0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
(I was hoping to finally see an example of a wave without a medium).
Quote from: arcmetal on 06/05/2016 01:19:43(I was hoping to finally see an example of a wave without a medium).The aether fills 'empty' space so there is no such thing as a wave without a medium.
Quote from: stacyjones on 06/05/2016 01:58:14Quote from: arcmetal on 06/05/2016 01:19:43(I was hoping to finally see an example of a wave without a medium).The aether fills 'empty' space so there is no such thing as a wave without a medium.Yeah, it appears to be looking like that is the case.
Since people can't handle the term 'aether' I will not use it.
Yup, and with that you get to understand what relates general relativity and quantum mechanics. Since people can't handle the term 'aether' I will not use it.What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the mass which fills 'empty' space.Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality; both are waves in the mass which fills 'empty' space.The mass which fills 'empty' space displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.
Apologies, I had intended to give you a fuller reply on how your 'aether' might be detected, unfortunately I am working on a project with is taking most of my free time and so the short answers I have given may have been misunderstood. I'll try and put something together in the odd bits of time I can grab.
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.
but a brief analogy using gravity can be useful.
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.
Quote from: stacyjones on 07/05/2016 11:54:35Aether has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.But you cannot or will not tell us its density or elastic modulus, despite the fact that these numbers determine the speed of light in vacuo.May I respectfully suggest that you put up or shut up?
"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."
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."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuumQuoteRobert 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..
We have now to show that the properties of the electromagnetic medium are identical with those of the luminiferous medium."
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.
Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of [the wave-function wave], arise from the interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium” which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty space”.
The fluidic pilot-wave system is also chaotic. It’s impossible to measure a bouncing droplet’s position accurately enough to predict its trajectory very far into the future. But in a recent series of papers, Bush, MIT professor of applied mathematics Ruben Rosales, and graduate students Anand Oza and Dan Harris applied their pilot-wave theory to show how chaotic pilot-wave dynamics leads to the quantumlike statistics observed in their experiments.
If you have a system that is deterministic and is what we call in the business ‘chaotic,’ or sensitive to initial conditions, sensitive to perturbations, then it can behave probabilistically,” Milewski continues. “Experiments like this weren’t available to the giants of quantum mechanics. They also didn’t know anything about chaos. Suppose these guys — who were puzzled by why the world behaves in this strange probabilistic way — actually had access to experiments like this and had the knowledge of chaos, would they have come up with an equivalent, deterministic theory of quantum mechanics, which is not the current one? That’s what I find exciting from the quantum perspective.
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?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum
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.
Quote from: stacyjones on 07/05/2016 11:51:33QuoteRobert 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.
QuoteRobert 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..
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.