0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
So, what I see as the major problem with EM theory is this taboo with the study of the ether... it holds people back from just looking at the problem, and similarly in QM theory they have ignored De Broglie's pilot-wave theory. A better study of these theories would probably help move the understanding of nature forward.
Quote from: arcmetalSo, what I see as the major problem with EM theory is this taboo with the study of the ether... it holds people back from just looking at the problem, and similarly in QM theory they have ignored De Broglie's pilot-wave theory. A better study of these theories would probably help move the understanding of nature forward. There is no taboo that I'm aware of. The problem in many cases is ...If someone knew what they were talking about then that person would be heard.
I doubt that anyone can say Einstein finds the idea of an ether attractive because he is having a hard time grasping the theory of relativity.
"The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces."
That is quite incorrect. If you understood what he wrote then you'd know that what he's talking about is not the luminiferous aether from special relativity. He's speaking about vacuum fluctuations. But that doesn't support the propagation of light.
If someone knew what they were talking about then that person would be heard.
Qu. 20. Doth not this Aethereal Medium in passing out of Water, Glass, Crystal and other compact and dense Bodies into empty Spaces, grown denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the Rays of Light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve Lines? And doth not the gradual condensation of this Medium extend to some distance from the Bodies, and thereby cause the Inflexions of the Rays of Light, which pass by the edges of dense Bodies, at some distance from the Bodies?
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."
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics: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.
There is no taboo that I'm aware of. The problem in many cases is that physicists have been pummeled with E-mail from every Tom, Dick and Harry who, while having no training in physics or relativity, thinks that he's proved that the aether exists, such as McQueen, but who say that the aether is undetectable. The problem with that kind argument is that its incorrect. In physics for a concept to be a valid one then it has to be falsifiable. An undetectable aether is not falsifiable. These poor physicists keep getting e-mail all day long and have to sort out the garbage from the sane stuff.
“What is the reason that Einstein gives for the speed of light being constant?”
Quote from: arcmetal on 10/05/2016 08:09:41Here, we can agree since it looks like this is what's already happening ... that a variety of extensions to the term "aether" is being used to describe differing theories.Excellent, at least we are beginning to understand each other.You will realise that some discussions are not worth pursuing. An extreme example is the poster who claims to understand what gravity really is, it is air pressure holding us down! I usually try a few posts to point them in the right direction, but mostly they are stubbornly attached to their idea, and do not have the capacity to understand the concepts - discussion is futile. In these cases I withdraw, the poster makes a last post and assumes because there is no challenge that they have won the argument. That doesn't worry me, if I am confident of my information I don't have to prove anything to anyone.
Here, we can agree since it looks like this is what's already happening ... that a variety of extensions to the term "aether" is being used to describe differing theories.
In other discussions it is possible to see that although there is disagreement it is possible the person on the other side is capable of understanding the concepts and common understanding may be possible. In these cases it is worth continuing even if eventually we agree to differ. I am glad we continued.
Yes, I agree with your use of the umbrella terms liquid and metal, but within those groups we must be clear to separate the elements that are different. So the aether for sound can be any liquid or gas, but the speed of sound in a particular aether will depend on the properties of that aether. Also other properties will depend on the aether, for example sound in air is non-dispersive, but is dispersive in CO2. Also sound waves will propagate inside the space station, but water waves will not (assuming you could get an ocean up there!). So we must not assume that the behaviour of waves in one aether will mirror that in another aether. Also, there is a tendency to talk about the vacuum aether, but the vacuum supports a range of fields so there could be a range of different aethers in the vacuum.
The only other issue is that we have to be clear about the properties of different aether types so we do not get confused. I come back to the luminiferous aether which SJ described as a relativistic aether and pointed me to the quantum vacuum. But the luminiferous aether was not relativistic, so I'm confused by the reference.So we don't bounce this one back and forth, I will put it all down together.Let's assume that in the vacuum there is a relativistic aether supporting electromagnetic radiation. Let's call it the EMR Vacuum aether. At the time of Michelson & Morley it was assumed that light propagated in the same way as sound in air and waves in water. In other words light would propagate at a fixed speed in the luminiferous aether, but if an observer measures the speed of those light waves then if the aether moves relative to the observer, or if the observer moves through the aether then the measured speed of light would differ. That is a nonrelativistic aether and this behaviour is seen in sound and water waves. In a relativistic aether (EMR Vacuum aether) the speed of light will not vary either by motion of the aether or the observer. Below is a quote from Wiki on Maxwell's biography:"Maxwell believed that the propagation of light required a medium for the waves, dubbed the luminiferous aether. Over time, the existence of such a medium, permeating all space and yet apparently undetectable by mechanical means, proved impossible to reconcile with experiments such as the Michelson–Morley experiment. Moreover, it seemed to require an absolute frame of reference in which the equations were valid, with the distasteful result that the equations changed form for a moving observer."So when SJ describes the luminiferous aether as relativistic I am confused. If they had expected the luminiferous aether to be relativistic the M&M experiment would have hailed as a blinding success, parties for weeks etc. What am I missing?
Quote from: PmbPhy on 13/05/2016 08:55:57There is no taboo that I'm aware of. The problem in many cases is that physicists have been pummeled with E-mail from every Tom, Dick and Harry who, while having no training in physics or relativity, thinks that he's proved that the aether exists, such as McQueen, but who say that the aether is undetectable. The problem with that kind argument is that its incorrect. In physics for a concept to be a valid one then it has to be falsifiable. An undetectable aether is not falsifiable. These poor physicists keep getting e-mail all day long and have to sort out the garbage from the sane stuff.The Bible does say something about Pharisees and whited sepulchers, where would be the joy in physics, if one did not have the freedom to think ?
Quote from: arcmetal on 13/05/2016 08:39:47I doubt that anyone can say Einstein finds the idea of an ether attractive because he is having a hard time grasping the theory of relativity.Einstein was most correct as a teenager.'Alert Einstein's 'First Paper''... papers/Einstein%20First%20Paper.pdf
I have enjoyed reading Einstein's earlier papers. One can see hints of his thoughts evolving and progressing.
You can always quote an authority when his opinion is in the majority. That's known as the Argument from Authority.
In fact the aether turns up in respectable electromagnetics textbooks until the 1950s because it's an easy concept for teaching military technicians, along with the Bohr atom and a few other tricks needed to bring conscripts up to speed for modern warfare. But in this more relaxed arena I think we would do better to avoid the absurdities inherent in both models.
Or, you could understand Robert Laughlin is correct and a relativistic ether is confirmed every day by experiment.
modulus of: 1e113, and density of: 1.11e96
Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single 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.
Repeating nonsense does not turn it into sense. Why not learn some physics instead of wasting your life peddling outdated nonsense? Or join a church and get paid for it!
Now arcmetal has calculated the aether as having Quotemodulus of: 1e113, and density of: 1.11e96neither of which is confirmed or even remotely approximated by experiment.