Neo-Aether and the Medium of Space
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Very simple question on a REDOX reaction
Next: REDOX: How can this occur if an ion can't lose anymore electrons?
From: harald on 28 Jul 2010 04:41 On Jul 25, 9:59 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > OVERVIEW > > What is Neo-Aether Theory? I identify Neo-Aether ss the so-called > classic aether model adapted and integrated to accomidate the > observations and experimental evidence garnered over the last > century. In other words, the model is explicitly demonstrated to be > compatible with and, in many cases, leads to, such concepts as Local > Lorentz Invariance, Planck's Constant, quntum elemental charge, > Newton's laws of motion, basic quantum nature, the uncertainty > principle, ... etc. Aether theory, especially this modern > interpretation is a 'bottoms up' approach to science, that is to say, > on starts with the a basic kinetic quantum entity model and builds up > all else from that. It truly is, the ultimate in simplicity... at its > base. See, > > http://www.archive.org/details/historyoftheorie00whitrich > for an excellent detailed presentation of the development of the > theory through circa ~ 1910. Thanks for the link! > So, now let's start at the bottom and build a universe... First let's > define the necessary fundamentals of this type of model. Aether is a > energetic substance, fluidic in nature. To my knowledge, there is > only one way to get such a medium, by kinetic theory. Thus, for such > a model we will need quantum entities (axeons) which have the > following characteristics, > > - Of finite size > - has momentum (P) Sorry but I find such a model unsatisfying: IMHO inertia (with the resulting momentum) should be *caused* by a good ether model as an emerging property. Else you are adding a probably useless layer of complexity, for it implies a substratum under your ether that gives it the property of inertia. Regards, Harald [..]
From: Paul Stowe on 28 Jul 2010 20:29 On Jul 28, 1:41 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jul 25, 9:59 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > OVERVIEW > > > What is Neo-Aether Theory? I identify Neo-Aether ss the so-called > > classic aether model adapted and integrated to accomidate the > > observations and experimental evidence garnered over the last > > century. In other words, the model is explicitly demonstrated to be > > compatible with and, in many cases, leads to, such concepts as Local > > Lorentz Invariance, Planck's Constant, quntum elemental charge, > > Newton's laws of motion, basic quantum nature, the uncertainty > > principle, ... etc. Aether theory, especially this modern > > interpretation is a 'bottoms up' approach to science, that is to say, > > on starts with the a basic kinetic quantum entity model and builds up > > all else from that. It truly is, the ultimate in simplicity... at its > > base. See, > > >http://www.archive.org/details/historyoftheorie00whitrich > > for an excellent detailed presentation of the development of the > > theory through circa ~ 1910. > > Thanks for the link! > > > So, now let's start at the bottom and build a universe... First let's > > define the necessary fundamentals of this type of model. Aether is a > > energetic substance, fluidic in nature. To my knowledge, there is > > only one way to get such a medium, by kinetic theory. Thus, for such > > a model we will need quantum entities (axeons) which have the > > following characteristics, > > > - Of finite size > > - has momentum (P) > > Sorry but I find such a model unsatisfying: IMHO inertia (with the > resulting momentum) should be *caused* by a good ether model as an > emerging property. Else you are adding a probably useless layer of > complexity, for it implies a substratum under your ether that gives it > the property of inertia. > > Regards, > Harald I'm confused Harald. For our universe momentum must be a fundamental. The model proposed has this and, does not have inertia at the level of the axeons. I then, specifically, show how inertia is emergent from a -dE/dt response of speed changes. Inertial mass (ponderable if you will) is a direct result of this, and this only. The physical properties of momentum and energy cannot appear from nothing however. Regards, Paul Stowe
From: Paul Stowe on 28 Jul 2010 21:04 On Jul 28, 1:36 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > On Jul 28, 11:50 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 26, 11:30 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, Paul Stowe wrote: > > > > On Jul 26, 3:52 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 25 Jul 2010, Paul Stowe wrote: > > > > > > One question and one comment: > > > > > > > At this juncture we have not defined a size or momenta for these > > > > > > axeons. We have defined that they do not have any 'fields' and thus > > > > > > cannot produce any 'action at distance' effects between themselves. > > > > > > Therefore, by extension, the concept of temperature does not apply to > > > > > > them. > > > > > > Why not? It's a hard-sphere gas, which presents no difficulty for > > > > > temperature. For identical "atoms", from the Maxwell speed distribution, > > > > > you have the temperature. Otherwise, from (kinetic) energy distribution. > > > > > Because Timo, atoms are not hard spheres, they are quantum structures > > > > with electrostatic fields. Their collisions are not hard surface > > > > field free interactions. As Feynman was fond of pointing out, matter > > > > never 'touches' matter their fields interact. > > > > You're not talking about matter; you're talking about ideal hard spheres. > > > Temperature is well-defined for a hard sphere gas. > > > > > Temperature is a > > > > measure of those ramdomized field interactions. That's why there is a > > > > radiation field associated with it and, Boltzman's constant is > > > > fundamentally electrical in nature. > > > > No, this is just plain wrong. But, OK, now I know why you made your claim. > > > Thanks, that's what I was wondering about. > > > OK, I think of temperature as the core basis of thermal science, such > > as, heat flow, thermal radiation, e^-hw/kT, ... etc. If one this of > > temperature as a measure of the average kinetic energy of the > > particles then that is synonymous ,with pressure. Both are directly > > relatable to energy density but the later not thermal physics per > > se... > > At the very, least temperature is an important concept in "thermal > science". One can still do stuff in the absence of temperature, e.g., > non-equilibrium thermodynamics. Yes, for a gas, it is (almost) > synonymous with pressure. PV=nRT for an ideal gas, close enough to > PV=nRT for a dilute real gas. The thermodynamics of an ideal gas and > other simple gases might be simple, but it's still thermodynamics. > > > > > The only criteria of superfluidity is zero viscosity... > > > > Which isn't a property of an ideal hard-sphere gas. Assuming that it is a > > > property of an ideal hard-sphere gas when it isn't doesn't look like an > > > approach that will bring success in the long run. If you want > > > superfluidity, why not start with assumptions that can result in > > > superfluidity, instead of assumptions that don't? > > > First, I never made it a condition that axeons must be hard or > > spheres, only that they interact in a purely elastic manner. In fact, > > I would further define them as totally 'frictionless' since the very > > source of friction is known to arise from interacting field effects. > > If frictionless and elastic they could be elastic blobs that easily > > and readily deform during collisions. > > Well, yes, you didn't specify hard spheres. Other hard shapes won't > give you superfluidity. I suspect that blobs won't either. Don't > assume that they will give you superfluidity; show that they will, if > you're going to depend on it. What fundamental physical properties do you seem to think are missing for superfluidity??? > You need to be very careful if trying to build a working aether theory > from elastic blobs. If they're elastic in the same sense as > conventional elastic continua, you can dump energy into internal > oscillations, e.g., elastic waves in the blobs, when they collide, and > thus convert some of the KE of motion into internal energy. If there > is any non-linearity of their elastic properties, they'll have an > infinite heat capacity, so eventually all of the KE of their motion > will end up as internal energy. Yes, all of that is true. I try to stick to basics since at the level of axeons inference is all that is possible we cannot measure size, shape. I therefore stick to those few parameters which can be quantified mathematically based solely upon the essential kinetic theory elements like P, L, & c. > A hard sphere gas at least has the advantage of avoiding this. Doesn't > work as an EM aether theory, but I think it doesn't work at least a > little better than an elastic blob gas. > > > If they are frictionless they > > will be incapable of imparting 'English' or spin to themselves... > > Frictionless means that the contact forces will be normal to the > surface. This only means no spin if they're spherical. If they're not > hard, they won't remain spherical during collisions, even if they > start off spherical. Can one impart spin in a two-body collision? > Maybe you can do it, if you have very special particles. I guess it is hard to envision no forces... > > Lack of viscosity would be a direct result of lack of frictional > > forces. > > Lack of friction in inter-"atom"ic collisions will not, in general, > give you lack of viscosity. See Maxwell, J. C. (1866), "On the > viscosity or internal friction of air and other gases". Philosophical > Transactions of the Royal Society of London 156: 249268. I now have a book of Maxwell's collected papers, I'll look it up. > It's one thing to say that a superfluid aether will work, but an > entirely different problem to come up with an atomic model of such an > aether. Especially with your starting assumptions. Well, that's why I posted this, to discuss the model... > -- > Timo
From: Timo Nieminen on 29 Jul 2010 06:56 On Jul 29, 11:04 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 28, 1:36 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > Well, yes, you didn't specify hard spheres. Other hard shapes won't > > give you superfluidity. I suspect that blobs won't either. Don't > > assume that they will give you superfluidity; show that they will, if > > you're going to depend on it. > > What fundamental physical properties do you seem to think are missing > for superfluidity??? That's really the wrong question, on a par with showing a pile of scrap metal and asking why it isn't a watch. Take two streams of gas flowing anti-parallel, next to each other. A bit like this: ----------------------------------------------------- flow ---> ----------------------------------------------------- <--- flow ----------------------------------------------------- For superfluidity, you must have no force acting between the flows. That is, there must be no momentum transfer between the flows. For a kinetic gas at a finite temperature, there will be diffusion from one flow into the other. This will transfer momentum, so there will be a force. If the particles making up the flows are little hard objects, little elastic objects, little blobby objects, with only contact forces, they will diffuse from one flow into the other, and the diffused particles will collide with the particles in their new flow. See Maxwell. How to stop this? If you have the right kind of long range forces, you can. Not just any long-range forces, but special ones (don't expect superfluidity from Newton's gas theory!). Maybe if the particles don't collide with each other? -- Timo
From: Paul Stowe on 29 Jul 2010 22:38
On Jul 29, 3:56 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > On Jul 29, 11:04 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 28, 1:36 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > Well, yes, you didn't specify hard spheres. Other hard shapes won't > > > give you superfluidity. I suspect that blobs won't either. Don't > > > assume that they will give you superfluidity; show that they will, if > > > you're going to depend on it. > > > What fundamental physical properties do you seem to think are missing > > for superfluidity??? > > That's really the wrong question, on a par with showing a pile of > scrap metal and asking why it isn't a watch. NOT even close... But I cannot address your objection(s) if you do not articulate and quantify them. > Take two streams of gas flowing anti-parallel, next to each other. A > bit like this: > > ----------------------------------------------------- > flow ---> > ----------------------------------------------------- > <--- flow > ----------------------------------------------------- OK... > For superfluidity, you must have no force acting between the flows. Yes... > That is, there must be no momentum transfer between the flows. Not so... There must be no net change in momentum directionality. > For a kinetic gas at a finite temperature, there will be diffusion > from one flow into the other. This will transfer momentum, so there > will be a force. What you describe above is viscosity, honest, it is... > If the particles making up the flows are little hard objects, little > elastic objects, little blobby objects, with only contact forces, they > will diffuse from one flow into the other, and the diffused particles > will collide with the particles in their new flow. See Maxwell. Ummm, not so. By definition, these particles undergo center point perfectly elastic collisions. While particles exchange directions the momentum along the direction of travel NEVER! changes. These vector lines are invariant. It does not matter if there is one or one trillion, the magnitude of each vector line in the system is eternally unchanging. This leads to one of Helmholtz's theorem's, namely, "In the absence of rotational EXTERNAL forces, a fluid that is initially irrotational remains irrotational." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz%27s_theorems Thus, the very definition OF inviscid... > How to stop this? If you have the right kind of long range forces, you > can. Not just any long-range forces, but special ones (don't expect > superfluidity from Newton's gas theory!). Maybe if the particles don't > collide with each other? In a 'perfect' inviscid fluid it is as if they don't, as you should come to realized if you work through several actual collisions. See also Feynman's lecture Vol II chapter 40. Superfluidity does not require forces or fields, just a perfect fluid. Paul Stowe |