Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: thedoc on 26/04/2016 23:50:01
-
John Lindop asked the Naked Scientists:
From the ancient Greek philosophers down to Oliver Loge and beyond the view that we exits in and are made of some sort of dense energy field called the aether , evidence, in part, by the velocity of light et al is quite compelling.
Where is the evidence that the aether does not exist ?
What do you think?
-
Where is the evidence that the aether does not exist ?
The Michelson–Morley experiment looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moves through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. The aether is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. Particles of matter move through and displace the aether. The wave of wave-particle duality is a wave in the aether.
There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit is performed, it's what waves.
'From the Newton's laws to motions of the fluid and superfluid vacuum: vortex tubes, rings, and others'
arxiv.org/abs/1403.3900
This medium, called also the aether, has mass and is populated by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it
...
... and displace it.
'EPR program: a local interpretation of QM'
arxiv.org/abs/1412.5612
Wave particle duality is described as the compound system of point particle plus accompanying wave (in the æther).
-
There's no way to disprove Aether, but it's implicit in Maxwell's equations that it is impossible to detect the Aether if it exists, using any electromagnetic measurement.
-
From the ancient Greek philosophers down to Oliver Loge and beyond the view that we exits in and are made of some sort of dense energy field called the aether , evidence, in part, by the velocity of light et al is quite compelling.
Where is the evidence that the aether does not exist ?
It's a well-known facts of the scientific method is that it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. With that in mind, it's not possible to prove that something doesn't exist. Given that you really asked where is the evidence that the aether doesn't exist then we can discuss that logically. In what follows please keep in mind that scientific reasoning results in probabilities, not certainties. By the way, you might find the definition of (scientific) energy to be a lot different that you might have imagined.
The term scientific evidence is defined as follows. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence
Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.
The term evidence is defined as follows. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.
As mentioned above, the Michelson-Morley experiment and the Trouton–Noble experiment. You're most likely familiar with Michelson-Morley experiment. The Trouton–Noble experiment was an attempt to detect motion of the Earth through the luminiferous aether, and was conducted in 1901–1903 by Frederick Thomas Trouton (who also developed the Trouton's ratio) and H. R. Noble. It was based on a suggestion by George FitzGerald that a charged parallel-plate capacitor moving through the aether should orient itself perpendicular to the motion. The results of each experiment were null, meaning that the results were consistent with the Earth not moving through or dependent on an aether or any medium which supported electromagnetic waves. Both of those experiments and their outcome is the evidence that there is no aether.
The wave of wave-particle duality is a wave in the aether. ... There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit is performed, it's what waves.
The waves which are spoken of in quantum mechanics are not physical waves in that they have no physical reality. They are merely mathematical devices which, e.g. for a photon, are used to define the probability density that the photon will be observed/detected at a particular place at a particular time. If an aether actually did exist then it would be totally unrelated to quantum mechanical waves.
There's no way to disprove Aether, but it's implicit in Maxwell's equations that it is impossible to detect the Aether if it exists, using any electromagnetic measurement.
Maxwell's equations cannot be applied for such a purpose. Those equations would be valid in an aether if the permittivity and permeability of free space were variables whose values depended on the observer's frame of reference.
-
The waves which are spoken of in quantum mechanics are not physical waves in that they have no physical reality. They are merely mathematical devices which, e.g. for a photon, are used to define the probability density that the photon will be observed/detected at a particular place at a particular time. If an aether actually did exist then it would be totally unrelated to quantum mechanical waves.
The aether does exist and it is what waves in a double slit experiment.
Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment?
A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.
-
Both of those experiments and their outcome is the evidence that there is no aether.
or more precisely, their outcome is the evidence that there is no aether of the sort scientists were then looking for. The experiments do not disprove the possibility of an aether having some radically different properties.
The waves which are spoken of in quantum mechanics are not physical waves in that they have no physical reality. They are merely mathematical devices which, e.g. for a photon, are used to define the probability density that the photon will be observed/detected at a particular place at a particular time.
It is not necessary to assume that quantum waves have no physical reality in order to also say that they manifest themselves only in determining the probabilities of particle detection. Their reality and their probabilistic interpretation can be reconciled if there is some principle in the quantum order of things that makes it impossible to precisely replicate a quantum experiment and also impossible to fully observe a quantum result. This inherent limitation on the transfer of information would give probabilistic results even for waves having physical reality.
If an aether actually did exist then it would be totally unrelated to quantum mechanical waves.
There is no reason why this must necessarily be true, in view of the foregoing.
Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment?
A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.
This is probably incorrect. The notion that there is a particle and a separate associated wave is a problematic concept that, on close inspection, need not be assumed. The correct view is very likely that the wave and particle are not distinct objects, but different manifestations of the same object. One of the consequences of that is, that there is no compelling reason to suppose that the "particle" when passing through the slits is confined to a single location. It is confined to a single location when, and only when, it is observed at a single location. I believe it is possible in principle to observe it in such a way that it is clearly not located at a single location, but to do that would require an exotic experiment, of which I have written elsewhere. In any case, we err to suppose that the particle exists as a localized particle prior to its detection as such. The process of detection has much to do with why it looks like a particle at a single location. therefore it is unnecessary to inquire as to which slit the particle passes through; it passes through both.
-
Where is the evidence that the aether does not exist ?
- We have all seen the light of the Sun reaching the Earth through the vacuum of space.
- For the last 2 centuries or so, it has been evident that the Earth is swinging around the Sun at some impressive speed like 100,000 km/hr.
- If light were some vibration in the Aether (which is one interpretation of Maxwell's equations), then this Aether would have to be stiffer than steel.
A material which is stiffer than steel, and lighter than gossamer; when it does not disturb an astronaut floating freely on a spacewalk, it is time to look for another explanation!
In some ways, quantum theory gave us an alternative explanation - light has the characteristics of a particle, and we can imagine photons like little bullets flying through the air or through a vacuum.
Bullets don't need a medium to travel through - in fact it would impede their progress (lose energy) if they had to push something out of the way. This would be visible in the case of light as a red shift which should be visible between a stationary source and detector in the lab.
-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:
It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.
-
We have all seen the light of the Sun reaching the Earth through the vacuum of space.
For the last 2 centuries or so, it has been evident that the Earth is swinging around the Sun at some impressive speed like 100,000 km/hr.
This is just the kind of obtuse, obfuscating answer which can and does ruin an otherwise fruitful discussion. Look at these two statements and then consider your reply:
or more precisely, their outcome is the evidence that there is no aether of the sort scientists were then looking for. The experiments do not disprove the possibility of an aether having some radically different properties.
There's no way to disprove Aether, but it's implicit in Maxwell's equations that it is impossible to detect the Aether if it exists, using any electromagnetic measurement.
To both of these reasonable statements you replied with :
If light were some vibration in the Aether (which is one interpretation of Maxwell's equations), then this Aether would have to be stiffer than steel.
A material which is stiffer than steel, and lighter than gossamer; when it does not disturb an astronaut floating freely on a spacewalk, it is time to look for another explanation!
You do go onto to redeem yourself with the next statement:
evan_au : In some ways, quantum theory gave us an alternative explanation - light has the characteristics of a particle, and we can imagine photons like little bullets flying through the air or through a vacuum.
Bullets don't need a medium to travel through - in fact it would impede their progress (lose energy) if they had to push something out of the way. This would be visible in the case of light as a red shift which should be visible between a stationary source and detector in the lab.
The redeemin factor being the words : In some ways." The only problem is that you have completely ignored the wave aspect, it is well recorded in the literature of Quantum Mechanics, that as they travel through space photons ( because of the wave properties) are disassociated ( they exist everywhere at least as far as probability goes) and then when detected they are no more disassociated but are found in only one place. So I am afraid your answer is half baked and lacking clarity.
Incidentally the aether would have to be "stiffer than steel" because transverse waves cannot travel in a dispersive medium like fluids and gases. Thus electromagnetic radiation should not be able to propagate at all through air, the only reason ( according to Maxwell) that they are able to propagate is because of the self sustaining electric and magnetic fields generated by electrons in motion. Incidentally Maxwell's equations are a wave theory, the Quantum Mechanics attempt to adapt this theory to a particle theory is pathetic.
It is not necessary to assume that quantum waves have no physical reality in order to also say that they manifest themselves only in determining the probabilities of particle detection. Their reality and their probabilistic interpretation can be reconciled if there is some principle in the quantum order of things that makes it impossible to precisely replicate a quantum experiment and also impossible to fully observe a quantum result. This inherent limitation on the transfer of information would give probabilistic results even for waves having physical reality.
This is a dodgy interpretation at best, Max Born the founder of quantum probability theory stated: “ We have two possibilities. Either we use waves in space of more than three dimensions…………..or we remain in three dimensional space, but give up the simple picture of the wave amplitude as an ordinary physical magnitude , and replace it with a purely mathematical concept into which we cannot enter.” I can't see much reality in that !
This is probably incorrect. The notion that there is a particle and a separate associated wave is a problematic concept that, on close inspection, need not be assumed. The correct view is very likely that the wave and particle are not distinct objects, but different manifestations of the same object.
What IF both manifestations existed simultaneously in one object in a synthesis of a particle and a wave. Take lithotripsy as an example, it is manifestly a wave BUT it can shatter stones, a purely particle property. Here it should be noted that when you hit a stone with a hammer it shatters because of the vibrations set up in it, lithotripsy works in exactly the same way, so it is a synthesis of a wave and a particle.
As mentioned above, the Michelson-Morley experiment and the Trouton–Noble experiment. You're most likely familiar with Michelson-Morley experiment. The Trouton–Noble experiment was an attempt to detect motion of the Earth through the luminiferous aether, and was conducted in 1901–1903 by Frederick Thomas Trouton (who also developed the Trouton's ratio) and H. R. Noble.
I have no doubt that these experiments which are repeatedly quoted had the same versimillitude that the LIGO experiments have today, with billionths and trillionths of accuracy claimed ??
Another quote from Max Born:
I am now convinced that theoretical physics is actual philosophy.
Autobiography
I for one don't want philosophy! I want to know how a current travels through a wire. I want to know what causes magnetism, instead of philosophising about it.
-
Could anything be more telling than the passage quoted by stacyjones in 2016!
-
Could anything be more telling than the passage quoted by stacyjones in 2016!
physics.stanford.edu/people/faculty/robert-laughlin
Faculty Type: Active Faculty
Title: Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Physics
Co-recipient of the Nobel Prize for Physics, 1998
-
Where is the evidence that the aether does not exist ?
Occam requires evidence that it does exist.
So it is incumbent on its proponents to define a measurable property or function of aether that cannot be explained by other means.
-
Where is the evidence that the aether does not exist ?
Occam requires evidence that it does exist.
So it is incumbent on its proponents to define a measurable property or function of aether that cannot be explained by other means.
In a boat double slit experiment are you able to understand the boat travels through a single slit even when your eyes are closed?
It's the same with the particle 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.
It's thinking the particle doesn't always travel through a single slit which is incorrect.
Occam's razor: 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 irrelevant if the aether exists. It is unnecessary as it adds nothing to the physics. The physics works quite happily without it. Please explain what new properties it explains or what anomalies it resolves. If you just type very large paragraphs that doesn't make up for a lack of mathematics.
-
It is irrelevant if the aether exists. It is unnecessary as it adds nothing to the physics. The physics works quite happily without it. Please explain what new properties it explains or what anomalies it resolves. If you just type very large paragraphs that doesn't make up for a lack of mathematics.
It explains what waves in terms of wave-particle duality. It relates general relativity and quantum mechanics. It resolves the nonsense of a supposed weakly interacting dark matter that travels with the matter.
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, including 'particles' as large as galaxy clusters.
What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment, the aether.
Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality, both are waves in the aether.
Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.
-
The problem with wave-particle duality is that some people believe in it!
Whilst you can model the behavior of many particles with a wave, a single particle such as a visible photon or 10 keV electron cannot interact with a receptor (a photographic film or fluorescent plate) over an extended area - it doesn't have enough energy.
Therefore whilst a wave model gives an accurate prediction of the distribution of an ensemble of particles or quanta, or the probability of finding one particle or photon at any particular point in space, it can't be said that waves actually direct the particles to their destinations.
-
it can't be said that waves actually direct the particles to their destinations.
Of course it can.
-
So how does the particle decide which part of the wave it is going to follow? It can't follow the entire wave, or it wouldn't have enough energy density to record an interaction with the receptor.
All the macrosopic stuff about travelling waves is great fun, and we do use travelling waves to accelerate electrons, but that's a classical contuinuum phenomenon, not a quantum interaction.
-
So how does the particle decide which part of the wave it is going to follow? It can't follow the entire wave, or it wouldn't have enough energy density to record an interaction with the receptor.
en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Stewart_Bell
While the founding fathers agonized over the question 'particle' or 'wave', de Broglie in 1925 proposed the obvious answer 'particle' and 'wave'. Is it not clear from the smallness of the scintillation on the screen that we have to do with a particle? And is it not clear, from the diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the particle is directed by a wave? De Broglie showed in detail how the motion of a particle, passing through just one of two holes in screen, could be influenced by waves propagating through both holes. And so influenced that the particle does not go where the waves cancel out, but is attracted to where they cooperate. This idea seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored.
All the macrosopic stuff about travelling waves is great fun, and we do use travelling waves to accelerate electrons, but that's a classical contuinuum phenomenon, not a quantum interaction.
The whole point is wave-particle duality can be explained classically.
NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION by LOUIS DE BROGLIE
“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’
newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/fluid-systems-quantum-mechanics-0912
“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’
sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729111934.htm
“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.
-
You appear to be determined to misunderstand and not listen to reason so good luck in your endeavors.
-
You appear to be determined to misunderstand and not listen to reason so good luck in your endeavors.
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.
You appear to be determined to misunderstand and not listen to reason so good luck in your endeavors.
-
Either we use waves in space of more than three dimensions…………..or we remain in three dimensional space, but give up the simple picture of the wave amplitude as an ordinary physical magnitude
I understand that electromagnetism has a particularly simple structure in 5 dimensions.
I understand that gravity has a particularly simple structure in 10 dimensions.
But my 5 & 10 dimensional maths is non-existent, so I will have to take the word of others for it.
Extra dimensions work well as a mathematical tool; what we lack is some experimental evidence for them (or some theoretical solution that can't be obtained in other ways).
-
The whole point is wave-particle duality can be explained classically.
Why bother, when quantum mechanics does the job without invoking aether, and unlike classical mechanics, allows the hydrogen atom to exist, black body radiation to have finite energy, photoelectricity to have a threshold work function, and the transistors in this computer to work.
-
The whole point is wave-particle duality can be explained classically.
Why bother, when quantum mechanics does the job without invoking aether, and unlike classical mechanics, allows the hydrogen atom to exist, black body radiation to have finite energy, photoelectricity to have a threshold work function, and the transistors in this computer to work.
Because it relates general relativity and quantum mechanics. Aether has mass and is displaced by matter. What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment, the aether. Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality, both are waves in the aether. Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.
-
Aether has mass
What is the mass or density of aether?
-
Aether has mass
What is the mass or density of aether?
Do you need to know the mass density of the water in order to understand a boat has a bow wave?
-
I understand that electromagnetism has a particularly simple structure in 5 dimensions.
I understand that gravity has a particularly simple structure in 10 dimensions.
But my 5 & 10 dimensional maths is non-existent, so I will have to take the word of others for it.
Extra dimensions work well as a mathematical tool; what we lack is some experimental evidence for them (or some theoretical solution that can't be obtained in other ways).
The problem with the concept of 'understanding' is defined by your own definition; it can sometimes be 'non-existent'. IF an empirical solution is available why go into these esoteric solutions. Take wave-particle duality as a starting point, this is where extra dimensions and all the other eerie concepts came into physics. What if wave particle duality does not exist and other simpler alternative explanations do exist, how is it possible to go on believing in '5 dimensions and 10 dimensions' but also to try and convince others to believe in the same thing. Not only do proponents of extra dimensions try to convince others about these highly improbable scenarios but they are rabid in their efforts to do so and also unfortunately are in the majority. A Swift like situation that is so improbable as to be amusing.
Now that you have come to accept the existence of extra dimensions in Quantum Mechanics, it is time to remind you that Schrodinger's wave function equation implies the existence of 276 extra dimensions. What a crazy beginning for a crazy theory!
-
What is the mass or density of aether?
Although I do not prescribe to stacy jones assertion that the aether and matter waves are the same or to several of his other ideas, I do believe in the concept of an aether and can also give some idea of its mass. According to the Gestalt Aether Theory, a 'virtual photon' of the 'virtual photon aether' has an energy of about 10 -50 J. If one considers mass energy equivalence it is possible to see that the aether must have mass, further if the energy of a single 'virtual photon' is multiplied by the volume of the Universe, it will even be possible to calculate the effect that this mass has on the Universe. The 'dimensions' of these virtual photons can be taken as (10-6m)2.
-
What is the mass or density of aether?
Although I do not prescribe to stacy jones assertion that the aether and matter waves are the same or to several of his other ideas, I do believe in the concept of an aether and can also give some idea of its mass. According to the Gestalt Aether Theory, a 'virtual photon' of the 'virtual photon aether' has an energy of about 10 -50 J. If one considers mass energy equivalence it is possible to see that the aether must have mass, further if the energy of a single 'virtual photon' is multiplied by the volume of the Universe, it will even be possible to calculate the effect that this mass has on the Universe. The 'dimensions' of these virtual photons can be taken as (10-6m)2.
No need for 'virtual' photons. You can consider the aether.to be a sea of photons which are displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
-
Do you need to know the mass density of the water in order to understand a boat has a bow wave?
If I want to calculate the bow wave, yes. And if I assert that something has mass, I expect my customers to ask me how much.
As you are putting forward the notion of an aether wave being predictive of electron diffraction (which I can measure precisely) and gravitation (which I can measure precisely) you must have a very precise idea of the density and compressive modulus of aether. Please tell us.
And whilst you are at it, perhaps you can explain the difference betweenthe bow wave of a boat, which is determined by the speed and direction of the boat, and the pilot wave of your particles: how does the wave know how fast to travel? What happens to the wave when a particle annihilates?
If the pilot wave precedes the particle, it must anticipate the position of a photon. Relativity says you can't anticipate the position of a photon. So you can't use the aether theory to marry relativity with quantum mechanics. This is a pity as relativity gives us some very useful and precisely predictive insights into gravitation, nuclear physics, and navigation. Unlike aether theory whcih gives us nothing.
-
Do you need to know the mass density of the water in order to understand a boat has a bow wave?
If I want to calculate the bow wave, yes. And if I assert that something has mass, I expect my customers to ask me how much.
As you are putting forward the notion of an aether wave being predictive of electron diffraction (which I can measure precisely) and gravitation (which I can measure precisely) you must have a very precise idea of the density and compressive modulus of aether. Please tell us.
And whilst you are at it, perhaps you can explain the difference betweenthe bow wave of a boat, which is determined by the speed and direction of the boat, and the pilot wave of your particles: how does the wave know how fast to travel? What happens to the wave when a particle annihilates?
If the pilot wave precedes the particle, it must anticipate the position of a photon. Relativity says you can't anticipate the position of a photon. So you can't use the aether theory to marry relativity with quantum mechanics. This is a pity as relativity gives us some very useful and precisely predictive insights into gravitation, nuclear physics, and navigation. Unlike aether theory whcih gives us nothing.
Aether displaced by matter gives you what relates general relativity and quantum mechanics. What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment, the aether. Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality, both are waves in the aether. Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.
-
Then please show us the numbers.
-
Then please show us the numbers.
'From the Newton's laws to motions of the fluid and superfluid vacuum: vortex tubes, rings, and others'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3900
"This medium, called also the aether, has mass and is populated by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it" ...
... and displace it.
'EPR program: a local interpretation of QM'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.5612
"Wave particle duality is described as the compound system of point particle plus accompanying wave (in the æther)."
-
If you look at our universe there is a net conversion of matter to energy. Energy to matter may have been the case in the beginning of the universe. However, with the introduction of the forces of nature, after that, the opposite is true. Since energy moves at the speed of light and matter can't move at the speed of light, a net conversion of matter to energy, also implies a movement from inertial reference to the speed of light reference, with the speed of light, at lower potential. This is not tradition, but it follows from relativity and observation.
The aether has a connection to the ground state; speed of light. Both camps of thought are correct. The aether is not a thing, per se, to be measured. Rather is it connected to the impact of the speed of light ground state on inertial reference.
As an analogy, on earth we have the sea level, which is the place where all the atmospheric and land water goes. This is a place of lowest potential. The movement of all the surface and atmospheric water, whether it starts in the clouds, mountains, forest streams, rivers and lakes, moves in response to the potential with sea level. If this analogy, the different wavelengths of photon are analogous to the where the water begins; cloud = gamma. The sea level is not a medium, per se, but rather a destination for the lowering of the potential. The potential with sea level will allow some water to seep, tunnel, split and meander.
If you look at photons, they have two legs. Photons travel at the speed of light, while also showing finite expressions we call wavelength and frequency. The paradox this creates is, at the speed of light, the universe will appear contracted to a point-instant. The question is, how can photons generate finite wavelengths, if these will appear as a fraction of a point in its speed of light reference? A fraction of a point is not mathematically possible. Also how can we have a variety of wavelengths; EM spectrum, if the speed of light can only see one reference; infinite wavelength? We know photons do this, but how?
It comes back to the speed of light ground state and the higher potential of inertial reference. Photons exist in both references. One leg is planted in the ground state, while the other is in the higher potential inertial references. Another analogy is a spring attached at one point, which is always the place of lowest potential. Inertial references will stretch the spring to define different wavelengths and potential with the ground state. Since C is the ground state, photons will lower potential; travel at C, while also being pulled to higher potential; wave.
In terms of a medium analogy, say we have a boat traveling on the water. The boat is like the particle and its wake is the wave. Since the medium will cause some drag on the boat, to maintain the wake we need to constantly add energy via engine. If we cut the engine, the particle; boat, will remain, but there is no wake. The engine of the photon boat is the connected to the constant potential between inertial and the speed of light ground state, with both persisting.
This medium analogy suggests that the neutrino is a just photon with the inertial engine turned off. It has lost most of its connection to matter and inertial reference. It is a particle boat stopped at C, with very few inertial interactions; wake. They are essentially one legged photons.
-
If you look at photons, they have two legs. Photons travel at the speed of light, while also showing finite expressions we call wavelength and frequency. The paradox this creates is, at the speed of light, the universe will appear contracted to a point-instant. The question is, how can photons generate finite wavelengths, if these will appear as a fraction of a point in its speed of light reference? A fraction of a point is not mathematically possible. Also how can we have a variety of wavelengths; EM spectrum, if the speed of light can only see one reference; infinite wavelength? We know photons do this, but how?
To think of a 'particle' as having wave length and frequency is not such an insurmountable problem as you seem to surmise. In lithotripsy for instance, where sound waves are used to create shock waves or vibrations that can shatter kidney stones, the sound waves have a frequency of between 100 KHz and 1 MHz. and a wave length of between 0.003 m and 0.0003 m. respectively. The conundrum here is that a wave (i.e., sound) can behave like a solid object and be used to shatter a stone, surely light must also exist in a similar form from all the evidence available.
-
Sound waves require a medium. Photons do not. In space no one can hear you scream.
-
Aether has mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
Wave-particle duality is a moving particle and its associated wave in the aether.
There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed, it's what waves.
-
Simply repeating something parrot fashion over and over again doesn't prove it to be a fact. Aether is a trendy fad that lots of people seem to be taking up like crusaders of physics. Crusaders tend to destroy rather than save. It will be something else next year.
-
Or, you could correctly understand what occurs physically in nature. 'Empty' space has mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it, including 'particles' as large as galaxies and galaxy clusters. What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment, the mass which fills 'empty' space. Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality, both are waves in the mass which fills 'empty' space. The mass which fills 'empty' space displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.
-
The problem with wave-particle duality is that some people believe in it!
It's apparently official government policy in Canada....
See Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau explain:
-
I remember Pierre Trudeau.......
-
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 ????
-
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 ????
All because, for some strange reason, 'they' can't bring themselves to understand 'empty' space has mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. The wave of wave-particle duality is a wave in the mass which fills 'empty' space.
-
From the perspective of the photon, it CAN'T disperse its energy; "dispersion" has no meaning in a non-temporal construct.
Absolute Relativity.
-
Relative to the photon; seeing as how the photon has no perspective.
-
From the perspective of the photon, it CAN'T disperse its energy; "dispersion" has no meaning in a non-temporal construct.
Absolute Relativity.
Forget about the photons perspective for the moment and think about your perspective. Do photons appear to disperse according to the inverse square law or is the wave function responsible for presenting an illusion that it appears to do so ? Just asking. Further the word 'temporal' is defined as relating to time. This being so how does a photon exist in a non temporal construct ? In a more direct sense you are right of course the photon does retain its energy or identity I should have said intensity, not energy. The problem with this is that Quantum Mechanics insists that a single photon can be emitted from an electron and travel for ever or until it meets another electron that requires that particular energy and is absorbed. Take for instance the Voyager Transmissions, how does the radiation spread out so that it is detected at every point in the cone of transmission. To say that it is only present where it is detected is just clever (???) language in the end. Would you agree with this ?
-
All because, for some strange reason, 'they' can't bring themselves to understand 'empty' space has mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. The wave of wave-particle duality is a wave in the mass which fills 'empty' space.
Agreed, in fact to take it for granted that such vast spaces are completely void of anything is in itself quite remarkably short-sighted. It is only recently that this perspective is changing with the introduction of theories relating to dark matter and dark energy. Your theory of space having mass might have some merit but like any other theory it will need a lot of work and substantiation before it can win even token acceptance. Look at Newton and the care he took over his theories keeping them hidden and working on them for twenty years or more before finally publishing. Einstein of course was the exception, his ideas catching the public and scientific imagination as soon as he published them.
-
Agreed, in fact to take it for granted that such vast spaces are completely void of anything is in itself quite remarkably short-sighted. It is only recently that this perspective is changing with the introduction of theories relating to dark matter and dark energy. Your theory of space having mass might have some merit but like any other theory it will need a lot of work and substantiation before it can win even token acceptance. Look at Newton and the care he took over his theories keeping them hidden and working on them for twenty years or more before finally publishing. Einstein of course was the exception, his ideas catching the public and scientific imagination as soon as he published them.
[0903.3802] The Milky Way's dark matter halo appears to be lopsided
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3802
"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.
'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1004/1004.1475v1.pdf
"Our data strongly support the idea that the gravitational potential in clusters is mainly due to a non-baryonic fluid, and any exotic field in gravitational theory must resemble that of CDM fields very closely."
The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through and displacing the aether. The analogy is a submarine moving through the water. You are under water. Two miles away from you are many lights. Moving between you and the lights one mile away is a submarine. The submarine displaces the water. The state of displacement of the water causes the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water to be offset from the center of the submarine itself. The offset between the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water displaced by the submarine and the center of the submarine itself is going to remain the same as the submarine moves through the water. The submarine continually displaces different regions of the water. The state of the water connected to and neighboring the submarine remains the same as the submarine moves through the water even though it is not the same water the submarine continually displaces. This is what is occurring physically in nature as the galaxy clusters move through and displace the aether.
Galactic Pile-Up May Point to Mysterious New Dark Force in the Universe'
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/01/musket-ball-dark-force/
"The reason this is strange is that dark matter is thought to barely interact with itself. The dark matter should just coast through itself and move at the same speed as the hardly interacting galaxies. Instead, it looks like the dark matter is crashing into something — perhaps itself – and slowing down faster than the galaxies are. But this would require the dark matter to be able to interact with itself in a completely new an unexpected way, a “dark force” that affects only dark matter."
It's not a new force. It's the aether displaced by the galaxies piling up as the galaxies pass by each other, analogous to the bow waves of two boats which pass by each other closely.
-
From the perspective of the photon, it CAN'T disperse its energy; "dispersion" has no meaning in a non-temporal construct.
Absolute Relativity.
Forget about the photons perspective for the moment and think about your perspective.
Forget about neither; they are both valid if both are real *things:* so says A.R..
Do photons appear to disperse according to the inverse square law or is the wave function responsible for presenting an illusion that it appears to do so ?
It is an illusion not a delusion. The point of "photon" is that it does not disperse; relative to the photon it's easy to see how that could be since there's no temporal dimension relative to the "dispersing E.M. field." Relative to the photon there is only one "cycle" which presents to the photon as the photon structure. Assuming a simple H atom's 1s2 to 1s1 "decay," do i see a curl?
Further the word 'temporal' is defined as relating to time. This being so how does a photon exist in a non temporal construct ?
In spherical coordinates; there is no radius & no time: there's only a shell. (The Tao! ha ha, i jest ...?)
In a more direct sense you are right of course the photon does retain its energy or identity I should have said intensity, not energy. The problem with this is that Quantum Mechanics insists that a single photon can be emitted from an electron and travel for ever or until it meets another electron that requires that particular energy and is absorbed. Take for instance the Voyager Transmissions, how does the radiation spread out so that it is detected at every point in the cone of transmission. To say that it is only present where it is detected is just clever (???) language in the end. Would you agree with this ?
Is it any different than saying a particle takes two paths at once? How to explain entanglement, though ..? & what about relativity? There is still a quantization to be had; one electron per E.M. field shell.
Articulation is a test of language.
-
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
Show
nothing wrong with this scenario ????
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.
-
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' ?
-
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?
-
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.
-
NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION by LOUIS DE BROGLIE
“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
“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
“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.
-
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.
-
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
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."
-
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 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 ?
-
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 ???
-
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.
-
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
"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
"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
"Wave particle duality is described as the compound system of point particle plus accompanying wave (in the æther)."
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
"As for the pressure, it is equal to p = 53−αg,6a2 so, it is positive if αg < 3 which is the weaker condition than the previous one. One notes that the results corresponding to the usual gravity are easily recovered. Also, it is easy to see that the interval αg < 15 corresponds to the usual matter."
The following article describes the aether as an incompressible fluid resulting in what the article refers to as gravitational aether caused by pressure or vorticity.
'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old Cosmological Constant Problem'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3955
"One proposal to address this puzzle at the semi-classical level is to decouple quantum vacuum from space-time geometry via a modification of gravity that includes an incompressible fluid, known as Gravitational Aether. In this paper, we discuss classical predictions of this theory along with its compatibility with cosmological and experimental tests of gravity. We argue that deviations from General Relativity (GR) in this theory are sourced by pressure or vorticity."
The following article describes a gravitating vacuum where aether is the quantum vacuum of the 21-st century.
'From Analogue Models to Gravitating Vacuum'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.1155
"The aether of the 21-st century is the quantum vacuum, which is a new form of matter. This is the real substance"
The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid, which is described in the following article as the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. The article describes a 'back reaction' associated with the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. This is the displaced aether 'displacing back'.
'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3458
"We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide further evidence of the “fluidic” nature of space itself. This "back-reaction" is quantified by the tendency of angular momentum flux threading across a surface."
The following article describes the aether as that which produces resistance to acceleration and is responsible for the increase in mass of an object with velocity and describes the "space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."
'Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and fluidic inertia'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4611
"It is shown that the force exerted on a particle by an ideal fluid produces two effects: i) resistance to acceleration and, ii) an increase of mass with velocity. ... The interaction between the particle and the entrained space flow gives rise to the observed properties of inertia and the relativistic increase of mass. ... Accordingly, in this framework the non resistance of a particle in uniform motion through an ideal fluid (D’Alembert’s paradox) corresponds to Newton’s first law. The law of inertia suggests that the physical vacuum can be modeled as an ideal fluid, agreeing with the space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."
The relativistic mass of an object is the mass of the object and the mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the object which is displaced by the object. The faster an object moves with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists the greater the displacement of the aether by the object the greater the relativistic mass of the object.
The incompressible fluid described in the following article is the gravitational aether which "the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."
'Empty Black Holes, Firewalls, and the Origin of Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4176
"But why an incompressible fluid? The reason comes from an attempt to solve the (old) cosmological constant problem, which is arguably the most puzzling aspect of coupling gravity to relativistic quantum mechanics [13]. Given that the natural expectation value for the vacuum of the standard model of particle physics is ∼ 60 orders of magnitude heavier than the gravitational measurements of vacuum density, it is reasonable to entertain an alternative theory of gravity where the standard model vacuum decouples from gravity. Such a theory could be realized by coupling gravity to the traceless part of the quantum mechanical energy-momentum tensor. However, the consistency/covariance of gravitational field equations then requires introducing an auxiliary fluid, the so-called gravitational aether [14]. The simplest model for gravitational aether is an incompressible fluid (with vanishing energy density, but non-vanishing pressure), which is currently consistent with all cosmological, astrophysical, and precision tests of gravity [15, 16]:
__3__
32πGN Gμν = Tμν − Tα gμν + Tμν ,
Tμν = p (uμ uν + gμν ), T μν;ν = 0,
where GN is Newton’s constant, Tμν is the matter energy momentum tensor and T'μν is the incompressible gravitational aether fluid. In vacuum, the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."
The following articles describe what is presently postulated as dark matter is aether.
'Quantum aether and an invariant Planck scale'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3753
"this version of aether may have some bearing on the abundance of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in our universe. ... mass of the aether"
'Scalars, Vectors and Tensors from Metric-Affine Gravity'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.5168
"the model obtained here gets closer to the aether theory of [other authors and articles listed], which is shown therein to be an alternative to the cold dark matter."
'Unified Dark Energy-Dark Matter model with Inverse Quintessence'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.4758
"We consider a model where both dark energy and dark matter originate from the coupling of a scalar field with a non-conventional kinetic term to, both, a metric measure and a non-metric measure. An interacting dark energy/dark matter scenario can be obtained by introducing an additional scalar that can produce non constant vacuum energy and associated variations in dark matter"
'Singular-Turbulent Structure Formation in the Universe and the Essence of Dark Matter I. Unified model for dark matter and quintessence'
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0610135
"Superfluid dark matter is reminiscent of the aether and modeling the universe using superfluid aether is compatible."
'Vainshtein mechanism in Gauss-Bonnet gravity and Galileon aether'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.1892
"the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of ”aether” because of the presence of the background field"
'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum medium and the inertial motion of particles'
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0701155
"In this paper we shall show that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as a ubiquitous back ground field is a super fluid medium."
-
"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
“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.
"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.
"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
"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
"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.
-
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.
-
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 ??
-
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.
Would you consider an electromagnetic field to be a medium ?
Yes, look at magnetic bottling
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
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4lW7xydnH8), since you already have the right type of magnet.
-
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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4lW7xydnH8), 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fastronomynow.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F08%2Fblack_hole_gas_jet_circulation_940x940.jpg&hash=e7b43f1e683766342fb8f7a9150355a6)
'Supermassive Black Holes Transport Matter into Cosmic Voids, Astronomers Say'
sci-news.com/astronomy/supermassive-black-holes-matter-cosmic-voids-03658.html
“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.
-
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.
-
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.
...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
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
Please state the density and compressive modulus of aether, or admit that you are talking nonsense.
-
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:
It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.
Matter, quantum solids and fluids, a piece of window glass and 'stuff' have mass and so does the aether.
The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moves through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. The aether is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment, the aether.
Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality, both are waves in the aether.
Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.
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...
There isn't. The state of displacement of the aether is curved spacetime. The aether displaced by the Earth pushing back and exerting pressure toward the Earth is gravity.
-
Please state the density and compressive modulus of aether, or admit that you are talking nonsense.
Do you need to know the density and compressive modulus of water to be able to understand boats move through it and displace it?
Think of the aether as being a sea of massive photons which are displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
-
Do you need to know the density and compressive modulus of water to be able to understand boats move through it and displace it?
If you are going to calculate the hull speed of a boat, or the speed of sound in water, yes. And these are rather important, everyday calculations for boatbuilders and radiologists.
Now we know the speed of light in vacuo, so please give us the data for aether, so we can stand in awe of your brilliant insight. Otherwise one might have to dismiss you as a crank!
-
If you are going to calculate the hull speed of a boat, or the speed of sound in water, yes. And these are rather important, everyday calculations for boatbuilders and radiologists.
Did Vikings need to know the speed of sound in water to understand their ships moved through and displaced it? Why do you insist on placing red herrings in front of your ability to correctly understand what occurs physically in nature?
Now we know the speed of light in vacuo, so please give us the data for aether, so we can stand in awe of your brilliant insight. Otherwise one might have to dismiss you as a crank!
Dark matter is now understood to fill what would otherwise be considered to be empty space.
'Cosmologists at Penn Weigh Cosmic Filaments and Voids'
http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/news/cosmologists-penn-weigh-cosmic-filaments-and-voids
"Dark matter ... permeates all the way to the center of the voids."
'No Empty Space in the Universe --Dark Matter Discovered to Fill Intergalactic Space'
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/02/no-empty-space-in-the-universe-dark-matter-discovered-to-fill-intergalactic-space-.html
"A long standing mystery on where the missing dark matter is has been solved by the research. There is no empty space in the universe. The intergalactic space is filled with dark matter."
Dark matter which fills the space unoccupied by particles of matter is otherwise known as the aether. Aether has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. Including 'particles' as large as galaxies and galaxy clusters.
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
"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
"Wave particle duality is described as the compound system of point particle plus accompanying wave (in the æther)."
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in theaether passes through both.
Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment?
A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.
The wave of wave-particle duality is a wave in the aether.
'The Milky Way's dark matter halo appears to be lopsided'
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3802
"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.
The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.
The Milky Way moves through and curves spacetime.
The Milky Way's halo is curved spacetime.
The state of displacement of the aether is curved spacetime.
The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.
What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the aether.
Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality; both are waves in the aether.
Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.
-
Alan asked for some specific values. In turn you have ducked and dived around the issue. It is unscientific behaviour. Openness and the sharing of data and results IS scientific. You have shared non of this which seems to indicate that you have none. Don't pretend to know things when you don't. Otherwise you risk looking foolish.
-
Alan asked for some specific values. In turn you have ducked and dived around the issue. It is unscientific behaviour. Openness and the sharing of data and results IS scientific. You have shared non of this which seems to indicate that you have none. Don't pretend to know things when you don't. Otherwise you risk looking foolish.
It seems pretty foolish to me that there are those who are incapable of understanding in a double slit experiment the particle always detected traveling through a single slit is evidence the particle always travels through a single slit. In a boat double slit experiment are you able to understand the boat travels through a single slit even when your eyes are closed?
The following article describes gravity as a pressure exerted by aether toward matter.
'The aether-modified gravity and the G ̈del metric'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5654
"As for the pressure, it is equal to p = 53−αg,6a2 so, it is positive if αg < 3 which is the weaker condition than the previous one. One notes that the results corresponding to the usual gravity are easily recovered. Also, it is easy to see that the interval αg < 15 corresponds to the usual matter."
The following article describes the aether as an incompressible fluid resulting in what the article refers to as gravitational aether caused by pressure or vorticity.
'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old Cosmological Constant Problem'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3955
"One proposal to address this puzzle at the semi-classical level is to decouple quantum vacuum from space-time geometry via a modification of gravity that includes an incompressible fluid, known as Gravitational Aether. In this paper, we discuss classical predictions of this theory along with its compatibility with cosmological and experimental tests of gravity. We argue that deviations from General Relativity (GR) in this theory are sourced by pressure or vorticity."
The following article describes a gravitating vacuum where aether is the quantum vacuum of the 21-st century.
'From Analogue Models to Gravitating Vacuum'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.1155
"The aether of the 21-st century is the quantum vacuum, which is a new form of matter. This is the real substance"
The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid, which is described in the following article as the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. The article describes a 'back reaction' associated with the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. This is the displaced aether 'displacing back'.
'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3458
"We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide further evidence of the “fluidic” nature of space itself. This "back-reaction" is quantified by the tendency of angular momentum flux threading across a surface."
The following article describes the aether as that which produces resistance to acceleration and is responsible for the increase in mass of an object with velocity and describes the "space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."
'Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and fluidic inertia'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4611
"It is shown that the force exerted on a particle by an ideal fluid produces two effects: i) resistance to acceleration and, ii) an increase of mass with velocity. ... The interaction between the particle and the entrained space flow gives rise to the observed properties of inertia and the relativistic increase of mass. ... Accordingly, in this framework the non resistance of a particle in uniform motion through an ideal fluid (D’Alembert’s paradox) corresponds to Newton’s first law. The law of inertia suggests that the physical vacuum can be modeled as an ideal fluid, agreeing with the space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."
The relativistic mass of an object is the mass of the object and the mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the object which is displaced by the object. The faster an object moves with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists the greater the displacement of the aether by the object the greater the relativistic mass of the object.
The incompressible fluid described in the following article is the gravitational aether which "the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."
'Empty Black Holes, Firewalls, and the Origin of Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4176
"But why an incompressible fluid? The reason comes from an attempt to solve the (old) cosmological constant problem, which is arguably the most puzzling aspect of coupling gravity to relativistic quantum mechanics [13]. Given that the natural expectation value for the vacuum of the standard model of particle physics is ∼ 60 orders of magnitude heavier than the gravitational measurements of vacuum density, it is reasonable to entertain an alternative theory of gravity where the standard model vacuum decouples from gravity. Such a theory could be realized by coupling gravity to the traceless part of the quantum mechanical energy-momentum tensor. However, the consistency/covariance of gravitational field equations then requires introducing an auxiliary fluid, the so-called gravitational aether [14]. The simplest model for gravitational aether is an incompressible fluid (with vanishing energy density, but non-vanishing pressure), which is currently consistent with all cosmological, astrophysical, and precision tests of gravity [15, 16]:
__3__
32πGN Gμν = Tμν − Tα gμν + Tμν ,
Tμν = p (uμ uν + gμν ), T μν;ν = 0,
where GN is Newton’s constant, Tμν is the matter energy momentum tensor and T'μν is the incompressible gravitational aether fluid. In vacuum, the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."
The following articles describe what is presently postulated as dark matter is aether.
'Quantum aether and an invariant Planck scale'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3753
"this version of aether may have some bearing on the abundance of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in our universe."
"mass of the aether"
'Scalars, Vectors and Tensors from Metric-Affine Gravity'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.5168
"the model obtained here gets closer to the aether theory of [other authors and articles listed], which is shown therein to be an alternative to the cold dark matter."
'Unified Dark Energy-Dark Matter model with Inverse Quintessence'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.4758
"We consider a model where both dark energy and dark matter originate from the coupling of a scalar field with a non-conventional kinetic term to, both, a metric measure and a non-metric measure. An interacting dark energy/dark matter scenario can be obtained by introducing an additional scalar that can produce non constant vacuum energy and associated variations in dark matter"
'Singular-Turbulent Structure Formation in the Universe and the Essence of Dark Matter I. Unified model for dark matter and quintessence'
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0610135
"Superfluid dark matter is reminiscent of the aether and modeling the universe using superfluid aether is compatible."
'Vainshtein mechanism in Gauss-Bonnet gravity and Galileon aether'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.1892
"the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of ”aether” because of the presence of the background field"
'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum medium and the inertial motion of particles'
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0701155
"In this paper we shall show that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as a ubiquitous back ground field is a super fluid medium."
-
Ok. This is getting really interesting. So a short re-cap: It is common knowledge that a material object can move with any velocity, and can be sped up or slowed down by a force that increases or decreases its kinetic energy. But this does not apply to waves. The speed with which a wave moves is solely determined by the medium through which it moves. Once a wave is created, the only reason its speed will change is if it enters a different medium or if the properties of the medium change. Water waves travel more quickly over deeper water, so a wave will slow down as it passes over an underwater ridge, but speed up again as it emerges into deeper water. The wave's speed depends only on the medium. Adding energy to the wave doesn't speed it up, it just increases its amplitude. A water wave, unlike many other types of wave, has a speed that depends on its shape: a broader wave moves faster.
A wave can be described as a disturbance that travels through a medium from one location to another location. When a wave is present in a medium, the individual particles of the medium are only temporarily displaced from their rest position. As a disturbance moves through a medium from one particle to its adjacent particle, energy is being transported from one end of the medium to the other. In a water wave energy is transported through the medium, yet the water molecules are not transported. The same holds true with sound waves travelling through air. Waves traveling through the bulk of a fluid (such as a liquid or a gas) are almost always longitudinal waves. Transverse waves require a relatively rigid medium in order to transmit their energy. As one particle begins to move it must be able to exert a pull on its nearest neighbor. If the medium is not rigid as is the case with fluids, the particles will slide past each other. This sliding action which is characteristic of liquids and gases prevents one particle from displacing its neighbor in a direction perpendicular to the energy transport.
What if we formulate questions based on these properties of waves:-
1) Only the energy of the wave travels from one point to the other, the medium does not travel.
This property is true of all kinds of waves ; circular, longitudinal and transverse. Is it also true of electromagnetic radiation ?
2) The velocity of the wave depends only on the properties of the medium through which it is travelling. Does the same hold good for electromagnetic radiation ?
3) All waves require a medium through which to travel . Does this also apply to electromagnetic radiation and if so why not ?
As regards (1) , maybe it is true since, energy from electric and magnetic fields generated by the vibration or oscillation of an electron is self sustaining, and the energy travels from its point of origin travels to its destination.
As regards (2) with regard to electromagnetic radiation it does not have to hold true since electric and magnetic fields are self sustaining, there is no need for a medium!
With regard to (3) Electromagnetic radiation can travel through a vacuum. BUT and here is the really interesting thing. The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant.
Physicists had long been aware of this fact but they could never explain why it was so. It was Albert Einstein who proposed that the speed of light in a vacuum was a Universal physical Constant. In proclaiming the speed of light in a vacuum as a constant, Einstein had set a limit on the speed of the Universe, nothing can go faster than light. YET just as Newton had done with gravity although Einstein was able to explain its existence, he was never able to state as to why it existed i.e., why the speed of light in a vacuum was constant.
AGAIN while Einstein was never able to explain why the speed of light was a constant, physicists were aware that an extremely simple solution did exist, namely the existence of an aether the speed of a wave in a medium is always constant ! Surely this is a huge plus point FOR the existence of an aether and AGAINST theories that deny the existence of an aether.
A MAJOR detail about light as a wave that doesn't gel with the wave theory is Max Planck's discovery that the energy of electromagnetic radiation existed as discrete quantities. In an ordinary wave the energy is continuous not discrete. While Planck's findings indicated that the energy in electromagnetic radiation existed as individual packets or quanta of energy. To reconcile these two aspects of wave/particle was a daunting task for Quantum Mechanics and one which many consider to be too complicated, devious and unacceptable. Paul Dirac the gifted mathematician from Cambridge who was possibly the greatest mathematician of the age had deep reservations about re-normalisation theories and infinities:
' I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it is small – not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it! '
Similarly Richard Feynman was one of the strongest critics of the re-normalisation process:
The shell game that we play ... is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate.
In spite of this physicists claim that the re-normalisation process and QED is one f the most successful theories ever produced and that it has an accuracy of a billion to one. If one delves a little deeper and asks what quantity this accuracy determines, the breezy answer maybe "well the spin for one thing!' Note, the discussion is about electromagnetic radiation, not about 'spin' !
By contrast the Gestalt Aether Theory, the first four experimentally verifiable proofs of which are given here (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66359.0), contains detailed and very accurate information on Frequency, wave-length and energies of radio-waves and electromagnetic radiation in general.
-
The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is a physical process determined by the physical state of the aether in which it exists. The faster an atomic clock moves through the aether the greater the displacement of the aether by the clock the greater the pressure exerted toward and throughout the atomic clock by the aether the slower the clock ticks. The Earth displaces the aether. The aether pushes back and exerts pressure toward the Earth. The greater the gravitational pressure exerted toward and throughout the atomic clock by the displaced aether the slower the clock ticks.
This is why the speed of light is always determined to be 'c'.
-
The following article describes gravity as a pressure exerted by aether toward matter. (reply # 79)
Some nice links that support the existence of an aether !
-
Why do you insist on placing red herrings in front of your ability to correctly understand what occurs physically in nature?
In physics, correct understanding means numbers that predict what actually happens. Everything else is handwaving, guesswork, philosophy, lies, politics, and all the other human activities that scientists despise.
Numbers, please. Just the ones that predict the speed of light in vacuo for the time being.
-
They are like marketing guys. Repeat the brand name often enough and it sticks. Hence just repeating the same nonsense over and over again so it embeds itself in the minds of the gullible uninitiated. Quite an insidious brainwashing technique.
-
They are like marketing guys. Repeat the brand name often enough and it sticks. Hence just repeating the same nonsense over and over again so it embeds itself in the minds of the gullible uninitiated. Quite an insidious brainwashing technique.
This is high dudgeon coming from someone who has posted 3 of his own theories in the matter of a week. I think :
__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."
Is far far superior to anything rubbish that you keep peddling . (I hope you don't mind ?? At least you shouldn't!)
See this (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66596.msg486246#msg486246) and this! (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66495.msg485659#msg485659)
I think a lot of your problem has to do with a certain green eyed monster, who thinks his ideas should be as good as anyone else's! Unfortunately they are not!
Numbers, please. Just the ones that predict the speed of light in vacuo for the time being.
Alan, although I appreciate many of your posts, I find that sometimes you can get a bit jaded. In my post I have stated that a reason exists IF an aether is present for the speed of light being constant in a vacuum. Your theories (if you are supporting Quantum Mechanics or Standard Theory), do not have an explanation for why the speed of light is constant in a vacuum. I will ask you again don't you think this a pretty big shortcoming ?
-
The Maxwell equations explain why the speed of light is constant in vacuo. It's a first-year undergraduate experiment to measure the constants and calculate the value of c which the same students confirm, with a variant of the Michelson-Morley experiment, to be independent of direction. I've done the experiments and taught them umpteen times, and so far nobody has suggested that we need an aether to explain the results. Nothing to do with quantum mechanics or a Standard Model of anything - just classical electrodynamics, high school maths, and some very simple apparatus.
I'm not proposing any theory that hasn't been validated by experiment. I'm merely asking for the essential data that support the aether hypothesis. No numbers, no credibility.
-
I'm not proposing any theory that hasn't been validated by experiment. I'm merely asking for the essential data that support the aether hypothesis. No numbers, no credibility.
Alan, Alan, as the OP I would expect that the least you could do was to verify what you say BEFORE taking such a high handed manner. Obviously when dealing with such an esteemed and senior member of this forum, the very last thing that is needed is to be disrespectful. So here, if you have the patience to read, is a complete validation of what I had originally written:
"In 1868, the equations of the Scottish mathematician and physicist James Clerk Maxwell, building on the earlier work of Ampère, Coulomb and Faraday, noted that all electromagnetic waves travelled at exactly the same speed as light in empty space, and that light itself was a kind of wave rippling through the invisible magnetic and electric fields. Maxwell concluded that light and other electromagnetic waves should travel at a certain fixed speed relative to some unconfirmed ambient medium he called “aether”.
The famous Michelson-Morley experiments of 1887, in a failed attempt to prove that light travels through a medium known as aether, had unexpectedly demonstrated that light travels at the same speed regardless of whether it was measured in the direction of the Earth’s motion or at right angles to it. At least this is the case when light travels through a vacuum: when light moves from medium to medium (like from air to glass, for example), its speed can of course change depending on the new medium's index of refraction, and this “bending” of light is essentially how lenses work, as had long been understood.
Thus, whether a source of light is moving towards you or away from you, the light still travels at a steady 300,000 km/s, completely contrary to classical physics and common sense. It was the young Einstein's genius to explain just WHY the speed of light is constant and does not depend on the speed of its source or its observer. In 1905, Einstein (and also the French mathematician Henri Poincaré, who was coming to similar conclusions at around the same time, although from a more mathematical point of view) realized that the whole idea of aether as a medium for light to travel in was totally unnecessary, providing, as we will see, that one was willing to abandon the idea of absolute time.
Einstein also realized that that Maxwell’s equations led to an apparent paradox or inconsistency in the laws of physics, because it suggested that if one could catch up to a beam of light one would see a stationary electromagnetic wave, which is an impossibility. Einstein hypothesized, therefore, that the speed of light actually plays the role of infinite speed in our universe, and that in fact nothing can ever travel faster than light (and certainly that nothing in the universe could ever travel at anything like infinite speed). It should be noted that Einstein did not actually PROVE the constancy of the speed of light in all frames of reference. Rather, it is an axiom (an underlying assumption) from which he derived the rest of his theory. The axiom can be experimentally verified, but it is not proven in any theoretic sense. "
Is this satisfactory or do you still have objections to the post. The title of the post is " Is there any evidence for aether? "I have merely tried to contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way.
-
What if we formulate questions based on these properties of waves:-
1) Only the energy of the wave travels from one point to the other, the medium does not travel.
This property is true of all kinds of waves ; circular, longitudinal and transverse.
It is not true of sound or water waves. The speed of these waves relative to an observer is dependant on the speed of the medium relative to the observer.
It isn't so obvious with sound because mostly wind speed is low compared to the speed of sound and at higher speeds the wind noise drowns out any effect.
It is noticable because, due to ground friction, wind speed is greater with height. This means that sound upwind of a source is refracted downwards and downwind refracted upwards, so upwind sound carries further. If you want a free concert at Gladstonbury find an upwind field - usually to the NE.
With water the medium will move with current, so a survey ship drifting with the tide will measure a different wavespeed to a tethered buoy or a landbased obsever. For this reason wavespeed needs to be quoted relative to the reference frame of the observer.
It's also worth noting that many media are dispersive. Ocean waves will have a wide range of frequencies at the storm centre, but longer wavelengths travel faster so as the waves travel they separate out and what we call swell waves (long wavelength) will reach shore first.
In general audible sound in air is not dispersed, but this would not be true of all frequencies in CO2.
I know it's a minor point, but needs to be considered in your discussions.
Interesting discussion by the way.
-
The Maxwell equations explain why the speed of light is constant in vacuo. ... so far nobody has suggested that we need an aether to explain the results.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Luminiferous_aether
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."
-
It is not true of sound or water waves. The speed of these waves relative to an observer is dependant on the speed of the medium relative to the observer.
Since water waves do not move at relativistic speeds, this piece of information is hardly germane to the discussion.
Interesting discussion by the way.
Thanks!
-
What if we formulate questions based on these properties of waves:-
1) Only the energy of the wave travels from one point to the other, the medium does not travel.
This property is true of all kinds of waves ; circular, longitudinal and transverse.
It is not true of sound or water waves. The speed of these waves relative to an observer is dependant on the speed of the medium relative to the observer.
It isn't so obvious with sound because mostly wind speed is low compared to the speed of sound and at higher speeds the wind noise drowns out any effect.
It is noticable because, due to ground friction, wind speed is greater with height. This means that sound upwind of a source is refracted downwards and downwind refracted upwards, so upwind sound carries further. If you want a free concert at Gladstonbury find an upwind field - usually to the NE.
With water the medium will move with current, so a survey ship drifting with the tide will measure a different wavespeed to a tethered buoy or a landbased obsever. For this reason wavespeed needs to be quoted relative to the reference frame of the observer.
It's also worth noting that many media are dispersive. Ocean waves will have a wide range of frequencies at the storm centre, but longer wavelengths travel faster so as the waves travel they separate out and what we call swell waves (long wavelength) will reach shore first.
In general audible sound in air is not dispersed, but this would not be true of all frequencies in CO2.
I know it's a minor point, but needs to be considered in your discussions.
Interesting discussion by the way.
Everything is with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists, including the rate at which an atomic clock ticks which is used to determine the speed of light. This is why the speed of light is always determined to be 'c'.
-
Please tell us the density and elastic modulus of the material you hypothesise as having both.
No numbers, no credibility.
-
Please tell us the density and elastic modulus of the material you hypothesise as having both.
No numbers, no credibility.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Luminiferous_aether
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."
-
Since water waves do not move at relativistic speeds, this piece of information is hardly germane to the discussion
It is if you are going to make incorrect assumptions about the properties of waves and media and then use those assumption to 'formulate questions based on these properties'.
Also, there are objects that move at relativistic speeds relative to water waves, which could be relevant if folks are going to discuss bow waves and pilot waves in a double slit experiment.
Just looking for consistency!
-
Since water waves do not move at relativistic speeds, this piece of information is hardly germane to the discussion
It is if you are going to make incorrect assumptions about the properties of waves and media and then use those assumption to 'formulate questions based on these properties'.
Also, there are objects that move at relativistic speeds relative to water waves, which could be relevant if folks are going to discuss bow waves and pilot waves in a double slit experiment.
Just looking for consistency!
Let's assume the rate at which the clocks tick is determined by the state of the water in which it exists. The faster the clock moves through the water the slower it ticks. If this were the case then the speed of sound would always be determined to be the same speed. If this were the case then the water could be considered to be relativistic.
-
It is if you are going to make incorrect assumptions about the properties of waves and media and then use those assumption to 'formulate questions based on these properties'.
Also, there are objects that move at relativistic speeds relative to water waves, which could be relevant if folks are going to discuss bow waves and pilot waves in a double slit experiment.
Just looking for consistency!
You may be looking for anything BUT your language and attitude leave a lot to be desired 'incorrect assumptions' from someone who claims that the velocity of a wave moving at a few kilometres per hour will vary with the position of the observer.
The speed of these waves relative to an observer is dependant on the speed of the medium relative to the observer.
If this is the level of your understanding and being rude on top of everything else, what can I say. Just tagging on a 'Just looking for consistency ' on the end, doesn't really alter the gist or tenor of your message, which is totally false and reprehensible.
-
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations
There's no mention there of the density or elastic modulus of the material you assert to pervade the vacuum.
Let me help you a bit. The density of a vacuum is zero - you can measure it quite easily. The elastic modulus of a vacuum is also zero, and is very easy to measure. But light travels through it, so your stuff simply does not exist.
-
McQueen. Neither of the links you posted is a theory as neither make predictions or are based upon direct observation. One is hypothetical and indicated as so. I would not strongly argue in favour of either. I don't know enough yet to do that. At least I am willing to admit that. I have learnt enough to know that you have no evidence for your speculations otherwise you would have presented it by now.
-
It is if you are going to make incorrect assumptions about the properties of waves and media and then use those assumption to 'formulate questions based on these properties'.
Also, there are objects that move at relativistic speeds relative to water waves, which could be relevant if folks are going to discuss bow waves and pilot waves in a double slit experiment.
Just looking for consistency!
You may be looking for anything BUT your language and attitude leave a lot to be desired 'incorrect assumptions' from someone who claims that the velocity of a wave moving at a few kilometres per hour will vary with the position of the observer.
The speed of these waves relative to an observer is dependant on the speed of the medium relative to the observer.
If this is the level of your understanding and being rude on top of everything else, what can I say. Just tagging on a 'Just looking for consistency ' on the end, doesn't really alter the gist or tenor of your message, which is totally false and reprehensible.
Since when is the correction of misconceptions considered to be rude?
-
so your stuff simply does not exist.
Maxwell disagrees with you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Luminiferous_aether
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."
Is the issue that you don't understand when Maxwell refers to the "luminiferous medium" he is referring to the aether?
-
Massive intellects have been wrong about all sorts of things in the past. Perhaps you believe in phlogiston and caloric, or that heavy things fall faster than light ones, because there are lots of papers on those subjects too.
Maxwell's equations make no mention of the mechanical properties of any medium. You have asserted that aether has mass, and implied that it has elastic properties, but you have failed to give them any values, any more than Maxwell did, despite the fact that they must determine the speed of light in vacuo, which is a well-known quantity.
So instead of referring to other people's outdated ideas, please man up and tell us the answer in your own figures. Or stop spouting drivel.
-
So instead of referring to other people's outdated ideas, please man up and tell us the answer in your own figures. Or stop spouting drivel.
You previously pointed to Maxwell's equation and then said no one had ever said they had anything to do with the aether. Maxwell himself said they did.
In a double slit experiment the particle is always detected traveling through a single slit. This is evidence the particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.
-
IT in fact can be described as the space/time continuum since 1915 although the detection and character must await the finding of gravity waves
Oops!
That's just been found!
-
IT in fact can be described as the space/time continuum since 1915 although the detection and character must await the finding of gravity waves
Oops!
That's just been found!
"It" has mass and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it, including 'particles' as large as galaxy clusters.
What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment, the aether.
Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality, both are waves in the aether.
Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.
The state of displacement of the aether is curved spacetime.
All physicists need to do in order to understand what relates general relativity and quantum mechanics is to understand 'empty' space has mass which is displaced by matter.
-
the gist or tenor of your message, which is totally false and reprehensible.
I think you have read an amazing amount into my comments and are seriously overreacting.
I was merely pointing out that the statement that "the medium does not travel" is untrue, and when you made it you clearly thought it germane to the discussion.
Whether you decide to use that information is up to you. However, I would be grateful if you would not make assumptions (particularly false ones) about my thoughts or intentions and I will assume that you read into my post some slight that was not intended, and leave it at that.
I stand by the detail of my post. The behaviour of sound and ocean waves has been confirmed by experiment and are well known, as any textbook on propagation of sound in the open air, and oceanography text, will confirm. The media do move, and when they do it is necessary to consider the frame of the observer.
-
I stand by the detail of my post. The behaviour of sound and ocean waves has been confirmed by experiment and are well known, as any textbook on propagation of sound in the open air, and oceanography text, will confirm. The media do move, and when they do it is necessary to consider the frame of the observer.
No problem, substantiate your post, give a reference that shows significant movement of the medium, and your statement in support of it namely:
Also, there are objects that move at relativistic speeds relative to water waves, which could be relevant if folks are going to discuss bow waves and pilot waves in a double slit experiment.
That's all you need to do, instead of professing your beliefs so vehemently !
-
McQueen. Neither of the links you posted is a theory as neither make predictions or are based upon direct observation. One is hypothetical and indicated as so. I would not strongly argue in favour of either. I don't know enough yet to do that. At least I am willing to admit that. I have learnt enough to know that you have no evidence for your speculations otherwise you would have presented it by now.
I am not concerned with any of what you state except for the fact that IF what you say is true, why did you opt to post in the New Theory forum ?
-
Generally anything that is not discussing mainstream science or things that have not been established go there. What I stated has not been established. It is my own analysis, the content of which will very likely change as I cross ideas off. That is the difference between us. I will discard ideas that are shown by myself or others to be wrong. I do that publicly so that people following a thread are not misled.
-
The problem with wave-particle duality is that some people believe in it!
Whilst you can model the behavior of many particles with a wave, a single particle such as a visible photon or 10 keV electron cannot interact with a receptor (a photographic film or fluorescent plate) over an extended area - it doesn't have enough energy.
Therefore whilst a wave model gives an accurate prediction of the distribution of an ensemble of particles or quanta, or the probability of finding one particle or photon at any particular point in space, it can't be said that waves actually direct the particles to their destinations.
Physics is obviously a hobby horse with this poster! What absolute twaddle to think that a photon interacts with millions of atoms in a plate and that it does so as a wave. Or don't hold your breath a " manifestation of wave/particle duality! Hahaha....... ho ho!
-
Physics is obviously a hobby horse with this poster! What absolute twaddle to think that a photon interacts with millions of atoms in a plate and that it does so as a wave. Or don't hold your breath a " manifestation of wave/particle duality! Hahaha....... ho ho!
Maybe they don't understand the interference pattern builds up over time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#/media/File:Double-slit_experiment_results_Tanamura_2.jpg
As the particle exits a single slit it is guided by the interference created by its associated wave in the aether exiting both.
-
The problem with wave-particle duality is that some people believe in it!
Whilst you can model the behavior of many particles with a wave, a single particle such as a visible photon or 10 keV electron cannot interact with a receptor (a photographic film or fluorescent plate) over an extended area - it doesn't have enough energy.
Therefore whilst a wave model gives an accurate prediction of the distribution of an ensemble of particles or quanta, or the probability of finding one particle or photon at any particular point in space, it can't be said that waves actually direct the particles to their destinations.
Physics is obviously a hobby horse with this poster! What absolute twaddle to think that a photon interacts with millions of atoms in a plate and that it does so as a wave. Or don't hold your breath a " manifestation of wave/particle duality! Hahaha....... ho ho!
Oh how you protest when the truth is pointed out to you of harassment and stalking. Yet the tone of your own responses seem reasonable to you even though they are childish.
-
The problem with wave-particle duality is that some people believe in it!
Whilst you can model the behavior of many particles with a wave, a single particle such as a visible photon or 10 keV electron cannot interact with a receptor (a photographic film or fluorescent plate) over an extended area - it doesn't have enough energy.
Therefore whilst a wave model gives an accurate prediction of the distribution of an ensemble of particles or quanta, or the probability of finding one particle or photon at any particular point in space, it can't be said that waves actually direct the particles to their destinations.
It seems though, that they are beginning to surpass the limitations of the past, and are starting to be able to view the definite trajectories of particles. And so it seems, these particle waves do have an influence.
"Experimental nonlocal and surreal Bohmian trajectories"
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/2/e1501466
in brief:
"Researchers demonstrate 'quantum surrealism' "
http://phys.org/news/2016-02-quantum-surrealism.html
-
Salvadore Dali meets QM. Swans reflecting photons?
-
Physics is obviously a hobby horse with this poster!
More of a lifelong profession, actually. Particularly the physics of photon imaging and particle diffraction.
-
Physics is obviously a hobby horse with this poster!
More of a lifelong profession, actually. Particularly the physics of photon imaging and particle diffraction.
Do you think he cares a jot to find out the credentials of anyone? If he did he would actually realise just how out of his depth he really is.