Is there any evidence for aether?

  • 117 Replies
  • 12233 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 555
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #50 on: 30/04/2016 01:40:42 »
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.

Surely photons originate in or from electrons ? Why is that so completely off-topic that I am misleading the 'audience' ?
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2788
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #51 on: 30/04/2016 03:44:24 »
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.

Surely photons originate in or from electrons ? Why is that so completely off-topic that I am misleading the 'audience' ?
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?

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2788
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #52 on: 30/04/2016 03:53:03 »
Quote from: McQueen
Yes, of course sound needs a medium  and light must do so too, which is the whole point of this discussion.
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.

It would be best if you didn't make claims about something when you're not knowledgeable in it. If it's your own theory then you're posting it in the wrong forum.

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #53 on: 30/04/2016 03:59:59 »
NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION by LOUIS DE BROGLIE

Quote
“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 “subquantic medium” is the aether.

‘Fluid mechanics suggests alternative to quantum orthodoxy’
http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/fluid-systems-quantum-mechanics-0912

Quote
“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.”

A “fluidic pilot-wave system” is the aether.

‘When Fluid Dynamics Mimic Quantum Mechanics’
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729111934.htm

Quote
“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 waves in a double slit experiment is the aether.

It is the chaotic nature of the aether which is the It is the vacuum energy. It is the chaotic nature of the aether which causes the Casimir effect. The following is analogous to the chaotic nature of the aether and how it causes the Casimir effect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS8Lbq2VYIk


*

Offline Atomic-S

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 945
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #54 on: 30/04/2016 04:53:10 »
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.
 

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #55 on: 30/04/2016 05:06:34 »
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.

Particles of matter are condensations of the aether. It is often incorrectly stated that the Higgs gives mass to matter. The Higgs does not give mass to matter. The aether has mass. The Higgs describes the mechanism by which aether condenses into particles of matter.

Maxwell's displacement current is a physical displacement of the aether.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Luminiferous_aether

Quote
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."

*

Offline Atomic-S

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 945
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #56 on: 30/04/2016 05:09:06 »
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.
 

*

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 555
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #57 on: 30/04/2016 05:24:41 »
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?

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  ?
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

*

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 555
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #58 on: 30/04/2016 05:28:15 »
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.

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 ???
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

*

Offline Atomic-S

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 945
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #59 on: 30/04/2016 05:32:37 »
Quote
Particles of matter are condensations of the aether.
"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.
 

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #60 on: 30/04/2016 05:34:05 »
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.

There are no such things as gravitons. 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. The state of displacement of the aether is curved spacetime. The state of displacement of the aether is gravity. The aether displaced by the Earth pushing back and exerting pressure toward the Earth is gravity.

[0903.3802] The Milky Way's dark matter halo appears to be lopsided
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3802

Quote
"the emerging picture of the dark matter halo of the Milky Way is dominantly lopsided in nature."

The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter traveling along with the Milky Way. The Milky Way's halo is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the aether, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.

What physicists mistake for the density of the dark matter is actually the state of displacement of the aether. What they fail to realize is the state of displacement of the aether is curved spacetime.

In the following two articles the aether is what waves in a double slit experiment.

'From the Newton's laws to motions of the fluid and superfluid vacuum: vortex tubes, rings, and others'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3900

Quote
"This medium, called also the aether, has mass and is populated by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it"

... and displace it.

'EPR program: a local interpretation of QM'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.5612

Quote
"Wave particle duality is described as the compound system of point particle plus accompanying wave (in the ćther)."

I don't think any of the articles specifically refer to gravitational waves as waves in the aether. However, they have to do with gravitational aether and also how aether is compatible with a superfluid dark matter filling 'empty' space. They might help you get a better understanding of how the aether has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

The following article describes gravity as a pressure exerted by aether toward matter.

'The aether-modified gravity and the G ̈del metric'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5654

Quote
"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."

The following article describes the aether as an incompressible fluid resulting in what the article refers to as gravitational aether caused by pressure or vorticity.

'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old Cosmological Constant Problem'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3955

Quote
"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 following article describes a gravitating vacuum where aether is the quantum vacuum of the 21-st century.

'From Analogue Models to Gravitating Vacuum'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.1155

Quote
"The aether of the 21-st century is the quantum vacuum, which is a new form of matter. This is the real substance"

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid, which is described in the following article as the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. The article describes a 'back reaction' associated with the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. This is the displaced aether 'displacing back'.

'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3458

Quote
"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."

The following article describes the aether as that which produces resistance to acceleration and is responsible for the increase in mass of an object with velocity and describes the "space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."

'Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and fluidic inertia'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4611

Quote
"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."

The relativistic mass of an object is the mass of the object and the mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the object which is displaced by the object. The faster an object moves with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists the greater the displacement of the aether by the object the greater the relativistic mass of the object.

The incompressible fluid described in the following article is the gravitational aether which "the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."

'Empty Black Holes, Firewalls, and the Origin of Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4176

Quote
"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 [13]. 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 [14]. 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."

The following articles describe what is presently postulated as dark matter is aether.

'Quantum aether and an invariant Planck scale'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3753

Quote
"this version of aether may have some bearing on the abundance of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in our universe. ... mass of the aether"

'Scalars, Vectors and Tensors from Metric-Affine Gravity'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.5168

Quote
"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."

'Unified Dark Energy-Dark Matter model with Inverse Quintessence'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.4758

Quote
"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"

'Singular-Turbulent Structure Formation in the Universe and the Essence of Dark Matter I. Unified model for dark matter and quintessence'
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0610135

Quote
"Superfluid dark matter is reminiscent of the aether and modeling the universe using superfluid aether is compatible."

'Vainshtein mechanism in Gauss-Bonnet gravity and Galileon aether'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.1892

Quote
"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"

'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum medium and the inertial motion of particles'
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0701155

Quote
"In this paper we shall show that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as a ubiquitous back ground field is a super fluid medium."
« Last Edit: 30/04/2016 05:46:40 by stacyjones »

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #61 on: 30/04/2016 05:44:20 »
"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.

In de Broglie's double solution theory there are two waves. There is the wave-function wave which is statistical, non-physical and is used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments. It is a mathematical construct only. It doesn't physically exist. There is also a physical wave in a "hidden medium" which guides the particle. The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether.

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf

Quote
“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”

The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether.

Quote
"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."

A particle may be likened in a first approximation to a moving singularity which has an associated wave in the aether.

Quote
"the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave"

The particle occupies a very small region of the associated wave in the aether.

Wave-particle duality is a moving particle and it's associated wave in the aether.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

Quote
"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field"

The electromagnetic field is a state of the aether. Particles of matter are condensations of aether.

'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A. EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf

Quote
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2."

The mass of the body does diminish. However, the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished; it still exists, as aether. Matter evaporates into aether. As matter evaporates into aether it expands into neighboring places; which is energy. Mass is conserved.

When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether. The evaporation is energy. Mass is conserved.
« Last Edit: 30/04/2016 05:49:15 by stacyjones »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #62 on: 30/04/2016 08:22:22 »
 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. 

*

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 555
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #63 on: 30/04/2016 08:32:33 »
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 ??
« Last Edit: 30/04/2016 08:34:37 by McQueen »
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #64 on: 30/04/2016 08:42:48 »


 What about 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' that is getting so much attention now-a-days ?

More ''god'' talk and make  believe at this time.


 
Quote
Would you consider an electromagnetic field to be a medium ?

Yes, look at magnetic bottling



 
Quote
What about a gravitational field ??

Yes, but I think that is something we already know and it is more like an electrodynamic field which is associated with the electrodynamics of moving bodies.


added - I had the flu when I made this, I just wanted to show I have experimented and it was weird the paper did not burn . In observation it seemed like the flame curved around the magnetic field.
Also at one point I observed flames at the lighter end and flames at the end of the magnets, but in the middle the flame was seemingly vanished.


flame→no flame→flame which made me scratch my head big time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zetRm080DYI


added- whoa, I have just had a huge thought, the north and south magnetic poles are compressed by the rotation of the earth, this causes the field to bulge out, the same as my magnets in the video create a reverse of magnetic bottling, in my video the magnetic field is not confining the plasma to a central position, it is stopping the plasma entering the magnet space, whoa what a thought . The Earth is protected by magnet space, we are bottled for protection and the plasma is outside our magnet space.

added- sorry I have no idea if this diagram is relevant to the discussion, but the voices in my head told me to draw it lol

[attachment=21519]





« Last Edit: 30/04/2016 09:16:59 by Thebox »

*

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 555
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #65 on: 30/04/2016 11:55:14 »
flame→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.

“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #66 on: 30/04/2016 12:21:46 »
flame→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.

I think the mass of the magnets I used may of been a bit on the heavy side to obtain magnetic levitation and I no longer have those magnets it was a couple of year back.

I find it interesting that magnetic levitation is liking to ''buoyancy'', the equal and opposing polarities creating a like ''force field'' of ''buoyancy'.

I do not see why this can't be extended for bigger bodies and a similarity to electrodynamic ''buoyancy'' of bodies.

Like wise charge or likewise polarity repels, maybe the combination of both is what creates radius .


I think the ''aether'' is a combination of  interwoven physical energies that occupy the nothing.






*

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 573
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #67 on: 30/04/2016 12:46:32 »
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 ????


The speed of light is the ground state of the universe. This can be inferred from the observation that there is a net conversion of matter to energy in our universe. Matter, which occupies inertial reference, is net converting into energy, which exists in a speed of light reference. This conversion into energy occurs independent of relative inertial reference, since the laws of physics are same in all "inertial" references.

I used the analogy of sea level or C-level, where all the water on the earth flows toward the ocean; C-level. This is independent of reference; mountain or stream.

One leg of energy is anchored at the speed of light. Energy move at the speed of light. Energy also has a second leg which shows finite expressions; wavelength and frequency, which are inertial dependent. At the speed of light, the universe will appears as a point-instant, which means finite wavelength can't be seen at the speed of light. The diversity of wavelength and frequency are all  inertial reference dependent.

Picture a spring attached at one end to a fixed location; grounded at the speed of light. The spring is always defined, in part, by this absolute position, that is the same in all references. The free end of the spring is inertial reference dependent. Inertial reference  has the impact of stretching the spring away from the ground state, adding potential. The inertial references can pull or contract the spring, with the C-anchor never changing.

Since C is the ground state, the pulling of the spring by inertial references adds potential. While the continuous lowering of potential in the spring, back to the ground state, releases potential. This allows energy to propagate via the inverse square rule and not violate energy conservation. The entire affect is a renewable wave motion due to the persistence of the speed of light ground state, and the persistence of inertial reference.   

The aether is a logical artifact of physics still using a relative reference as the ground state. Energy appears to be in relative motion, if we assume an inertial reference, like the earth, is the ground state. But if we assume light at C is the state of lowest potential, light does not move. Motion is only as an artifact of choosing a relative reference.

Let me try to demonstrate this with an example. Instead of assuming sea level is the ground state for all the surface water of the earth, let us assume the ground state is at the head of the Mississippi River. This will be like using our earth reference as the ground state. We choose this because it is easy for us to use. In many respects, this reference is less abstract, since everyone living in Chicago can see the same thing. We don't have to imagine the ocean.

All references; Chicago, London and Tokyo still see the sea level. However, sea level now begins with a potential, relative to Chicago. The head of the Mississippi River is not moving, since this is the ground state. Instead the oceans are moving relative to Chicago. The question becomes how does the ocean and sea level aways stay in constant motion relative to all city references? This gets very abstract.

A medium, like the aether, seems reasonable, but it has never been found. The paradox is an artifact of using an arbitrary relative reference, instead of an absolute reference as the ground state; Chicago instead of C-level.

This debate may never end, because physics will not change its reference. Too many people benefit by the confusion that is created by using inertial as the ground state. A change to a C-level ground state will cause a changing of the guard, with the horse and buggy superseded by the horseless carriage.
« Last Edit: 30/04/2016 12:56:38 by puppypower »

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #68 on: 30/04/2016 13:41:11 »
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.

There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed, it's what waves.

In a double slit experiment the particle is always detected traveling through a single slit because it always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #69 on: 30/04/2016 13:46:36 »
What about 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' that is getting so much attention now-a-days ? 

Our visible Universe is a larger version of what is represented by the blue lines in the following.



'Supermassive Black Holes Transport Matter into Cosmic Voids, Astronomers Say'
sci-news.com/astronomy/supermassive-black-holes-matter-cosmic-voids-03658.html

Quote
“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.

At the scale of our Universe the energy referred to above is dark energy. A Universal black hole is powering our visible Universe causing the galaxy clusters to accelerate away from us.

Dark energy is aether/dark matter continuously emitted by the Universal black hole powering our visible Universe, pushing the galaxy clusters, causing them to accelerate away from us.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4058
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #70 on: 30/04/2016 13:56:39 »
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?

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  ?

You were talking about electrons traveling millions or billions of miles so I actually think you meant photons since not a lot of electrons reach relativistic speeds. So you could just admit your mistake and we can get over it and move on.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2788
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #71 on: 01/05/2016 19:37:09 »
Quote from: McQueen
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 ...
An electric field can be created by a charge distribution or by a time varying magnetic field with a zero charge density. If you wave a magnet around then it will produce such a field. However that does come down to moving charges even though the total charge density is zero.

Quote from: McQueen
...through which electromagnetic radiation propagates was no longer acceptable, the electric and magnetic fields have a separate existence.
I don't know where you go that idea from. See this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

Quote from: McQueen
Is this not acceptable to you as a medium ???
I'm sorry but I don't understand your question. What is the medium that you have in mind in that question?

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #72 on: 02/05/2016 09:09:38 »

An electric field can be created by a charge distribution or by a time varying magnetic field with a zero charge density.



Pete - space has no net charge, doe's this mean that any volume of space has no entropy and this shows us that a aether doe's not exist?


*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 258
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #73 on: 02/05/2016 09:48:29 »
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.

OK, this is from the view point of the bottom looking up, plumber not astrophysicist...

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.

More recently we have found that even seemingly empty space has both mass and energy. Sometimes lots of it. Dark mass/energy and all that.

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...

Certainly the idea that all of the "stuff" of the universe is some sort of projection of the standing waves and stuff of the underlying fabric/spacetime/aether fite with some of the dumbed down high level physics I have seen on the tele.

Right that should do for the Noble prize....... not.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #74 on: 02/05/2016 11:01:13 »
I have thought more about the Aether or to put in laymen terms a transmission medium.   We know that darkness allows light to pass through it and all forces to pass through it.


If we was to define dark space as the Aether that would be surely a misconception, we already know that the light whole of space is an affective way of transmission, if we defined the relative fixed constant of light to be the aether and we send light through light, then surely the aether is that which allows itself to pass through itself and is light or putting it into full perspective electromagnetic radiation.  This suggesting that a light wave is a disturbance in the fixed constant.


So in reconsideration yes I believe the aether exists, but the aether is also the very same thing has passes through it. Evidently light carries information, even a laser in the dark passes through electromagnetic radiation.   


Do we consider the light from the sun travelling through space or do we consider a satellite transmission travelling through the light of space?


Do we consider  the very medium of natural day  light and the whole to be an optical ''invisible'' medium/aether that allows sight to pass through it?









« Last Edit: 02/05/2016 11:09:50 by Thebox »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #75 on: 02/05/2016 17:26:14 »
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.

Please state the density and compressive modulus of aether, or admit that you are talking nonsense.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #76 on: 02/05/2016 17:27:11 »
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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum

Quote
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.

Matter, quantum solids and fluids, a piece of window glass and 'stuff' have mass and so does the aether.

The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moves through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. The aether is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment, the aether.

Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality, both are waves in the aether.

Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Quote
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...

There isn't. The state of displacement of the aether is curved spacetime. The aether displaced by the Earth pushing back and exerting pressure toward the Earth is gravity.
« Last Edit: 02/05/2016 17:31:57 by stacyjones »

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #77 on: 02/05/2016 17:29:23 »
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?

Think of the aether as being a sea of massive photons which are displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
« Last Edit: 02/05/2016 18:07:07 by stacyjones »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #78 on: 02/05/2016 21:00:17 »
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!
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #79 on: 02/05/2016 21:16:38 »
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.

Did Vikings need to know the speed of sound in water to understand their ships moved through and displaced it? Why do you insist on placing red herrings in front of your ability to correctly understand what occurs physically in nature?

Quote
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 is now understood to fill what would otherwise be considered to be empty space.

'Cosmologists at Penn Weigh Cosmic Filaments and Voids'
http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/news/cosmologists-penn-weigh-cosmic-filaments-and-voids

Quote
"Dark matter ... permeates all the way to the center of the voids."

'No Empty Space in the Universe --Dark Matter Discovered to Fill Intergalactic Space'
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/02/no-empty-space-in-the-universe-dark-matter-discovered-to-fill-intergalactic-space-.html

Quote
"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."

Dark matter which fills the space unoccupied by particles of matter is otherwise known as the aether. Aether has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. Including 'particles' as large as galaxies and galaxy clusters.

In the following two articles the aether is what waves in a double slit experiment.

'From the Newton's laws to motions of the fluid and superfluid vacuum: vortex tubes, rings, and others'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3900

Quote
"This medium, called also the aether, has mass and is populated by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it"

... and displace it.

'EPR program: a local interpretation of QM'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.5612

Quote
"Wave particle duality is described as the compound system of point particle plus accompanying wave (in the ćther)."

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in theaether passes through both.

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.

The wave of wave-particle duality is a wave in the aether.

'The Milky Way's dark matter halo appears to be lopsided'
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3802

Quote
"the emerging picture of the dark matter halo of the Milky Way is dominantly lopsided in nature."

The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter traveling along with the Milky Way. The Milky Way's halo is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the aether, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

The Milky Way moves through and curves spacetime.

The Milky Way's halo is curved spacetime.

The state of displacement of the aether is curved spacetime.

The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.

What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the aether.

Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality; both are waves in the aether.

Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4058
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #80 on: 02/05/2016 21:36:31 »
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.

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #81 on: 02/05/2016 21:44:48 »
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.

It seems pretty foolish to me that there are those who are incapable of understanding in a double slit experiment the particle always detected traveling through a single slit is evidence the particle always travels through a single slit. In a boat double slit experiment are you able to understand the boat travels through a single slit even when your eyes are closed?

The following article describes gravity as a pressure exerted by aether toward matter.

'The aether-modified gravity and the G ̈del metric'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5654

"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."

The following article describes the aether as an incompressible fluid resulting in what the article refers to as gravitational aether caused by pressure or vorticity.

'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old Cosmological Constant Problem'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3955

"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 following article describes a gravitating vacuum where aether is the quantum vacuum of the 21-st century.

'From Analogue Models to Gravitating Vacuum'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.1155

"The aether of the 21-st century is the quantum vacuum, which is a new form of matter. This is the real substance"

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid, which is described in the following article as the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. The article describes a 'back reaction' associated with the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. This is the displaced aether 'displacing back'.

'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3458

"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."

The following article describes the aether as that which produces resistance to acceleration and is responsible for the increase in mass of an object with velocity and describes the "space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."

'Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and fluidic inertia'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4611

"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."

The relativistic mass of an object is the mass of the object and the mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the object which is displaced by the object. The faster an object moves with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists the greater the displacement of the aether by the object the greater the relativistic mass of the object.

The incompressible fluid described in the following article is the gravitational aether which "the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."

'Empty Black Holes, Firewalls, and the Origin of Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4176

"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 [13]. 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 [14]. 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."

The following articles describe what is presently postulated as dark matter is aether.

'Quantum aether and an invariant Planck scale'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3753

"this version of aether may have some bearing on the abundance of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in our universe."

"mass of the aether"

'Scalars, Vectors and Tensors from Metric-Affine Gravity'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.5168

"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."

'Unified Dark Energy-Dark Matter model with Inverse Quintessence'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.4758

"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"

'Singular-Turbulent Structure Formation in the Universe and the Essence of Dark Matter I. Unified model for dark matter and quintessence'
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0610135

"Superfluid dark matter is reminiscent of the aether and modeling the universe using superfluid aether is compatible."

'Vainshtein mechanism in Gauss-Bonnet gravity and Galileon aether'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.1892

"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"

'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum medium and the inertial motion of particles'
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0701155

"In this paper we shall show that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as a ubiquitous back ground field is a super fluid medium."

*

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 555
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #82 on: 02/05/2016 22:34:57 »
Ok. This is getting really interesting. So a short re-cap: It is common knowledge that a material object can move with any velocity, and can be sped up or slowed down by a force that increases or decreases its kinetic energy.  But this does not apply to waves. The speed with which a wave moves is solely determined by the medium through which it moves. Once a wave is created, the only reason its speed will change is if it enters a different medium or if the properties of the medium change. Water waves travel more quickly over deeper water, so a wave will slow down as it passes over an underwater ridge, but speed up again as it emerges into deeper water.  The wave's speed depends only on the medium. Adding energy to the wave doesn't speed it up, it just increases its amplitude. A water wave, unlike many other types of wave, has a speed that depends on its shape: a broader wave moves faster.

A wave can be described as a disturbance that travels through a medium from one location to another location.  When a wave is present in a medium, the individual particles of the medium are only temporarily displaced from their rest position.  As a disturbance moves through a medium from one particle to its adjacent particle, energy is being transported from one end of the medium to the other. In a water wave energy is transported through the medium, yet the water molecules are not transported.  The same holds true with sound waves travelling through air.  Waves traveling through the bulk of a fluid (such as a liquid or a gas) are almost always longitudinal waves. Transverse waves require a relatively rigid medium in order to transmit their energy.  As one particle begins to move it must be able to exert a pull on its nearest neighbor. If the medium is not rigid as is the case with fluids, the particles will slide past each other. This sliding action which is characteristic of liquids and gases prevents one particle from displacing its neighbor in a direction perpendicular to the energy transport.

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. Is it also true of electromagnetic radiation ?

2) The velocity of the wave depends only on the properties of the medium through which it is travelling. Does the same hold good for electromagnetic radiation ?

3) All waves require a medium through which to travel . Does this also apply to electromagnetic radiation and if so why not ?

As regards (1) , maybe it is true since, energy from electric and magnetic fields generated by the vibration or oscillation of an electron is self sustaining, and the energy travels from its point of origin travels to its destination.

As regards (2) with regard to electromagnetic radiation it does not have to  hold true since electric and magnetic fields are self sustaining, there is no need for a medium!

With regard to (3) Electromagnetic radiation   can travel through a vacuum. BUT and here is the really interesting thing.  The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant.

Physicists had long been aware of this fact but they could never explain why it was so. It was Albert Einstein who proposed that the speed of light in a vacuum was a Universal physical Constant. In proclaiming the speed of light in a vacuum as a constant, Einstein had set a limit on the speed of the Universe, nothing can go faster than light. YET just as Newton had done with gravity although Einstein was able to explain its existence, he was never able to state as to why it existed i.e., why the speed of light in a vacuum was constant.

AGAIN while Einstein was never able to explain why the speed of light was a constant, physicists were aware that an extremely simple solution did exist, namely the existence of an aether the speed of a wave in a medium is always constant ! Surely this is a huge plus point FOR the existence of an aether and AGAINST theories that deny the existence of an aether.

A MAJOR detail about light as a wave that doesn't gel with the wave theory is Max Planck's discovery that the energy of electromagnetic radiation existed as discrete quantities. In an ordinary wave the energy is continuous not discrete. While Planck's findings indicated that the energy in electromagnetic radiation existed as individual packets or quanta of energy. To reconcile these two aspects of wave/particle was a daunting task for Quantum Mechanics and one which many consider to be too complicated, devious and unacceptable. Paul Dirac the gifted mathematician from Cambridge who was possibly the greatest mathematician of the age had deep reservations about re-normalisation theories and infinities:

' I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it is small – not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it! '

Similarly Richard Feynman was one of the strongest critics of the re-normalisation process:

  The shell game that we play ... is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate.

In spite  of this physicists claim that the re-normalisation process and QED is one f the most successful theories ever produced and that it has an accuracy of a billion to one. If one delves a little deeper and asks what quantity this accuracy determines, the breezy answer maybe "well the spin for one thing!' Note, the discussion is about electromagnetic radiation, not about 'spin' !

By contrast the Gestalt Aether Theory, the first four experimentally verifiable proofs of which are given here, contains detailed and very accurate information on Frequency, wave-length and energies of radio-waves and electromagnetic radiation in general.
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #83 on: 02/05/2016 23:37:03 »
The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is a physical process determined by the physical state of the aether in which it exists. The faster an atomic clock moves through the aether the greater the displacement of the aether by the clock the greater the pressure exerted toward and throughout the atomic clock by the aether the slower the clock ticks. The Earth displaces the aether. The aether pushes back and exerts pressure toward the Earth. The greater the gravitational pressure exerted toward and throughout the atomic clock by the displaced aether the slower the clock ticks.

This is why the speed of light is always determined to be 'c'.
« Last Edit: 03/05/2016 00:45:04 by stacyjones »

*

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 555
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #84 on: 03/05/2016 04:15:15 »
The following article describes gravity as a pressure exerted by aether toward matter. (reply # 79)

Some nice links that support the existence of an aether !
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #85 on: 03/05/2016 08:03:07 »
Why do you insist on placing red herrings in front of your ability to correctly understand what occurs physically in nature?

In physics, correct understanding means numbers that predict what actually happens. Everything else is handwaving, guesswork, philosophy, lies, politics, and all the other human activities that scientists despise.

Numbers, please. Just the ones that predict the speed of light in vacuo for  the time being.
« Last Edit: 03/05/2016 08:05:23 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4058
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #86 on: 03/05/2016 08:12:18 »
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.

*

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 555
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #87 on: 03/05/2016 10:02:52 »
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.

This is high dudgeon coming from someone who has posted 3 of his own theories in the matter of a week. I think :

__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."

Is far far superior to anything rubbish that you keep peddling .  (I hope you don't mind ?? At least you shouldn't!)

See this and this!

I think a lot of your problem has to do with a certain green eyed monster, who thinks his ideas should be as good as anyone else's! Unfortunately they are not!

Numbers, please. Just the ones that predict the speed of light in vacuo for  the time being.

Alan, although I appreciate many of your posts, I find that sometimes you can get a bit jaded. In my post I have stated that a reason exists IF an aether is present for the speed of light being constant in a vacuum. Your theories (if you are supporting Quantum Mechanics or Standard Theory), do not have an explanation for why the speed of light is  constant in a vacuum. I will ask you again don't you think this a pretty big shortcoming ?

“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #88 on: 03/05/2016 12:40:49 »
The Maxwell equations explain why the speed of light is constant in vacuo. It's a first-year undergraduate experiment to measure the constants and calculate the value of c which the same students confirm, with a variant of the Michelson-Morley experiment, to be independent of direction. I've done the experiments and taught them umpteen times, and so far nobody has suggested that we need an aether to explain the results. Nothing to do with quantum mechanics or a Standard Model of anything - just classical electrodynamics, high school maths, and some very simple apparatus. 

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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 555
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #89 on: 03/05/2016 13:09:36 »
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.

Alan, Alan, as the OP I would expect that the least you could do was to verify what you say BEFORE taking such a high handed manner. Obviously when dealing with such an esteemed and senior member of this forum, the very last thing that is needed is to be disrespectful. So here, if you have the patience to read, is a complete validation of what I had originally written:

"In 1868, the equations of the Scottish mathematician and physicist James Clerk Maxwell, building on the earlier work of Ampčre, Coulomb and Faraday, noted that all electromagnetic waves travelled at exactly the same speed as light in empty space, and that light itself was a kind of wave rippling through the invisible magnetic and electric fields. Maxwell concluded that light and other electromagnetic waves should travel at a certain fixed speed relative to some unconfirmed ambient medium he called “aether”.

The famous Michelson-Morley experiments of 1887, in a failed attempt to prove that light travels through a medium known as aether, had unexpectedly demonstrated that light travels at the same speed regardless of whether it was measured in the direction of the Earth’s motion or at right angles to it. At least this is the case when light travels through a vacuum: when light moves from medium to medium (like from air to glass, for example), its speed can of course change depending on the new medium's index of refraction, and this “bending” of light is essentially how lenses work, as had long been understood.

Thus, whether a source of light is moving towards you or away from you, the light still travels at a steady 300,000 km/s, completely contrary to classical physics and common sense. It was the young Einstein's genius to explain just WHY the speed of light is constant and does not depend on the speed of its source or its observer. In 1905, Einstein (and also the French mathematician Henri Poincaré, who was coming to similar conclusions at around the same time, although from a more mathematical point of view) realized that the whole idea of aether as a medium for light to travel in was totally unnecessary, providing, as we will see, that one was willing to abandon the idea of absolute time.

Einstein also realized that that Maxwell’s equations led to an apparent paradox or inconsistency in the laws of physics, because it suggested that if one could catch up to a beam of light one would see a stationary electromagnetic wave, which is an impossibility. Einstein hypothesized, therefore, that the speed of light actually plays the role of infinite speed in our universe, and that in fact nothing can ever travel faster than light (and certainly that nothing in the universe could ever travel at anything like infinite speed). It should be noted that Einstein did not actually PROVE the constancy of the speed of light in all frames of reference. Rather, it is an axiom (an underlying assumption) from which he derived the rest of his theory. The axiom can be experimentally verified, but it is not proven in any theoretic sense. "

Is this satisfactory or do you still have objections to the post. The title of the post is " Is there any evidence for aether? "I have merely  tried to contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way.
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2027
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #90 on: 03/05/2016 13:12:04 »
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.
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.
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #91 on: 03/05/2016 13:16:38 »
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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Luminiferous_aether

Quote
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."
« Last Edit: 03/05/2016 13:27:08 by stacyjones »

*

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 555
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #92 on: 03/05/2016 13:19:16 »
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.

Since water waves do not move at relativistic speeds, this piece of information is hardly germane to the discussion.

Quote
Interesting discussion by the way.

Thanks!
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #93 on: 03/05/2016 13:21:10 »
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.
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.

Everything is with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists, including the rate at which an atomic clock ticks which is used to determine the speed of light. This is why the speed of light is always determined to be 'c'.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #94 on: 03/05/2016 13:37:02 »
Please tell us the density and elastic modulus of the material you hypothesise as having both.

No numbers, no credibility.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #95 on: 03/05/2016 13:56:08 »
Please tell us the density and elastic modulus of the material you hypothesise as having both.

No numbers, no credibility.


See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Luminiferous_aether

Quote
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."

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2027
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #96 on: 03/05/2016 14:41:26 »
Since water waves do not move at relativistic speeds, this piece of information is hardly germane to the discussion
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!
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #97 on: 03/05/2016 15:10:30 »
Since water waves do not move at relativistic speeds, this piece of information is hardly germane to the discussion
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!

Let's assume the rate at which the clocks tick is determined by the state of the water in which it exists. The faster the clock moves through the water the slower it ticks. If this were the case then the speed of sound would always be determined to be the same speed. If this were the case then the water could be considered to be relativistic.

*

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 555
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #98 on: 03/05/2016 16:33:38 »
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!

You may be looking for anything BUT  your language and attitude leave a lot to be desired 'incorrect assumptions' from someone who claims that the velocity of a wave moving at a few kilometres  per hour  will vary with the position of the observer.

The speed of these waves relative to an observer is dependant on the speed of the medium relative to the observer.

If this is the level of your understanding and being rude on top of everything else, what can I say. Just tagging on a  'Just looking for consistency ' on the end, doesn't really alter the gist or tenor of your message, which is totally false and reprehensible.

“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is there any evidence for aether?
« Reply #99 on: 03/05/2016 17:56:49 »
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations
There's no mention there of the density or elastic modulus of the material you assert to pervade the vacuum.

Let me help you a bit. The density of a vacuum is zero - you can measure it quite easily. The elastic modulus of a vacuum is also zero, and is very easy to measure. But light travels through it, so your stuff simply does not exist. 
helping to stem the tide of ignorance