. 1900), and Steven Rado (c. 2000).
-
Maybe "cherish" is a bit much, yor-on. But I too pay attention to what Einstein actually said. And in that Leyden Address, I pay close attention to what he said about Weyl. I'm pretty sure I know how it works, to do with gauge change and displacement current, but I guess this isn't the place for it:
SPACE EXPLAINED
What the heck is space? We often think of it as nothing, but actually it’s impossible to imagine nothing. Nothing is a tricky concept that people take for granted. Close your eyes and try to imagine nothing. What colour is it? Blue? No. It can’t be nothing if it’s got a colour. How heavy is it? A kilogram? No, it can’t be nothing if it’s got a mass. How big is it? A metre across? No, it can’t be nothing if it’s got a size. Here’s a picture of it: Did you get that? Here it is again: Got the picture? There isn’t any picture. When you dig down to what nothing is, you find it has no properties at all, and you can’t hold it in your mind. It slips between your fingers. You can’t imagine nothing because it’s just not there. Nothing doesn't exist.
Space isn’t nothing. Space has got a size, so space definitely isn’t nothing. But that’s all it’s got. It’s a one-trick pony, and the only trick is distance. Yet just like Google, it’s pretty darn
If Space has size, it must have dimensions. What are its dimensions? Thanks for comments. Joe L. Ogan
-
Height width and depth, Joe. But waves move through it, and they're waves in space. So there's another "dimension" too. We call it time. But we can't really move through this dimension because it's derived from motion through space.
Yor-on: it sure is. The one-trick pony thing comes down to what's "waving" in a wave in space. Ever heard about displacement current? There was a good article on this in last month's PhysicsWorld magazine, but sadly it isn't online. The thing is, a light wave involves an electromagnetic field variation, but there's no charged particle there. But the field is varying, so there has to be a current of sorts. It can't be the usual "conduction" current because there's no charged particle. So it has to be displacement current. Think about what's waving in a wave in space, and take that displacement current at face value. Have a read about gravitational waves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave) to catch the drift of this gauge change thing.
-
Well, I agree Joe. Distance is a dimension, and as it contain all those other properties, height, width and length it cover it all :) Well, except time. But without time you can't prove any distance, can you? So we might say that time is a precursor assumed in all discussion of a distance.
There are several way to look at distances. We split them in so called dimensions, getting three and then time the precursor of course. That way we can treat them as divisible and build new theories including and allowing new 'dimensions' like string theory does. But SpaceTime don't treat 'dimensions' that way, to SpaceTime there is only one 'dimension' and time, if you accept my reasoning around distance. That 'distance' is the one existing and contain the three properties we like to split.
That universe is 'undivided', not allowing us to split it into just one property, like length f. ex. All three 'glued' together into one as i see it, making it a jello-like substance in where we moves by the help of times arrow.
So what are 'dimensions' and what are that 'distance' you can break it/them down too?
-
It's not that I disagree in there can be other 'dimensionality's'
Just that I question the assumed 'divisibility' of them.
Think of it as 'properties' instead. Then we can have how many you like, all unique, but here we will have what we have. String theory will still be able to be right in there being other properties to our SpaceTime but then our universe also will have to be seen as eleven, or whatever, contained in form of 'properties', but not 'divided'.
Can't prove this though, but it suits me :)
Also it makes it possible for me to see SpaceTime as something coming into existence as a 'whole thing' which makes much more sense to me than to expect it to be yet another type of singular 'forces' now called 'dimensions' that somehow gets 'glued together' into a SpaceTime.
This 'glue problem' that I see it as is one of the most puzzling questions I have. And it comes into play whenever we discuss singular 'forces'. Simply expressed it can be stated as 'Where exactly is the interface' and how do those 'interfaces between forces' become 'glued'. By what? And also, what do you expect to be between the interfaces?
-
If you imagine a cube of jelly, representing SpaceTime, then 'frames of reference', to me, becomes the correct way of describing it. This cube will exist at all times, but its 'distance(s)' will differ on your observation from what frame, be it 'moving' or 'still' relative something else. The only way to define yourself as moving as I understands it is when you accelerate, and probably only when doing it non-linearly, at least not when doing it in a uniform acceleration (at a constant One G for example).
The mystery of this 'cube' is that it can shrink with appearant motion at the same time as an uniform motion inside a black box, again as far as I get it, is impossible to differ from any other uniform motion at a different speed, relative some common originator. Now you can point point that I'm mixing the metaphors here as I on the same time calling it a 'black box' on the same time referring to a 'common origin' making it possible for me to define a velocity to that black box. And you would be right in that, but I'm assuming the eye of an God in this, and you might think of it as me being in a superposition :) Knowing without knowing.
-
And if you want to be truly drastic you might want to turn that around, it's not me, it's actually SpaceTime being in a 'super-position' :).
==
And if you look at it that way, then the 'defined states' we assume to make up a 'history' inside our SpaceTime only 'materialize' because ?? And there I stop imagining, to me it comes down to what 'times arrow' is, and how it can realize those states.
I don't really have a problem with entanglements and superpositions, although they become very weird when combined with the idea of 'times arrow'. You could argue that we need an arrow to observe them of course :)
Maybe the correct way to look at SpaceTime is without 'times arrow'?
Like some gigantic infinite 'soup' of possibilities, all there at the same 'time'? But we are born, and we die, all of us do. We 'do work' only under this arrow of time, so?
Also time seems to contain greater patterns, coming back at a regular pace, sort of chaos-constants. How would that coincide with it being in a 'super-position'? Maybe if we looked at as 'fractals'? Like the universe being similar cubes inside cubes inside ...
But that still don't explain times arrow, if the arrow wouldn't be that motion, ourselves unknowing from 'cube to apparent cube?' to us describing times arrow, but to SpaceTime not being a motion at all. Like some constant change of 'focus'
When do I get the paper?
Sh* I gotta be certified now ::))
And, how the he* does it do it?
-
Bear in mind that the aether could not have been a simple elastic.
In fact it would have needed pretty miraculous properties.
-
Just because it clearly has miraculous properties, we should not deny its existence. The mere fact that light has speed should be a significant clue.
-
But then it's just "the vacuum" by another name. I think the reason aether has been dropped is because the original theory specified a material with very specific properties and the vacuum was found not to be filled with or made up of this material. The modern idea of how the vacuum behaves and how light propagates through it is so different from the original aether theories that it doesn't make sense to use the name anymore.
I do agree that the vacuum is a kind of "stuff." The word vacuum shouldn't be taken to mean an absolute void--if that were the case, then light couldn't propagate through it!
-
I wrote "The mystery of this 'cube' is that it can shrink with appearant motion at the same time as an uniform motion inside a black box, again as far as I get it, is impossible to differ from any other uniform motion at a different speed, relative some common originator."
Let us apply some 'logic' to that statement. Either I am right in that you can't differ one uniform motion from another, in which case the idea of SpaceTime adapting to your 'appearant motion' becomes very weird.
Or I'm wrong.
So, anyone wanna tell me how to differ the 'velocity' in a uniform motion, inside that black box?
Can there be a third possibility? How about if all 'motion' etc, just as 'frames of reference', is a definition from exactly the 'point' you are, consciously perceiving it or not? Just as 'time' seems to be? A statement made from each point. Would that make it possible for SpaceTime to adapt to something we can't differ?
Sure, I guess? If we all have our own 'unique' SpaceTime, why not. Like a 'backpack' of relations you carry around with you, going all the way from the microscopic to the macroscopic. But hey, how the he* can anything like that still present us with this 'whole relation' of a 'united SpaceTime?
Don't know?
How can time do it?
==
Not really huh :)
It seems to introduce a 'magic universe', as from what definition would my 'bag pack' decide to 'shrink the universe' and why? We could assume that I slept under a acceleration, then woke up to measure distances not knowing, I would still get the same results, wouldn't I?
So the 'shrinking' have to be something related to my 'point of existence', but unrelated to my expectations.
I hate this :) well, no, not really ::))
-
The weird thing about it is that it circumstances all logic I can think of. Also it introduces a element of 'objectivity' to a situation where I can't find any 'universal gold-standard' taking care of it. Assume that all 'motion' is a definition from the 'history' of your 'point of reference', also assume that the universe truly shrinks with it.
How does it differ between me 'moving' or not?
Think of it this way, you're moving uniformly, close to light speed, and send out a photon.
As you measure it it will move from you at the speed of light, not as something 'syrupy' that you almost :) can catch up to, but really, at 'the speed of light' relative you. :)
What do I have there?
Either I'm moving close to light-speed, as defined by some common origin, or I'm not. But that light 'ignored' it, in the act also telling me that my 'frame' is 'inconsistent'. Would it differ if I was accelerating instead doing the same test? Not really, the light would act the same. So it has nothing to do with what type of 'motion' is created. But, acceleration we expect to be able to define from inside a 'black box', at least the non-linear type, uniform motion we can't? So if we can't differ it, how can the Universe? Either there is a logic to the universe, making sense to me too. Or the logic the universe use is very different from how I see it?
==
And yeah, an 'aether' might solve it? At least the question of how to define the 'speed/velocity' of a 'uniform motion' :) But if it exist it's nothing we can see, or prove. Although? If we can't explain how the universe can differ between 'uniform motions' ??
-
The real question is about what 'motion' should be seen as of course :) On Earth we have it easy, we always know if we are in motion relative it. But when you ask what 'motion' is generally it becomes weird. If all frames will present us with 'new standards' using lights invariance as the arbiter, then every 'frame' becomes a 'dimension/SpaceTime' of its own, and just as 'frames of reference', or for that sake time, impossible to define as 'instants'.
That you 'freeze' a moment of time in making a observation tells you nothing about what time, 'frames of reference', or motion in 'reality' consists of. It doesn't define it as 'instants', and neither you may argue does it prove it to be a 'flow'.
That I like to think of it as a flow has mostly to do with the problem of 'gluing' them together, that's also why I expect 'forces' to be expressions of something 'whole' somewhere :) And it's also one of the reasons why I wonder if light have a 'motion'?
==
Ignore my ravings.
Just tell me how to differ a 'uniform motion' from another inside a 'black box' :)
-
But then it's just "the vacuum" by another name. I think the reason aether has been dropped is because the original theory specified a material with very specific properties and the vacuum was found not to be filled with or made up of this material. The modern idea of how the vacuum behaves and how light propagates through it is so different from the original aether theories that it doesn't make sense to use the name anymore.
I do agree that the vacuum is a kind of "stuff." The word vacuum shouldn't be taken to mean an absolute void--if that were the case, then light couldn't propagate through it!
OK - I like that. I was under the misguided impression that it was commonly accepted that space was truly nothingness, and I have a suspicion that I may not be alone, but I could never reconcile how something that was not anything could have any properties at all - if you see what I mean.
Maybe I should start another thread. How about "What the bleep is space?"
-
I think a problem with current theories is that general relativity and quantum mechanics both describe the vacuum as having properties, but those properties don't agree!
Quantum field theory, for example, says that a vacuum isn't actually empty. The only way things can move through a vacuum is if the underlying fields are present everywhere. These fields have properties, and so the vacuum has properties. In a sense, you could call this an aether, but its properties aren't like those proposed for the luminiferous aether, since these fields don't behave like matter. That's why I think it's a bit confusing to call it aether.
There's also general relativity, in which the vacuum can distort in response to matter or energy. The vacuum also has geometric properties here, but again, these are quite different from those of the luminiferous aether.
The thing is that if you're not dealing with tiny things (quantum mechanics) or large scales/strong gravity (general relativity), treating the vacuum as completely empty is perfectly valid.
-
I always thing of aether as the medium through which light, magnetism and radio signals can be transmitted. It is a 3D effect and the vacuum in space must be magnetized also. Space is not empty but a fully electrified volume of ? massless ?aether
CliveS
-
hindsight.101
Kind and well reasoned responses are all ways greatly appreciated.
I never said aether does not propagate light. I said force in verse everything is inertial differential. I said shape is not the same as force. I said m&m were looking in the wrong direction. I said...
physics.101
force is inertial differential
mass tends toward relative rest
matter flows towards lower pressure
inflation forces condensation
matter is energy in verse mass by spacetime constant
as wave is better measured; relative measure of particle is lost
aether.101
space is also fluent
time is a measure of the relative flow of aether
gravity is also a measure of the aether wind
the relative viscosity of aether is hubble by the speed of light constant
light is an electromagnetic wave propagated by particles of quantum aether
as the relative velocity of aether exceeds c; waves cannot escape the flow
to measure the relative velocity by vector of the aether wind; stand on a scale; look up
Aether predicts dark matter and dark energy and acceleration by galactic vortex and drag on pioneering spaceships and even the accelerating expansion of the universe; shape (i.e. dome and sphere and warp and string) does not. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Offer your extraordinary observation that is not consistent with aether and inertial differential.
I am
ItS
r~
-
The only way aether can exist is if it is extra dimensions. This dimensions are not associated with time in our dimensions but it implies that it would be associated with a different time dimension than ours, because light doesn't possess a constant speed in that medium, but it interacts with matter...
-
The first paragraph in this post explains of what your aether is composed. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=34333.msg325530#msg325530
-
Hi Ron
A chap called Urban came up with a similar idea but light is electromagnetic not electro static. 3D electricity is electromagnetic as well a light but both are massless and therefore have nothing to do with particles or electrons [apart from the holes in the outer shell]. I agree with JP that vacuum is made of a kind of "stuff" and would add magnetic flux stuff.
CliveS
-
science vs dogma.101
acsinuk
I will agree aether is not disproved; much less a new theory.
CPTArkAngel
I will agree quantum aether predicts other dimensions.
uncertanity.101
Ron
I will agree light is a wave of electromagnetic energy and energy is equally the opposite of mass by spacetime constant and e=mc^2 and f=ma and f=(e/c^2)a et al that follows.
rami
m&m predicted earth cycles through a luminiferous ether. There are no findings consistent with the hypothesis that aether is not fluent.
relativity.101
force is inertial differential
relative equivalence is not the same as same as
shape is not the same as force
warp is a mathematical calculation of the shape of the universe
warp is not the same as inertial differential
science.101
kind and well reasoned responses even critical debates are always greatly appreciated
evangelism and censorship in the name of dogma not so much
force is inertial differential
peace
ron