0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
'Empty' space has mass
which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
What is the density of space? You keep trotting out the same assertion, with no numbers to back it up.
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."
Since EM waves are part of the debate, whether there is an aether or not, are there any experiments, besides using EM waves, that can propagate waves without a medium, to show a medium is not needed? If you had a tangible lab analogy, this could end the debate. If this is not possible, except on paper, that tells us something different.
"This medium, called also the aether, has mass and is populated by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it"
"Wave particle duality is described as the compound system of point particle plus accompanying wave (in the æther)."
I ask because I am at a loss to understand it. Is it simply because people find relativity so hard to grasp properly and an aether becomes easier to imagine since it has no mathematics attached to it.
What is the density of space? You keep trotting out the same assertion, with no numbers to back it up. What is the ealstic modulus of space? You keep trotting out the same assertion, with no numbers to back it up.
Thus the aether moves through matter and matter moves through aether and the result is gravity !
In terms of Maxwell's equations you keep insisting no one equates them with the aether when Maxwell himself does.
Why do virtual photons seem to crop up a lot with these ideas? Does anyone actually stop to think what virtual photons are? Anybody got a definition for virtual photon that can enlighten the aetherists?
To give you yet another clue, the speed of a compression wave is √(K/ρ), where K is the elastic modulus and ρ is the density of the medium.
And you consistently refuse to state the mechanical properties (density, elastic modulus) of the medium you insist that we should believe in. So nobody does.
Of course, this is an improper generalization. Electromagnetic waves, probability density waves and others are very different animals from compression waves in a medium, even if the math used to describe each is very similar...
Virtual particles never leave the confines of a Feynman diagram. Can you please explain to us dolts why that is McQueen?