0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Where is the evidence that the aether does not exist ?
This medium, called also the aether, has mass and is populated by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it
Wave particle duality is described as the compound system of point particle plus accompanying wave (in the ćther).
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 ?
Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.
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.
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.
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.
Both of those experiments and their outcome is the evidence that there is no aether.
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.
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.
Where is the evidence that the aether does not exist ?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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 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.
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 am now convinced that theoretical physics is actual philosophy.Autobiography
Could anything be more telling than the passage quoted by stacyjones in 2016!
Faculty Type: Active FacultyTitle: Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of PhysicsCo-recipient of the Nobel Prize for Physics, 1998
Quote from: thedoc on 26/04/2016 23:50:01Where 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.
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 can't be said that waves actually direct the particles to their destinations.
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.
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.
“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 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.”
“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.”
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
The whole point is wave-particle duality can be explained classically.
Quote from: stacyjones on 27/04/2016 18:57:33The 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.
Aether has mass
Quote from: stacyjones on 27/04/2016 23:16:09Aether has mass What is the mass or density of aether?
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).
What is the mass or density of aether?
Quote from: alancalverd on 27/04/2016 23:39:01What 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.
Do you need to know the mass density of the water in order to understand a boat has a bow wave?
Quote from: stacyjones on 27/04/2016 23:44:24Do 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.
Then please show us the numbers.
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?
The problem with wave-particle duality is that some people believe in it!
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 ?
From the perspective of the photon, it CAN'T disperse its energy; "dispersion" has no meaning in a non-temporal construct.Absolute Relativity.
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.
"the emerging picture of the dark matter halo of the Milky Way is dominantly lopsided in nature."
"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 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."
Quote from: Arthur Geddes on 29/04/2016 04:24:02From 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 ?
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 ?
Quote from: jeffreyH on 28/04/2016 19:46:46Sound 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 ?