0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
Quote from: jeffreyH on 29/04/2016 20:21:35Show 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' ?
Yes, of course sound needs a medium and light must do so too, which is the whole point of this discussion.
“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.”
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.
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 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?
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.
Particles of matter are condensations 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.
"the emerging picture of the dark matter halo of the Milky Way is dominantly lopsided in nature."
"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)."
"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."
"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 aether of the 21-st century is the quantum vacuum, which is a new form of matter. This is the real substance"
"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."
"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."
"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 . 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 . 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."
"this version of aether may have some bearing on the abundance of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in our universe. ... mass of the aether"
"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."
"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"
"Superfluid dark matter is reminiscent of the aether and modeling the universe using superfluid aether is compatible."
"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"
"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.
“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”
"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."
"the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave"
"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field"
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2."
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 ??
flame→no flame→flame which made me scratch my head big time.
Quote from: Thebox on 30/04/2016 08:42:48flame→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, since you already have the right type of magnet.
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 absolutely nothing wrong with this scenario ?
Sound waves require a medium. Photons do not. In space no one can hear you scream.
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.
What about 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' that is getting so much attention now-a-days ?
“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.
Quote from: PmbPhy on 30/04/2016 03:44:24The 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 ?
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
An electric field can be created by a charge distribution or by a time varying magnetic field with a zero charge density.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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?
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!
"Dark matter ... permeates all the way to the center of the voids."
"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."
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.
The following article describes gravity as a pressure exerted by aether toward matter. (reply # 79)
Why do you insist on placing red herrings in front of your ability to correctly understand what occurs physically in nature?
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.
__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."
Numbers, please. Just the ones that predict the speed of light in vacuo for the time being.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Interesting discussion by the way.
Quote from: McQueen on 02/05/2016 22:34:57What 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.
Please tell us the density and elastic modulus of the material you hypothesise as having both.No numbers, no credibility.
Since water waves do not move at relativistic speeds, this piece of information is hardly germane to the discussion
Quote from: McQueen on 03/05/2016 13:19:16Since water waves do not move at relativistic speeds, this piece of information is hardly germane to the discussionIt 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!
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!
The speed of these waves relative to an observer is dependant on the speed of the medium relative to the observer.