What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?

  • 131 Replies
  • 13893 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #50 on: 08/05/2016 10:49:07 »
We have now to show that the properties of the electromagnetic medium are identical with those of the luminiferous medium."
So please do so. Just give us the two numbers I asked for, and we might believe you. Or are you a priest, politican or philosopher, and therefore incapable of answering any factual question?
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #51 on: 08/05/2016 11:19:51 »
This was also common knowledge to Maxwell and his contemporaries so it is hardly surprising that he used c (celerity) for the speed of light, assuming it was carried on a medium (the luminiferous aether) and its speed would vary with the motion of the aether relative to the observer.

This is very different to the vacuum referred to by Laughlin, and most physicists would abhor his use of the term aether for vacuum. In Laughlin's aether there is not much you would recognise other than the name, it is not dark matter, matter doesn't displace it, the speed of light does not vary relative to its motion, in fact it is not a medium in the classical sense. It also obeys the rules of Special Relativity, so from now on any mention of relativity is SR or GR.
We discussed this and virtual particles last year in another forum, so those members here will be familiar with the concepts.

Both Maxwell and Laughlin are referring to the same 'stuff'. They are both referring to the relativistic aether. 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'. That's what makes it relativistic.

What you mistake for virtual particles popping into and out of existence out of nothing is the chaotic nature of the aether.

The vacuum energy is the chaotic nature of the aether.

It is the chaotic nature of the aether which causes the Casimir effect. The following is a water wave analogy of the Casimir effect which is analogous to the chaotic nature of the aether.

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

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.
« Last Edit: 08/05/2016 11:25:39 by stacyjones »

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #52 on: 08/05/2016 11:24:06 »
So please do so. Just give us the two numbers I asked for, and we might believe you. Or are you a priest, politican or philosopher, and therefore incapable of answering any factual question?

When Maxwell said "we will show" he is referring to himself. He is saying he will show how the electromagnetic medium and the luminiferous medium are one in the same.

When Maxwell refers to the "luminiferous medium" you do realize he is referring to the aether, correct?
« Last Edit: 08/05/2016 11:27:25 by stacyjones »

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2788
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #53 on: 08/05/2016 17:33:18 »
Quote from: stacyjones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum
So what? That contributes nothing in a discussion of the existence of the Luminiferous aether. Such a thing does not exist. What you lack in knowledge is the fact that an undetectable thing has no place in physics because its not a falsifiable concept and such concepts can play no role in the scientific method. Have you never studied the philosophy of science?

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #54 on: 08/05/2016 19:28:52 »
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:
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.

*

Offline arcmetal

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 37
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #55 on: 08/05/2016 19:40:01 »

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.
.

As you can see, most physicists (other than Laughlin and a few others) don't use the term aether for the very reason that people will confuse it with luminiferous aether as you have done.

I have always found this concept extremely silly.

Consider the use of the term "water" for the complex molecule of H2O.  It is an ancient term which at one time was considered an element.  Except that today we know that it is not an element, but rather it consists of a molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom.  In its liquid form it can contain ions and sometimes other impurities.... I can go on, but my point is that we should be using its more modern name: "Dihydrogen Monoxide", instead of the older more taboo term "water" so that people don't confuse it with its ancient elemental form.


Things tend to follow a cycle of nonsense when you introduce demagoguery into the path of people searching for answers.
« Last Edit: 08/05/2016 19:44:01 by arcmetal »

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #56 on: 08/05/2016 20:01:30 »
You can label it whatever you want. 'Empty' space has mass which is displaced by matter.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #57 on: 08/05/2016 21:29:26 »
You can label it whatever you want. 'Empty' space has mass which is displaced by matter.

Please tell us at least the density of this mass. Every time I measure it, I get zero.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #58 on: 08/05/2016 21:45:14 »
Please tell us at least the density of this mass. Every time I measure it, I get zero.

'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."

"However, as being argued here, if there is an invariant scale, one may also consider it as an upper cut-off Λ (with or without an invariant lower cut-off), and then for the choice N =
√aπ/Λ, and N = (3mπ/Λ3 1/2 for Λ & m and Λ ≪ m respectively (again, m being the mass of the aether quanta, or that of its fundamental constituents, if thought of as a fluid) the
integral in (2), which go as Λ2 and Λ3/m in these limits, is finite"

Please tell us how, "The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether" is interpreted to mean there is no such thing as an ether.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #59 on: 08/05/2016 22:29:33 »
Just as soon as you answer my very simple question. You repeatedly assert that the aether has mass, and I ask you "how much". You say it supports waves, and I ask you for its elastic modulus.

If you don't answer within 48 hours I may lock this topic and others associated with the subject. This is, after all, a science forum, and real science involves numbers, not handwaving.
« Last Edit: 08/05/2016 22:31:41 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #60 on: 08/05/2016 22:47:40 »
'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 æther)."

'Null Aether Theory: pp-Wave and AdS Wave Solutions'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.02266v2.pdf

Quote
Among such models are vector-tensor theories with preferred direction established at every point of spacetime by a fixed-norm vector field. The dynamical vector field defined in this way is referred to as the aether. In this work, we study plane wave metrics in such a theory ... The field equations reduce to two coupled scalar field equations and one of the scalar fields represents the massive spin-0 aether field.
« Last Edit: 08/05/2016 23:12:19 by stacyjones »

*

Offline arcmetal

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 37
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #61 on: 09/05/2016 01:16:24 »
Just as soon as you answer my very simple question. You repeatedly assert that the aether has mass, and I ask you "how much". You say it supports waves, and I ask you for its elastic modulus.

Since the ether is probably a superfluid it would make more sense to find its bulk modulus rather than the elastic modulus. I suspect the people studying superfluid vacuum theory would have decent information on this.  Or, since the folks studying condensed matter have found transmission of transverse waves in their superfluid helium they may also have respective models of the properties you seek.

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #62 on: 09/05/2016 04:32:51 »
Since the ether is probably a superfluid it would make more sense to find its bulk modulus rather than the elastic modulus. I suspect the people studying superfluid vacuum theory would have decent information on this.  Or, since the folks studying condensed matter have found transmission of transverse waves in their superfluid helium they may also have respective models of the properties you seek.

'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."

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #63 on: 09/05/2016 04:51:46 »
'Derivation of the Maxwell's Equations Based on a Continuum Mechanical Model of Vacuum and a Singularity Model of Electric Charges'
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609027

Quote
We speculate that the universe may be filled with a visco-elastic continuum which may be called aether. Thus, the Maxwell’s equations in vacuum are derived by methods of continuum mechanics based on a continuum mechanical model of vacuum and a singularity model of electric charges.

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #64 on: 09/05/2016 04:55:04 »
'Frame Indifferent Formulation of Maxwell's Elastic Fluid and the Rational Continuum Mechanics of the Electromagnetic Field'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.2930v2

Quote
We show that the linearized equations of the incompressible elastic medium admit a ‘Maxwell form’ in which the shear component of the stress vector plays the role of the electric field, and the vorticity plays the role of the magnetic field. Conversely, the set of dynamic Maxwell equations are strict mathematical corollaries from the governing equations of the incompressible elastic medium. This suggests that the nature of ‘electromagnetic field’ may actually be related to an elastic continuous medium

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #65 on: 09/05/2016 04:58:57 »
'Théorie des champs des contraintes et déformations en relativité générale et expansion cosmologique: Theory of stress and strain fields in general relativity and cosmological expansion'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.0611v2

Quote
In this article we propose to add stress-energy tensor to the Einstein equations, assuming that the matter-energy and the metric space-time is nothing but a continuous medium with some elastic properties. We first give a general expression of the stress tensor which is linearly related to the strain tensor. Then, we give the particular expression of the stress tensor for a spatially homnogeneous and isotropic cosmological medium. After that we derive the modified Friedmann equations. In first approximation, we end up with the usual term Λgμν , where the cosmological constant Λ=Kε is related with the bulk modulus K and the relative variation of volume (dilatation). Then we derive corrections to the standard model in second approximation, which depend on these two new parameters.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #66 on: 09/05/2016 08:32:16 »
Since the ether is probably a superfluid it would make more sense to find its bulk modulus rather than the elastic modulus.
OK, let's have it. Can't be difficult to calculate if you know the density, which SJ claims, and the speed of light, which we all know.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #67 on: 09/05/2016 11:39:26 »
OK, let's have it. Can't be difficult to calculate if you know the density, which SJ claims, and the speed of light, which we all know.

'Théorie des champs des contraintes et déformations en relativité générale et expansion cosmologique: Theory of stress and strain fields in general relativity and cosmological expansion'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.0611v2

Quote
In this article we propose to add stress-energy tensor to the Einstein equations, assuming that the matter-energy and the metric space-time is nothing but a continuous medium with some elastic properties. We first give a general expression of the stress tensor which is linearly related to the strain tensor. Then, we give the particular expression of the stress tensor for a spatially homnogeneous and isotropic cosmological medium. After that we derive the modified Friedmann equations. In first approximation, we end up with the usual term Λgμν , where the cosmological constant Λ=Kε is related with the bulk modulus K and the relative variation of volume (dilatation). Then we derive corrections to the standard model in second approximation, which depend on these two new parameters.

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #68 on: 09/05/2016 17:24:03 »
'The Mechanics of Spacetime - A Solid Mechanics Perspective on the Theory of General Relativity'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.07655v1

Quote
We present an elastic constitutive model of General Relativity where we identify the vacuum of three-dimensional space with a Cosmic Fabric embedded in four-dimensional spacetime and having a small thickness along the time dimension. We show a correspondence between the gravitational phenomena described by General Relativity and the kinematic and kinetic properties of the Cosmic Fabric. We propose, in agreement with modern cosmological observations (Collier, 2012; Perlmutter et al., 1999; Riess et al., 1998) and with theoretical results from Quantum Field Theory (Rugh and Zinkernagel, 2002), that the space vacuum is really not a vacuum in the purest sense but is a Cosmic Fabric that has energy density and as such mass density. We further propose that the Cosmic Fabric deforms due to matter in space, which acts as inclusions, in a manner analogous to the deformation of a conventional thin plate (Efrati et al., 2008). By introducing a constitutive model for General Relativity, we lay the groundwork for subsequently applying Solid Mechanics concepts to Cosmology. In particular, we show that strain along the time dimension manifests as a gravitational potential and contraction along the time dimension as gravitational time dilation. By identifying the action integral based on the elastic energy density of the Cosmic Fabric with the Hilbert-Einstein action integral, we derive an expression for the Cosmic Fabric's elastic modulus in terms of its thickness. Assuming a thickness about a Planck's length, we calculate the elastic modulus and density to be about 10113Nm−2, and 1096kgm−3, respectively.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #69 on: 09/05/2016 17:57:37 »
Thank you.

Using those figures we can calculate the speed of light as 3.04 meters/second, only a factor of 100,000,000 too low.

And the density of 1096 kg/cubic meter is slightly greater than that of water, as against the measured value of zero.

I think that ends this correspondence.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2029
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #70 on: 09/05/2016 18:01:39 »
Consider the use of the term "water" for the complex molecule of H2O.  It is an ancient term which at one time was considered an element.  Except that today we know that it is not an element, but rather it consists of a molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom.  In its liquid form it can contain ions and sometimes other impurities.... I can go on, but my point is that we should be using its more modern name: "Dihydrogen Monoxide", instead of the older more taboo term "water" so that people don't confuse it with its ancient elemental form.


Things tend to follow a cycle of nonsense when you introduce demagoguery into the path of people searching for answers.

Ok, we are getting close to understanding this naming issue. I did explain why this is so, but perhaps it was not clear enough. I'll give another try.

I agree, what you call a medium doesn't change its properties. However, if you use the same word to describe mediums with different properties you create confusion.

I am very happy to use the ancient term water to describe the medium H2O, but I refuse to reuse it to describe H2SO4.

Tools and weapons used to be made of bronze, today we use high speed steel, I refuse to use the ancient term for a tool medium for HSS. They are different.

If you must use the word aether you have to differentiate them. You could call one luminiferous aether and the other vacuum aether, or even better embed the properties in the name eg nonrelativistic aether and relativistic aether. Then I personally would have no problem with that, but others might say that it could still cause confusion.


SJ
The luminiferous aether that Maxwell knew was a theoretical nonrelativistic aether, it was defined and described as such. The expected light to behave in the same way as sound behaves in air, hence the controversy at the time. That was the reason for Michelson Morley experiment, to detect a change in the speed of light due to the motion of an observer through the aether.
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/ether.htm
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #71 on: 09/05/2016 18:21:14 »
Thank you.

Using those figures we can calculate the speed of light as 3.04 meters/second, only a factor of 100,000,000 too low.

And the density of 1096 kg/cubic meter is slightly greater than that of water, as against the measured value of zero.

I think that ends this correspondence.

Quote
In the above expressions, ℏ is the reduced Planck constant, 𝐺 is the gravitational constant, and 𝑐 is the speed of light. The computation of the density 𝜌 of the Cosmic Fabric uses the formula for the shear wave speed 𝑐 = √𝜇⁄𝜌 and the fact that shear waves in the Fabric propagate at the speed of light (see §4.6).

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #72 on: 09/05/2016 18:26:48 »
SJ
The luminiferous aether that Maxwell knew was a theoretical nonrelativistic aether, it was defined and described as such. The expected light to behave in the same way as sound behaves in air, hence the controversy at the time. That was the reason for Michelson Morley experiment, to detect a change in the speed of light due to the motion of an observer through the aether.
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/ether.htm

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:
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.

The reason for the near null result of the MMX experiment is the relativistic nature of the aether.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE

'NASA's Gravity Probe B Confirms Two Einstein Space-Time Theories'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html

Quote
"Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey. As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it's the same with space and time," said Francis Everitt, GP-B principal investigator at Stanford University.

Honey has mass and so does the aether. The 'swirl' is the state of displacement of the aether. The reason for the near-null MMX result is due to the state of the aether being determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of the aether in neighboring places.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4066
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #73 on: 09/05/2016 21:46:31 »
The swirl of honey may be an apt representation of the cognitive ability of stacyjones' mind to grasp the errors in logic.

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #74 on: 09/05/2016 21:54:23 »
The swirl is the state of displacement of the aether.

*

Offline arcmetal

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 37
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #75 on: 10/05/2016 08:09:41 »
Consider the use of the term "water" for the complex molecule of H2O.  It is an ancient term which at one time was considered an element.  Except that today we know that it is not an element, but rather it consists of a molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom.  In its liquid form it can contain ions and sometimes other impurities.... I can go on, but my point is that we should be using its more modern name: "Dihydrogen Monoxide", instead of the older more taboo term "water" so that people don't confuse it with its ancient elemental form.


Things tend to follow a cycle of nonsense when you introduce demagoguery into the path of people searching for answers.

Ok, we are getting close to understanding this naming issue. I did explain why this is so, but perhaps it was not clear enough. I'll give another try.

I agree, what you call a medium doesn't change its properties. However, if you use the same word to describe mediums with different properties you create confusion.

Sure, I can partly agree with that.

I am very happy to use the ancient term water to describe the medium H2O, but I refuse to reuse it to describe H2SO4.

Tools and weapons used to be made of bronze, today we use high speed steel, I refuse to use the ancient term for a tool medium for HSS. They are different.

Well, that's not quite what I meant.  You can have three substances: H2O, H2S04, and Hg.  They have differing names: water, acid, mercury, these terms exist because of differing properties, but they also have the encompassing term: "liquid".  I would find it silly if it was taboo to use the term "liquid" to describe those substances.... The same goes for the other example of "tools" and "weapons".  Some tools may be made of stone, bronze, wood, or HSS, but they are all still "tools".

A bit closer to what I meant is about a single substance that somehow, magically, it hasn't changed its properties since the beginning of civilization, let's say H2O.  If in ancient times it was called "water", then during the days of alchemy it was called "lead washer", then in the 19th century it was changed to "watertricity" and then in 21st century some are suggesting that we should just call it "water" again, and many cry foul.

If you must use the word aether you have to differentiate them. You could call one luminiferous aether and the other vacuum aether, or even better embed the properties in the name eg nonrelativistic aether and relativistic aether. Then I personally would have no problem with that, but others might say that it could still cause confusion.

Here, we can agree since it looks like this is what's already happening ... that a variety of extensions to the term "aether" is being used to describe differing theories.

SJ
The luminiferous aether that Maxwell knew was a theoretical nonrelativistic aether, it was defined and described as such. The expected light to behave in the same way as sound behaves in air, hence the controversy at the time. That was the reason for Michelson Morley experiment, to detect a change in the speed of light due to the motion of an observer through the aether.



I just find it silly when people get all bent out of shape when someone says that
they want to study the aether, or that it makes no sense to think about
a wave with no medium, etc.  I think if something is not well understood then
it probably deserves some study.  It raises my curiosity even further
when I am told "no, there is nothing to see there because we can't detect it".

I mean what do people think of Feynman when he says that the magnetic
potential, A, is more real than E, or B?  If "A" is what is propagating
through the vacuum, then I don't see how its generating itself on
every cycle. It makes more sense that its a propagating disturbance through
a medium.

*

Offline arcmetal

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 37
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #76 on: 10/05/2016 08:22:01 »
Since the ether is probably a superfluid it would make more sense to find its bulk modulus rather than the elastic modulus.
OK, let's have it. Can't be difficult to calculate if you know the density, which SJ claims, and the speed of light, which we all know.


I couldn't find a measured quantity for the density of the ether, but I did find a theorized one given by Lord Kelvin.  So, yeah, sure I'll take a crack at it.
(kg -- kilograms, m3 -- meters cubed, s2 -- seconds squared, Pa -- Pascals)

Kelvin's derived aether density is 5e-6 kg/km3  which is 5e-15 kg/m3

The bulk modulus is B = density * (speed squared)

So,   B = 5e-15 * 9e16  = 450  (kg / m s2)  --- (Pascals)

the compressibility is 1/B = 2.2e-3  ( 1 / Pa ).

and, comparing this to other compressibilities:

air --- 7.04e-6  ( 1 / Pa )
water --- 4.76e-10  ( 1 / Pa )
mercury --- 4e-11  ( 1 / Pa )
diamond --- 2.25e-12   ( 1 / Pa )

So, it looks like the aether would be very compressible, about a thousand times more compressible than air.

Of course, these are just based on estimates but its still interesting that the numbers aren't way off like some crazy infinity here or there...

If there is some other funky way to find its density, I'd be interested.

-----

I did some other fun calculations.  If I use the upper estimate for the mass of a photon (3e-27 eV), as the aether particle's mass, Kelvin's density, and packed the particles end to end in a cube with a one Angstrom on edge, I get that the size of the aether particle can be 1.036e-16 meters.  Which is still bigger than the Planck length (1.6e-35 m) ... so there is still plenty of wiggle room for these figures.


----
edit: I had missed a zero in an exponent of the "fun calculations", I had the aether particle diameter at: 1.06e-25 m, it should read 1.036-16 m.
----
« Last Edit: 15/05/2016 02:03:00 by arcmetal »

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4066
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #77 on: 10/05/2016 08:37:54 »
At last a sensible discussion. Not just someone pronouncing they know better.

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #78 on: 10/05/2016 11:34:31 »
From the Newton's laws to motions of the fluid and superfluid vacuum: vortex tubes, rings, and others'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3900

"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.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #79 on: 10/05/2016 12:18:05 »
So now we have galaxies orbiting in a dispersive medium, thus slowing down and spiralling in towards each other - exactly the opposite of what we observe.

Kelvin, although a fellow of Peterhouse and therefore an all-round good bloke, was wrong about several things.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #80 on: 10/05/2016 12:24:10 »
So now we have galaxies orbiting in a dispersive medium, thus slowing down and spiralling in towards each other - exactly the opposite of what we observe.

Kelvin, although a fellow of Peterhouse and therefore an all-round good bloke, was wrong about several things.

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4066
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #81 on: 10/05/2016 18:42:51 »
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_helium-4#/search

"Superfluids, such as helium-4 below the lambda point, exhibit many unusual properties. (See Helium#Helium II state). A superfluid acts as if it were a mixture of a normal component, with all the properties of a normal fluid, and a superfluid component. The superfluid component has zero viscosity and zero entropy."

If the Aether has zero viscosity then it would flow in any direction that matter moved through it. If as you claim this is dark matter then how exactly are you going to reconcile a zero viscosity medium with observed gravitational effects? For a start this Aether would flow away from any celestial object that moved through it. This would suggest a locally repulsive nature to the Aether. There are all sorts of things wrong with your ideas that you don't even realise because of your ignorance of the physics.

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #82 on: 10/05/2016 19:15:59 »
A bowling ball rolled through a supersolid displaces the supersolid. By definition, the bowling ball rolls on forever through the supersolid.

Q. Is the bowling ball displacing the supersolid or is the supersolid displacing the bowling ball?
A. Both are occurring simultaneously with equal force and the bowling ball rolls on forever through the supersolid.

Roll the bowling ball fast enough and it will create an associated wave in the supersolid.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4066
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #83 on: 10/05/2016 22:15:36 »
If you have a condensate you can throw an extra bit in or take a bit out and nothing changes. That is its nature. To have a superfluid or supersolid state you need a DETECTABLE particulate structure. Nothing like an Aether which is UNDETECTABLE. They are at odds. Nothing you say will change that.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4066
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #84 on: 10/05/2016 22:17:49 »
I doubt if anyone has ever detected fairy dust so that might be an ideal medium for your Aether.

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #85 on: 10/05/2016 22:50:23 »
Spacetime has mass. The "missing mass" is the mass of the spacetime connected to and neighboring the matter which is displaced by the matter. The physical manifestation of curved spacetime is the state of displacement of spacetime.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4066
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #87 on: 10/05/2016 23:49:30 »
Spacetime has mass. Spacetime physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by the matter which exists in it and moves through it. What is referred to geometrically as the curvature of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of spacetime. The "missing mass" is the mass of the spacetime connected to and neighboring the matter which is displaced by the matter.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #88 on: 11/05/2016 00:05:03 »
I beg to differ. It is the transection of Hilbert coordinate space by the primal mass flow that accounts for the apparent nondispersivity of luminiferous aether. Your interpretation is inherently selfcontradictory.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #89 on: 11/05/2016 00:09:25 »
Spacetime has mass. Spacetime physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by the matter which exists in it and moves through it. What is referred to geometrically as the curvature of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of spacetime. The "missing mass" is the mass of the spacetime connected to and neighboring the matter which is displaced by the matter.

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

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

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

Spacetime displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.
« Last Edit: 11/05/2016 00:12:11 by stacyjones »

*

Offline arcmetal

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 37
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #90 on: 11/05/2016 05:36:54 »
So now we have galaxies orbiting in a dispersive medium, thus slowing down and spiralling in towards each other - exactly the opposite of what we observe.

Ah yes, that reminds that I have been meaning to calculate some properties of the ether by using the observation that the redshifts in galaxies is linearly related to their distances.  So this loss of energy can be some effect of a medium in its way.  And then compare those results to whatever lab scale properties might match up.

*

Offline arcmetal

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 37
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #91 on: 12/05/2016 21:40:33 »
'The Mechanics of Spacetime - A Solid Mechanics Perspective on the Theory of General Relativity'
Quote
... we derive an expression for the Cosmic Fabric's elastic modulus in terms of its thickness. Assuming a thickness about a Planck's length, we calculate the elastic modulus and density to be about 10113Nm−2, and 1096kgm−3, respectively.

Thank you.

Using those figures we can calculate the speed of light as 3.04 meters/second, only a factor of 100,000,000 too low.

And the density of 1096 kg/cubic meter is slightly greater than that of water, as against the measured value of zero.

I think that ends this correspondence.



Wo, what is going on here?  I don't see how you get a speed of light at 3.04 m/s  from those numbers: modulus of: 1e113, and density of: 1.11e96 ?? Maybe you missed some zeroes somewhere.

When I calculate it I get (using the relation of the bulk modulus, B):
( kg -- kilograms, m3 -- meters cubed, s2 -- seconds squared )

(speed squared) = B / density

(speed squared) = 1e113 / 1.11e96  ( kg m3 / m kg s2 )

(speed squared) = 9.009e16  ( m2 / s2 )

speed = 3.00e8 ( m / s )

... which looks about right.

Except that what looks odd is the density:  1.11e96  (kg/m3) ... it seems a bit high.

I thought I'd compare that to some other known densities:

water --- 1e3 kg/m3
white dwarf --- 1e9  kg/m3
neutron star --- 1e17 kg/m3
galactic black hole --- strange
     (this can vary from a super high value to a density of water, or air, or even vacuum, depending on its total mass)

a googol --- 1e100 (just a large number)

A density of 1.11e96 (kg/m3) makes it look like we are living inside something akin to a googol black hole?   [:P]
Could it be we don't notice this density since everything is a part of it, like a delicate jellyfish at the
bottom of the Mariana trench.


*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2029
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #92 on: 12/05/2016 22:35:55 »
Here, we can agree since it looks like this is what's already happening ... that a variety of extensions to the term "aether" is being used to describe differing theories.

Excellent, at least we are beginning to understand each other.

You will realise that some discussions are not worth pursuing. An extreme example is the poster who claims to understand what gravity really is, it is air pressure holding us down! I usually try a few posts to point them in the right direction, but mostly they are stubbornly attached to their idea, and do not have the capacity to understand the concepts - discussion is futile.  In these cases I withdraw, the poster makes a last post and assumes because there is no challenge that they have won the argument. That doesn't worry me, if I am confident of my information I don't have to prove anything to anyone.

In other discussions it is possible to see that although there is disagreement it is possible the person on the other side is capable of understanding the concepts and common understanding may be possible. In these cases it is worth continuing even if eventually we agree to differ. I am glad we continued.

Yes, I agree with your use of the umbrella terms liquid and metal, but within those groups we must be clear to separate the elements that are different. So the aether for sound can be any liquid or gas, but the speed of sound in a particular aether will depend on the properties of that aether. Also other properties will depend on the aether, for example sound in air is non-dispersive, but is dispersive in CO2. Also sound waves will propagate inside the space station, but water waves will not (assuming you could get an ocean up there!). So we must not assume that the behaviour of waves in one aether will mirror that in another aether.
Also, there is a tendency to talk about the vacuum aether, but the vacuum supports a range of fields so there could be a range of different aethers in the vacuum.

The only other issue is that we have to be clear about the properties of different aether types so we do not get confused. I come back to the luminiferous aether which SJ described as a relativistic aether and pointed me to the quantum vacuum. But the luminiferous aether was not relativistic, so I'm confused by the reference.
So we don't bounce this one back and forth, I will put it all down together.
Let's assume that in the vacuum there is a relativistic aether supporting electromagnetic radiation. Let's call it the EMR Vacuum aether.
At the time of Michelson & Morley it was assumed that light propagated in the same way as sound in air and waves in water. In other words light would propagate at a fixed speed in the luminiferous aether, but if an observer measures the speed of those light waves then if the aether moves relative to the observer, or if the observer moves through the aether then the measured speed of light would differ. That is a nonrelativistic aether and this behaviour is seen in sound and water waves. In a relativistic aether (EMR Vacuum aether) the speed of light will not vary either by motion of the aether or the observer. Below is a quote from Wiki on Maxwell's biography:

"Maxwell believed that the propagation of light required a medium for the waves, dubbed the luminiferous aether. Over time, the existence of such a medium, permeating all space and yet apparently undetectable by mechanical means, proved impossible to reconcile with experiments such as the Michelson–Morley experiment. Moreover, it seemed to require an absolute frame of reference in which the equations were valid, with the distasteful result that the equations changed form for a moving observer."

So when SJ describes the luminiferous aether as relativistic I am confused. If they had expected the luminiferous aether to be relativistic the M&M experiment would have hailed as a blinding success, parties for weeks etc. What am I missing?




and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #93 on: 12/05/2016 23:13:01 »
So when SJ describes the luminiferous aether as relativistic I am confused. If they had expected the luminiferous aether to be relativistic the M&M experiment would have hailed as a blinding success, parties for weeks etc. What am I missing?

The MMX 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.

You are correct, the MMX result is evidence of a relativistic aether.

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 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.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

Quote
"Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."

if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of particles which can be individually tracked through time. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

The following video represents the state of the aether connected to and neighboring the Earth which is displaced by the Earth. The state of the aether connected to and neighboring the Earth is, for the vast majority, determined by the Earth. It's the reason for the near-null result of the MMX experiment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE

'NASA's Gravity Probe B Confirms Two Einstein Space-Time Theories'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html

Quote
"Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey. As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it's the same with space and time," said Francis Everitt, GP-B principal investigator at Stanford University.

Honey has mass and so does the aether. The swirl is the state of displacement of the aether.

« Last Edit: 13/05/2016 00:23:33 by stacyjones »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #94 on: 13/05/2016 00:43:26 »
Wo, what is going on here?  I don't see how you get a speed of light at 3.04 m/s  from those numbers: modulus of: 1e113, and density of: 1.11e96 ?? Maybe you missed some zeroes somewhere.
The figures given were 10113 and 1096, not 1e113 and 1e96.  So now, using the new figures, it seems that the vacuum is completely full of stuff that is a zillion times stiffer than steel and denser than lead. But when I pump the air out of a container, it gets lighter and doesn't transmit sound. 

We have the answer to the question "what makes the idea of an aether so attractive?". The answer is nothing. The concept is obvious bullshit, and could only appeal to a complete moron.
« Last Edit: 13/05/2016 00:46:10 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #95 on: 13/05/2016 00:56:59 »
The figures given were 10113 and 1096, not 1e113 and 1e96.  So now, using the new figures, it seems that the vacuum is completely full of stuff that is a zillion times stiffer than steel and denser than lead. But when I pump the air out of a container, it gets lighter and doesn't transmit sound. 

'The Mechanics of Spacetime - A Solid Mechanics Perspective on the Theory of General Relativity'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.07655v1

Quote
Having a negative value for the bulk modulus 𝐾 means that stretching the Cosmic Fabric, would result in an overall decrease of the material volume. Having a vanishing value for the p-wave modulus implies that the p-wave speed, 𝑣𝑝 = √𝑀⁄𝜌 = 0, where 𝜌 is the density of the material. This is actually consistent with observations since there are no known p-waves propagating in the Fabric. For example, neither gravity waves nor electromagnetic waves are p-waves because they do not propagate by volume compression but
by distorting the material. At the same time, the speed of the shear wave is given by 𝑣𝑠 = √𝜇⁄𝜌 ≠ 0. In fact, as demonstrated in §4.6, 𝑣𝑠 = 𝑐 is the speed of light.

Quote
We have the answer to the question "what makes the idea of an aether so attractive?". The answer is nothing. The concept is obvious bullshit, and could only appeal to a complete moron.

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:
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.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2788
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #96 on: 13/05/2016 01:56:02 »
Quote from: stacyjones
...
'The Mechanics of Spacetime - A Solid Mechanics Perspective on the Theory of General Relativity'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.07655v1
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum
...

Stacy: Do you mind if I ask you about your background in physics?

Let me give you some advice which applies here. Have you ever heard of Dr. John Wheeler? He's the physicist who coined the term Black Holes and was one of the physicists who created the hydrogen bomb, aka H-Bomb. He wrote a paper entitled Wheeler’s rules of writing. Do a search using Google and you'll find it. The paper contains what is basically a set of axioms for proper scientific writing. In it Wheeler wrote
Quote from: Dr. John Wheeler
Appeal to experiment or logic—not to the professions. Do not invoke “scientists” to enforce a point.
You do this all the time. You can't prove a point by quoting someone whose opinion is in the minority, i.e. is a dissenting opinion. You can always quote an authority when his opinion is in the majority. That's known as the Argument from Authority.

*

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #97 on: 13/05/2016 03:02:11 »
Quote from: stacyjones
...
'The Mechanics of Spacetime - A Solid Mechanics Perspective on the Theory of General Relativity'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.07655v1
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum
...

Stacy: Do you mind if I ask you about your background in physics?

Let me give you some advice which applies here. Have you ever heard of Dr. John Wheeler? He's the physicist who coined the term Black Holes and was one of the physicists who created the hydrogen bomb, aka H-Bomb. He wrote a paper entitled Wheeler’s rules of writing. Do a search using Google and you'll find it. The paper contains what is basically a set of axioms for proper scientific writing. In it Wheeler wrote
Quote from: Dr. John Wheeler
Appeal to experiment or logic—not to the professions. Do not invoke “scientists” to enforce a point.
You do this all the time. You can't prove a point by quoting someone whose opinion is in the minority, i.e. is a dissenting opinion. You can always quote an authority when his opinion is in the majority. That's known as the Argument from Authority.

Or, you could understand Robert Laughlin is correct and a relativistic ether is confirmed every day by experiment.

*

Offline arcmetal

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 37
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #98 on: 13/05/2016 08:39:47 »
Here, we can agree since it looks like this is what's already happening ... that a variety of extensions to the term "aether" is being used to describe differing theories.

Excellent, at least we are beginning to understand each other.


Yes, yes! Glory be, I am in agreement with all of your sane comments.
I will make brief points on your comments in the next post.

My disagreement has always been with the silly way that a mob mentallity has taken over the advancement of physics these past 70 years or so, and I don't think I am the only one that thinks this way.  I just started reading Carver Mead's book:  "Collective Electrodynamics, Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism" where in it, the first line of the introduction reads:

Quote
It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics.

There are many problems in both quantum mechanics and in electrodynamics, and he addresses them in his book.  Its great to read about these collected problems in one location after reading about them spread out all over many articles. 

So, what I see as the major problem with EM theory is this taboo with the study of the ether... it holds people back from just looking at the problem, and similarly in QM theory they have ignored De Broglie's pilot-wave theory.  A better study of these theories would probably help move the understanding of nature forward.

I subscribe to a determinstic emergent behavior in the mechanisms of nature. We have better technology these days, and experiments are showing that these theories have validity.  So this can go towards my answer to the original post: that I'd prefer an understanding of the ether so that we can advance our understanding of nature, and not because I don't understand relativity.

To pass along a couple of points that aren't in this thread yet: consider how experiments and new discoveries are made. If one starts out with garbage assumptions, one will end up with garbage solutions.  It would be a cold day in hell if someone, somehow, is able to achieve great breakthroughs in science from initial conditions that are nonsensical, but anything is possible.

So how did Maxwell arrive at such useful and groundbreaking equations to describe EM theory, while starting out with Kelvin's theory of rotating fluid vortices that tried to describe the ether?  To help him, there was Faraday's experiments, his own understanding of fluid dynamics, plus there were a couple fellows a few years earlier that had found a relationship between permittivity, permeability and the speed of light.  So one can say that Maxwell already had some of the answers to the main questions, which he then combined into a coherent theory.

And then there's Einstein.  So many articles, incorrectly, keep saying that "he did away with the ether". Instead he merely found the right set of equations that physicists and engineers can use to solve problems at high speeds without needing to have knowledge of some complex ether (Einstein explains it this way repeatedly). Sometime after 1916 he continued working on finding ways to incorporate properties of the ether, now his relativistic ether, that does not get all messy with it being a frame of reference, and so on.

His statements about the ether in articles and lectures is well known.  I like this line from the 1920 Morgan manuscript:

Quote
... Thus, once again, empty space appears as endowed with the physical properties, i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to special relativity. One can thus say that the ether is resurrected in the general theory of relativity, though in a more sublimated form.

I doubt that anyone can say Einstein finds the idea of an ether attractive because he is having a hard time grasping the theory of relativity.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2788
    • View Profile
Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?
« Reply #99 on: 13/05/2016 08:47:38 »
Quote from: stacyjones
Or, you could understand Robert Laughlin is correct and a relativistic ether is confirmed every day by experiment.
You completely missed the point. My response in my last post had nothing to do with the aether. It was entirely about your reasoning process. I made that quite clear too. Posting a quote from someone in no way strengths your position whatsoever.

To be precise you made an error known as a fallacy of false authority. An authority is defined as follows
Quote
Authority[/i] - An expert other than ourselves.

The fallacy of false authority is an argument that violates any of the criteria for a legitimate appeal to authority. Thus,
1) if an argument uses an expert who in fact is not an expert in the appropriate field,
2) if there is not a consensus of expert opinion, or
3) if we cannot - even in theory - verify the claim for ourselves
then the argument offers as a premise something that is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

When you wrote reply 95 what did you know about Robert B. Laughlin? I looked him up using Google and came to his webpage on Wikipedia. There's nothing in that page which says that he is an expert on relativity. Does that mean that he has a poor understanding relativity? Most certainly not. But to be called an authority in a field a person must have extensive knowledge in that field, which he does not.

Quote from: stacyjones
Or, you could understand Robert Laughlin is correct and a relativistic ether is confirmed every day by experiment.
That is quite incorrect. If you understood what he wrote then you'd know that what he's talking about is not the luminiferous aether from special relativity. He's speaking about vacuum fluctuations. But that doesn't support the propagation of light.

If I were you I'd start from scratch. First obtain a solid understanding of algebra, trigonometry and calculus. Then pick up a text on basic physics and read the entire text, cover to cover. We'll all chip in and help you understand it. But it's hard work. I know because I had to do it. In fact I had two majors in college, physics and math.

Please don't take anything that I wrote in this thread to be insulting. I'm just trying to help. However if you don't want my help then please let me know and I'll stop trying.