[jeffreyH]

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.

[stacyjones]

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."

[McQueen]

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.

[stacyjones]

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'.

[McQueen]

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 !

[alancalverd]

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.

[jeffreyH]

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.

[McQueen]

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 ?

[alancalverd]

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.

[McQueen]

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 Ampère, 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.

[Colin2B]

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.

[stacyjones]

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

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."

[McQueen]

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.

Interesting discussion by the way.

Thanks!

[stacyjones]

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'.

[alancalverd]

Please tell us the density and elastic modulus of the material you hypothesise as having both.

No numbers, no credibility.

[stacyjones]

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

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."

[Colin2B]

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!

[stacyjones]

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.

[McQueen]

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.

[alancalverd]

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.