Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: DarkKnight on 09/12/2022 12:26:03
-
The luminiferous aether was originally proposed as the medium necessary for the propagation of light and other em waves with the analogy to sound waves and other mechanical wave phenomena. Since no proof or disproof of the existence has ever been demonstrated it has no place in real science. Yet it remains a core belief with many who hold what I would call scientific beliefs rather than scientific rationality. When will it be consigned to the dustbin?
Are you joking ? All of science still uses different variations of an aether so why wouldn't people just call it an aether ?
Higgs used a Higgs field , Einstein used space-time curvature etc .
I personally use the conservation of zero point energy . :-\
-
I personally use the conservation of zero point energy .
How does your model explain the behavior of light as it is observed from various moving bodies? How's it different from various aether models? Which one is closer to your model?
-
How does your model explain the behavior of light as it is observed from various moving bodies?
''The juries still out ''
How's it different from various aether models? Which one is closer to your model?
It's different because the conservation of energy is a strong argument . The closest model is all of them because my model uses some parts of the other models to add credibility to my model .
-
I personally use the conservation of zero point energy .
How does your model explain the behavior of light as it is observed from various moving bodies? How's it different from various aether models? Which one is closer to your model?
I observe that Newton suggested an ether , Einstein explained the affect mass had on the ether ( space-time curvature) , then Higgs thought this ether must be an energy field that exists everywhere , then I realised they should of all considered spaces potential to conserve x amount of energy that would be somewhere within the x-ray range of light .
-
There could be differing schools of thought on such diverse subjects as pink unicorns or flying pigs but they do not belong in science. Aether was a misconceived idea to begin with for which there is zero evidence and debating it's properties is utterly futile. And it's aether and not ether. Ether is a chemical term.
-
I observe that Newton suggested an ether
No. Newton thought that light consists of particle of light called corpuscles. It doesn't need medium to transmit. He didn't know about light frequency, wavelength, nor polarization of light.
-
There could be differing schools of thought on such diverse subjects as pink unicorns or flying pigs but they do not belong in science. Aether was a misconceived idea to begin with for which there is zero evidence and debating it's properties is utterly futile. And it's aether and not ether. Ether is a chemical term.
Have you read the article I posted on your thread?
The luminiferous aether was originally proposed as the medium necessary for the propagation of light and other em waves with the analogy to sound waves and other mechanical wave phenomena. Since no proof or disproof of the existence has ever been demonstrated it has no place in real science. Yet it remains a core belief with many who hold what I would call scientific beliefs rather than scientific rationality. When will it be consigned to the dustbin?
If you really want to answer the question, you need to recognize that there are many schools of thought trying to describe the behavior of aether. They need to be addressed separately. They even argue with one another.
There's a hypothesis of universal static ether. Some think that it's entrained by the sun. Some others think that it's entrained by the earth. There's also difference thoughts whether the entrainment is total or partial.
Here's an article about it.
Is the aether entrained by the motion of celestial body?
https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.1885
Einstein himself around 1916 changed his mind as regards the hypothesis of the aether. In a lecture
given at the University of Leiden he declared [13]:
According to the general theory of relativity, space without aether is unthinkable for, in such space,
there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of
space and time (measuring rods and clocks).
A proof of the undeniable existence of the aether was given in ref [14]. Thus, the question to be
answered today is not to verify its existence, but rather to specify its nature and its properties, and, in
the first place, to determine if it is entrained (or not) by the translational motion of celestial bodies due
to gravitation.
Do you think that Einstein's understanding of light in 1905 is better than 1916?
-
There could be differing schools of thought on such diverse subjects as pink unicorns or flying pigs but they do not belong in science. Aether was a misconceived idea to begin with for which there is zero evidence and debating it's properties is utterly futile. And it's aether and not ether. Ether is a chemical term.
People spell aether differently . Which part of x-ray range didn't you understand ?
If you move the aether passes right through you because it is within the x-ray range . It is very difficult to detect something that can pass through things . The aether is indistiguishable in appearance than space , the aether (time) and space are an ''interwoven fabric'' .
Space-time and/or a Higgs field is the same thing as an aether .
-
Do you think that Einstein's understanding of light in 1905 is better than 1916?
Thank you for the information . Einstein understood physics and light but couldn't quite ''put his finger on it '' .
He was correct about lights constant speed but didn't realise this has dependencies . Lights speed is a consequence of the A(x) operator as already mentioned in another thread . Einstein put space-time ''into the picture'' but didn't link the dependency of the reference frame to lights speed .
Light requires a quantum bridge between positions before it can change position . If there is no quantum bridge the light is conserved by the space rather than travelling .
Space-time isn't expanding , it is growing , as interior energy finds its way to the edge of space-time , it becomes conserved at the outer edge by the space , growing space-time .
Space-time can be viewed as a quantum mainframe which is volume of quantum bridges A(x) .
From any position within space-time , any receding vector can be considered A(x) , an Eigen vector .
The lesser the energy occupying the vector , the more the gravitational force..
Hence Ψ/A(x)
A(x) the operator , explains gravity , lights speed and the motion of orbiting bodies .
-
Are you joking ? All of science still uses different variations of an aether so why wouldn't people just call it an aether ?
Higgs used a Higgs field , Einstein used space-time curvature etc .
Because a field is not the same as ether. If you want to redefine the ether, which was a hypothesized extremely dense fluid, as a field or space time, then don't expect anyone to know what you are talking about.
-
The essence of good science is to assume nothing. We make mathematical predictions on the basis of assumptions, but experiment either confirms or negates the accuracy of the prediction and hence the adequacy of the assumptions.
-
Higgs used a Higgs field , Einstein used space-time curvature etc .
Neither of which are aether. Aether is supposed to be a substance that acts as a transmission medium for light. We now know that no such thing is necessary.
Thebox, it would be nice if you spent the time you had away from these forums to dig deeply into science and technology and learn how things work properly instead of both engaging in science denialism and coming up with things that don't really make sense. But since you know that sock-puppetry is against the rules, it's another ban for you.
-
Ψ
And season's greetings to you and yours, chaver.
-
The essence of good science is to assume nothing.
It's to assume nothing beyond necessity.
-
If the spam filters were better this thread would have been a dozen posts shorter.
-
Higgs used a Higgs field , Einstein used space-time curvature etc .
Neither of which are aether. Aether is supposed to be a substance that acts as a transmission medium for light. We now know that no such thing is necessary.
That is true kryptid. Why modern science neglected aether is that "light travels with maximum speed in vaccum" and hence it needs no medium to travel. But it is surprise to see, by creating vaccum, are we taking away aether particles. Are science aware of what exactly is aether. When we don't know anything about aether, by what proof we can say that there is no aether.
By this, what I want to say is, there is aether, it is a fifth element present in the space, instead of neglecting, much research is needed in this way.
-
There is no need to invoke an aether. I am not aware of any evidence that such a thing exists.
-
When we don't know anything about aether, by what proof we can say that there is no aether.
Since aether is used to call many different models with different predictions, we can eliminate them by showing that each of their prediction contradicts observation, and no reasonable explanation can be made to close the difference.
-
When we don't know anything about aether
If we no nothing about the aether, then it is simply a meaningless word.
I can speculate about a thing I will call "worteni". It is important to physics, but unfortunately we don't know anything about it.
-
When we don't know anything about aether
If we no nothing about the aether, then it is simply a meaningless word.
I can speculate about a thing I will call "worteni". It is important to physics, but unfortunately we don't know anything about it.
Well, please go by full text, instead. When we don't know what exactly is aether, how can one say that space is empty and there is no aether. If light travels with maximum speed in vacuum, can we say that we have removed aether by creating vacuum.
Are you talking about vortex model.
-
This is getting tiresome. There is no evidence for the existence of "aether". We can't prove or disprove it's existence, therefore it has NO place in real science. Science is based on observations and subsequent theories based on these observations. Wild speculation on what might be, without a scintilla of evidence, belongs in pseudoscience.
-
Aether was a fairly logical guess when radio transmission was discovered. We knew that information can be transmitted by waves in solids, liquids and gases, and now we had the means of measuring wavelength, frequency and velocity of something rather more tractable than light, so the first guess would be that it was carried by some other medium.
Early radio textbooks used "compression of the aether" to explain radio propagation to soldiers, sailors and aviators who needed a quick and practical understanding of phenomena such as frequency, wavelength, diffraction, reflection, dispersion, interference and attenuation that could be visualised with ripples on water and which profoundly affected their life-critical use of the medium.
Maxwell actually derived his propagation equations as theoretical models of "fluctuations in a medium" with properties of permittivity ε and permeability μ. The power of this approach is in allowing us to model and predict propagation in any medium, but the observation that EM radiation propagates through a vacuum at a finite speed independent of direction requires us to assign values to ε0 and μ0 analogous to those of a real medium.
The problem with "fluctuations of the aether" is the calculated elastic modulus and density of the material - the properties that determine the speed of waves. It has to be orders of magnitude stiffer than any known material and orders of magnitude less dense. We have no concept of a less dense material than hydrogen, or a stiffer material than, say, carbon steel. This is the point at which the search for aether becomes somewhat problematic as it also must have zero viscosity (or the planets would spiral into the sun) and its mechanical properties must be independent of the amplitude and frequency of the wave over at least a range of 1018 - a degree of linearity unmatched by any other medium.
Therefore the minimum assumption is that Maxwell's model holds true in the absence of any medium, as long as we can assign independent experimental values to ε0 and μ0. It turns out that the values we measure from electrostatic and magnetostatic experiments (no need for any compressible medium as nothing is moving) give us the observed value for c.
Thus no requirement for an aether.
-
AFAIK, every model of aether that has been proposed so far makes predictions contrary to at least one experimental result. Thus, this word comes with too much baggage for anyone who wants to propose a new theory of light. Perhaps it would be better for them to invent a new word for their idea.