0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
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?
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.
"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."
"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.
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.
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 butby 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.
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.
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 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...
Appeal to experiment or logic—not to the professions. Do not invoke “scientists” to enforce a point.
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 wroteQuote from: Dr. John WheelerAppeal 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.
Quote from: arcmetal on 10/05/2016 08:09:41Here, 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.
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.
... 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.
Or, you could understand Robert Laughlin is correct and a relativistic ether is confirmed every day by experiment.
Authority[/i] - An expert other than ourselves.