0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Then1. So is the BB.
2. So is the photon as a particle.
3. So is a cause of gravity.
4. So is a cause of magnetism.
5. So is the cause of the weak force.6. So is the cause of the strong force.7. So is the cause of c being constant.8. So is the cause of electron motion.Shall I go on?
The two of you must be young about thirties. You just settled in on what you were taught and remained satisfied. The two of you are probably not worthy scientists yet.
McQueen on the other hand makes the argument of being in new theories which needs some leeway to say the least.
Jeff let me ask you a question. If aether particles were spinning at c what could you possibly use to detect them? You would need something faster than c and nothing is faster than c. Indirectly a interference on the spin c could propagate that interference at c. Would you consider that a detection? How about the correlation between mechanical and photon clocks reading the same in every frame? How about a slower electron producing a faster photon. How about how the photon remains constant in a vacuum.
If science waited for something to be detected we would not even have the atom for reference.
Rather than be defensive of what you have learned how about using what you learned to try and further the knowledge of science.
Science is evidence based so physbang is making a valid request. The aether has never been detected and so is equivalent to nothing.
1. It was tasteless2. It was odourless.3. It had a rigidity more than several million times that of steel.4. It was flexible enough that the planets could move through it without causing any disturbance whatsoever.5. It could pass through matter as if it didn't exist and vice versa.
If you pay attention to cosmologists, you will find that the status of a supposed first event "big bang" is dubious. But the "Big Bang Theory" is not, because that theory is not really about the first instant.
Please don't because you aren't adding anything to the conversation. You are just idiotically trying to defend a poster who has cherry-picked quotations from scientists and misrepresented their works. That poster is now refusing to provide a citation for something that they claim is fundamental and you are defending the refusal to provide evidence
Who cares if we are scientists or not or how old we are? That doesn't change that McQueen has tried to deceive other people here and that they refuse to provide verifiable evidence to support their claims. You may like evidence-free claims, but that doesn't seem like science to me.
Quotegeordief: Particles are described as "excitations in the Field". How many kinds of Field are there(or can there be) and is there only one kind of a Field to which this particle description applies?This is a very pertinent description. It is almost a tacit admission of the existence of an aether like entity. There were at one time according to Feynman more than 400 different fields each with its associated particle. Quite crazy and Dirac had to advise physicists to stop looking for new particles and their associated fields. Every particle has a corresponding field that permeates all of space in the same way the Higgs has a field that is supposed to do. The spin up electron. The spin down electron. The spin up positron. The spin down positron. The up quarks (all three colors and both spins).The down quark (all three colors and both spins).Same for the charm, strange, top and bottom. And double that because all those quarks each have an antiparticle with the corresponding anticolor and opposite electric charge just like the electron had its antiparticle, the positron. Then there two more leptons like the electron the muon and the tau lepton (each has two spins and an antiparticle with opposite electric charge).That's all the fermions that have electric charge. Then there are the eight gluons and they would have three spins each but since they are massless they have two helicity states instead, and they are their own antiparticles)The gluons are also bosons like the photon, there are only two photon fields, one for each helicity (there would be three spins but the photon is also massless)There are yet more bosons, the W+,W+, W−,W−, and ZZ each of them have three spins. And the neutrinos are the charge-less fermions and the charge-less leptons. There is one for each of the charged leptons (one for the electron, one for the positron, one for the tao and one for its antiparticle, one for the muon and one for its antiparticle).But hold on there is room for hope. All of the above particles ( few in number admittedly compared to the 400 that are supposed to exist) most of which exist in the nucleus are virtual particles which fits in beautifully with the Gestalt Aether Theory concept of a virtual photon universal aether that permeates the universe. We live in a gauge Universe governed and controlled by gauge theories, Gestalt Aether Theory fits in very well with this concept.
geordief: Particles are described as "excitations in the Field". How many kinds of Field are there(or can there be) and is there only one kind of a Field to which this particle description applies?