What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jimmer on 26 May 2007 10:33 On May 26, 2:58 pm, "Spirit of Truth" <junehar...(a)prodigy.net> wrote: > "Jimmer" <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1180138588.969664.183830(a)a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > Laurent situation is simply this. > > > He wants to explore the causal mechanisms behind the world. This is > > not bad by > > itself. What is bad is he wants to use the term "Aether" which 99.5% > > of > > physicists already understood to be non-existence in light of Special > > Relativity. > > In other words. He wants to redefine the Aether and go against the > > mainstream. > > Try to invent another name for it for what you describe has some > > validity. > > For example. If there is nothing between space. How come correlations > > occur > > in entanglement.. It's like there is something in space that > > "conducts" it > > although in a new nonclassical manner. Also somehow the wavefunctions > > seem to have an existential counterpart which may be > > "located" (excuse > > for this term) 'somewhere" in space although everything is not > > newtonian > > but way beyond it. > > > In short. Laurent "Aether" descriptions have some existence but using > > the > > word "Aether" just makes it so hard to convey it. But then maybe > > Laurent > > enjoys debate and is so attached to the word "Aether" like using it as > > a > > weapon to dealt a blow into convensional physics. But the resistance > > you'd face would be hard and we only have one lifetime and don't > > waste > > half of it debating on the use of the Aether term. Focus on the > > mechanisms and invent new terms. It's a fact that there are more > > things > > going on in this world than thought of (or even dreamt of) by > > physicists. > > In centuries to come. It will be more clear but we have to be more > > accurate > > in terms and in the conveyance. > > > J. > > And why wouldn't you consider the Higgs field as an Aether? > > from: Spirit of Truth > > (using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The Aether has different meanings in different periods. I'll summarize the 8 periods based on Einstein talk at http://www.twelvestar.com/Sourceworks/Ether%20and%20Relativity.html 1. The Newtonian Period - When Newtonian proposes gravity, the action at a distance problem becomes apparent, so some thought some kind of aether or medium must exist as bearer of gravity. 2. The early 19th century period - When the properties of light and those of elastic waves in ponderable bodies were noted to be somewhat similar, they explored the idea of a "stationary luminiferous ether" with solid properties to support transverse wave. 3. The Maxwellian Period - the aether medium become more mechanical to accomodate Maxwell's discovery of electromagnetic field.. but he doesn't succeed in modelling it so he and some company just ignored or treated electric and magnetic force as fundamental concept. 4. The Hertzian Period - Here Hertz made up what Maxwell has abandoned with full force, the aether was modelled to be part of matter and space such that kinetic energies, mechanical pressures, electromagnetic fields have to do with the aether. 5. The Lorentzian Period - Lorentz with more intellect went up against Hertz and removed every properties of the Aether (except its immobility) 6. The Einstein Period - The Symmetry King removed from Aether its last feature of immobility.. in other words.. kill the concept of Aether as it serves as a privilege frame of reference and this is a no-no in physics and especially in the Special Theory of Relativity. 7. The Mach Period (overlapping Einstein) - If Aether is not medium of light then maybe, the aether is medium of Inertia (remember the Mach Principle). 8. The Einstein The Return of the Aether Period. After developing General Theory of Relativity. He explored that there must be an aether after contemplating on Mach stuff. Here Einstein GR aether must determines the metrical relations in the space-time continuum. 9. 100 years later, the Laurent, Seto, Retic, and David Thomson, etc. Aether Period - Here they plan to rewrite the history books by wanting to improve on the work of Maxwell, Einstein, Mach, and other intellectual gianst. I'm not exactly sure or forget the details of each as their stuff is unlikely. Exdept in Laurent case. Here it seems that he wants to propose an Aether that for all intent and purposes creates SpaceTime itself. Here it is no longer a medium of anything but the source of the medium and reality. This is why I said that he must use other terms because he can only cause much confusion. But he is free to defend himself (also those other aetherists). Try to print and read Einstein 1920 talk if you haven't as it can give very details accounts (I may get some info incorrect or misunderstood) of everything I mentioned prior to the Laurent Period. http://www.twelvestar.com/Sourceworks/Ether%20and%20Relativity.html J P.S. The Higgs as Aether? Duhh. I think we must drop the Aether term as it can get confusing already due to the many meanings that can be attached to it
From: Laurent on 26 May 2007 14:18 On May 26, 2:23 am, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 26, 10:41 am, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 10:07 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > > > > "Laurent" <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:1180143773.809915.5220(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > : On May 25, 9:14 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > > > : > "Laurent" <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > : > > > > : >news:1180137258.601363.282180(a)w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > : > : On May 25, 6:59 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > > > : > : > "Laurent" <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > : > : > > > > : > : >news:1180133281.407151.249220(a)q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > : > : > : On May 25, 6:27 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > > > : > : > : > "Laurent" <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > : > : > : > > > > : > : > : >news:1180131237.076224.102260(a)o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > : > : > : > : On May 25, 5:13 pm, pantel...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > : > : > : > : > On 24 mei, 23:31, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > : > : > : > : > > > > : > : > : > : > > The aether is simply the space between two points. > > > : > : > : > : > > Laurent > > > : > : > : > : > > > > : > : > : > : > It is very simple. > > > : > : > : > : > Take 2 points in space, the ears for example. > > > : > : > : > : > Some say there is nothing in between, > > > : > : > : > : > and some say there is something there. > > > : > : > : > : > ;-) > > > : > : > : > : > > > : > : > : > : > > > : > : > : > : Well, like I said to Uncle Al, what would you prefer to call > > > the > > > : > space > > > : > : > : > : between particles? > > > : > : > : > > > > : > : > : > "space", "nothing", "void", "emptiness", "zilch" and all > > > synonyms > > > : > : > thereof. > > > : > : > : > "that which has no properties whatsoever" > > > : > : > : > > > : > : > : > > > : > : > : Cool. I often call it empty space. > > > : > : > > > > : > : > No, it is not cool, it has no temperature. Only matter can have > > > : > : > temperature, which is simply kinetic energy. > > > : > : > > > > : > : > : > > > : > : > : But I agree with Einstein in that it does have physical > > > properties. > > > : > : > > > > : > : > More fool ewe. > > > : > : > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR.GIF > > > : > : > > > : > : > > > : > : You seem upset. Why is that? > > > : > > > > : > HAHAHA! Too funny! > > > : > > > > : > More fool ewe, I'm the least emotional person you'll ever find. > > > : > Let me know when you want to discuss physics and not my emotional > > > : > state, that's off limits. I'll tie you in knots (or nots), I've years of > > > : > experience dealing with prats. > > > : > > > : Right, the right term is derranged. > > > > http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/derranged > > > Suggestions for derranged: > > > 1. deranged 2. deranges > > > 3. dangered 4. derringer > > > 5. drainages 6. durneder > > > 7. danegeld 8. denatured > > > 9. drenched 10. drainage > > > 11. drained 12. de-energized > > > 13. Durrenmatt 14. demander > > > 15. derailed 16. danged > > > 17. durnedest 18. durned > > > 19. deaerated 20. darned > > > > By the way, you seem upset. Why is that, illiterate fuckhead? > > > Never mind, I'm not interested. Time for a plonk (again). > > > Come back with another new name. > > > *plonk* > > > " Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of > > relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, > > therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of > > relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there > > not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of > > existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), > > nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this > > ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic > > of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked > > through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it. " ------ > > Albert Einstein > > > Who are you compared to Einstein?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > The aether of General Relativity Einstein > mentioned in his talk above seems to refer only to > the properties of geometry and topology (and the > corresponding physics that automatically arise > from it) and unlike the earlier Lorentz Aether > where it has mechanical properties which Einstein > later debunked. What Einstein was describing in > the above talk given on May 5, 1920 was his > thinking evolution of how he thought of the > Aether. Isn't it Einstein also mentioned: > > "The next position which it was possible to take > up in face of this state of things appeared to be > the following. The ether does not exist at all. > The electromagnetic fields are not states of a > medium, and are not bound down to any bearer, but > they are independent realities which are not > reducible to anything else, exactly like the atoms > of ponderable matter." > > Anyway. I think the main argument is this. We know > there is physics to geometry or topology where > General Relativity can be described. But can > geometry or topology be physical if they fail to > obey energy considerations?? In other words, is it > possible there may be something more primary than > space that is made up certain kind of energy that > creates space and the corresponding geometry, > etc.??? I think these energy behind space is what > Laurent simply called the Aether. It is a valid > question whether there is something behind space. > So is there?? Why not if the answer is there is > categorically not anything behind space. You see, > if there is, there are consequences and connected > to the search for the Theory of Everything. > > J. [This are excerpts from a John Baez essay "Higher-dimensional algebra and Planck scale physics", published in the book "Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale"] " ...in topological quantum field theory we cannot measure time in seconds, because there is no background metric available to let us count the passage of time! We can only keep track of topological change. " " The topology of spacetime is arbitrary and there is no background metric. " " Quantum topology is very technical, as anything involving mathematical physicists inevitably becomes. But if we stand back a moment, it should be perfectly obvious that differential topology and quantum theory must merge if we are to understand background-free quantum field theories. In physics that ignores general relativity, we treat space as a background on which the process of change occurs. But these are idealizations which we must overcome in a background-free theory. In fact, the concepts of 'space' and 'state' are two aspects of a unified whole, and likewise for the concepts of 'spacetime' and 'process'. It is a challenge, not just for mathematical physicists, but also for philosophers, to understand this more deeply. " -------- John Baez
From: Laurent on 26 May 2007 14:30 On May 26, 10:33 am, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 26, 2:58 pm, "Spirit of Truth" <junehar...(a)prodigy.net> wrote: > > > > > "Jimmer" <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >news:1180138588.969664.183830(a)a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > > > > Laurent situation is simply this. > > > > He wants to explore the causal mechanisms behind the world. This is > > > not bad by > > > itself. What is bad is he wants to use the term "Aether" which 99.5% > > > of > > > physicists already understood to be non-existence in light of Special > > > Relativity. > > > In other words. He wants to redefine the Aether and go against the > > > mainstream. > > > Try to invent another name for it for what you describe has some > > > validity. > > > For example. If there is nothing between space. How come correlations > > > occur > > > in entanglement.. It's like there is something in space that > > > "conducts" it > > > although in a new nonclassical manner. Also somehow the wavefunctions > > > seem to have an existential counterpart which may be > > > "located" (excuse > > > for this term) 'somewhere" in space although everything is not > > > newtonian > > > but way beyond it. > > > > In short. Laurent "Aether" descriptions have some existence but using > > > the > > > word "Aether" just makes it so hard to convey it. But then maybe > > > Laurent > > > enjoys debate and is so attached to the word "Aether" like using it as > > > a > > > weapon to dealt a blow into convensional physics. But the resistance > > > you'd face would be hard and we only have one lifetime and don't > > > waste > > > half of it debating on the use of the Aether term. Focus on the > > > mechanisms and invent new terms. It's a fact that there are more > > > things > > > going on in this world than thought of (or even dreamt of) by > > > physicists. > > > In centuries to come. It will be more clear but we have to be more > > > accurate > > > in terms and in the conveyance. > > > > J. > > > And why wouldn't you consider the Higgs field as an Aether? > > > from: Spirit of Truth > > > (using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > The Aether has different meanings in different > periods. I'll summarize the 8 periods based on > Einstein talk at > > http://www.twelvestar.com/Sourceworks/Ether%20and%20Relativity.html > > 1. The Newtonian Period - When Newtonian proposes > gravity, the action at a distance problem becomes > apparent, so some thought some kind of aether or > medium must exist as bearer of gravity. > > 2. The early 19th century period - When the > properties of light and those of elastic waves in > ponderable bodies were noted to be somewhat > similar, they explored the idea of a "stationary > luminiferous ether" with solid properties to > support transverse wave. > > 3. The Maxwellian Period - the aether medium > become more mechanical to accomodate Maxwell's > discovery of electromagnetic field.. but he > doesn't succeed in modelling it so he and some > company just ignored or treated electric and > magnetic force as fundamental concept. > > 4. The Hertzian Period - Here Hertz made up what > Maxwell has abandoned with full force, the aether > was modelled to be part of matter and space such > that kinetic energies, mechanical pressures, > electromagnetic fields have to do with the aether. > > 5. The Lorentzian Period - Lorentz with more > intellect went up against Hertz and removed every > properties of the Aether (except its immobility) > > 6. The Einstein Period - The Symmetry King removed > from Aether its last feature of immobility.. in > other words.. kill the concept of Aether as it > serves as a privilege frame of reference and this > is a no-no in physics and especially in the > Special Theory of Relativity. > > 7. The Mach Period (overlapping Einstein) - If > Aether is not medium of light then maybe, the > aether is medium of Inertia (remember the Mach > Principle). > > 8. The Einstein The Return of the Aether Period. > After developing General Theory of Relativity. He > explored that there must be an aether after > contemplating on Mach stuff. Here Einstein GR > aether must determines the metrical relations in > the space-time continuum. > > 9. 100 years later, the Laurent, Seto, Retic, and > David Thomson, etc. Aether Period - Here they plan > to rewrite the history books by wanting to improve > on the work of Maxwell, Einstein, Mach, and other > intellectual gianst. I'm not exactly sure or forget > the details of each as their stuff is unlikely. > Exdept in Laurent case. Here it seems that he wants > to propose an Aether that for all intent and purposes > creates SpaceTime itself. Here it is no longer a medium > of anything but the source of the medium and reality. > This is why I said that he must use other terms > because he can only cause much confusion. But he > is free to defend himself (also those other > aetherists). > > Try to print and read Einstein 1920 talk if you > haven't as it can give very details accounts (I > may get some info incorrect or misunderstood) of > everything I mentioned prior to the Laurent Period. > > http://www.twelvestar.com/Sourceworks/Ether%20and%20Relativity.html > > J > > P.S. The Higgs as Aether? Duhh. I think we must drop the Aether term > as it can get confusing already due to the many meanings that can > be attached to it No mention of Ludwik Kostro? Here is something about his book: "common people", and even the "common scientist", would be surprised in reading this book (about 240 pp.), written by the physicist and philosopher Ludwik Kostro, and intended for physicists as well as for historians of science, philosophers, or in general for any people interested in the development of scientific culture. As a matter of fact, it is entirely dedicated to the troublesome relationships between the greatest scientist of all times - or at least many people think so! - and the elusive ether. Let us see the question with the author's own words (Introduction): "In the eyes of most physicists and philosophers, Albert Einstein has acquired a reputation for abolishing the concept of the ether as a medium filling space (or identified with it), which was responsible for carrying electromagnetic, gravitational and other interactions. Today, this notion is echoed in textbooks, encyclopaedias, and scientific reviews. However, it does not fully reflect the historical truth, and in a sense even represents a distortion [...] Einstein denied the existence of the ether for only 11 years - from 1905 to 1916. Thereafter, he recognized that his attitude was too radical and even regretted that his works published before 1916 had so definitely and absolutely rejected the existence of the ether." The author proves this assertion directly referring to the opinions which Einstein himself expressed during his life, in a book which is therefore full of quotations and precise bibliographical references (up to the point of quoting even the original Deutsch passages in a special appendix). Here they are some examples of Einstein's thoughts: "It would have been more correct if I had limited myself, in my earlier publications, to emphasizing only the nonexistence of an ether velocity, instead of arguing the total nonexistence of the ether, for I can see that with the word ether we say nothing else than that space has to be viewed as a carrier of physical qualities." Moreover: " [...] in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical, as we will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity. It does remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states. [...] once again 'empty' space appears as endowed with physical properties, i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to special relativity [...] ". And again: "This word ether has changed its meaning many times in the development if science [...] Its story, by no means finished, is continued by relativity theory." It seems interesting to quote even the following passages by Einstein, where he somehow admits the rational necessity of the ether, that is to say, the necessity of conceiving a space which cannot be thought of but endowed with physical properties: "There is an important argument in favour of the hypothesis of the ether. To deny the existence of the ether means, in the last analysis, denying all physical properties to empty space." "The ether hypothesis was bound always to play a part even if it is mostly a latent one at first in the thinking of physicists."
From: Bilge on 26 May 2007 16:43 On 2007-05-26, harry <harald.vanlintel(a)epfl.ch> wrote: > On May 26, 12:46 pm, Bilge <dubi...(a)radioactivex.sz> wrote: >> The aether is a hypothetical physical medium which occupies space. >> The vacuum is the ray in hilbert space which contains no particles. >> If the difference is not obvious to you, then you need a serious course >> in remedial logic. [Hint: physical media are made up of particles.] > > Bilge, I seriously thought that you studied physics. However, in no > physics course have I encountered such nonsense - abstract > mathematical concepts should not be confounded with physical concepts. Aparently, you haven't taken many physics courses and the few that you have taken failed to emphasize the physical content of the mathematical abstractions.
From: GSS on 27 May 2007 02:47
On May 26, 3:46 pm, Bilge <dubi...(a)radioactivex.sz> wrote: > On 2007-05-26, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >..... >>>> The notions of aether, physical space, empty space, vacuum and their >>>> modern reincarnation the quantum vacuum, all mean the same entity - >>>> call it by any name. > >>> Obviously, you have never studied physics, otherwise you would >>> recognize the differences. .. >> Kindly let us know the differences that *you recognize* if any. > > The aether is a hypothetical physical medium which occupies space. Here you are implying the *physical medium* to mean *material medium* which is composed of material particles. You are mistaken. Aether is a *continuum* just as physical space is considered to be a continuum of points. Aether does not consist of material particles but material particles are embedded in or exist in the aether continuum as standing strain wave oscillations or strain bubbles. The aether continuum can be regarded as a physical entity precisely because of its physical properties like Z_0 as discussed in my original post. Starting with the measured physical properties and using the existing body of knowledge known as 'continuum mechanics', the aether continuum can be studied in great detail. In fact I find it to be an extremely challenging study. > The vacuum is the ray in hilbert space which contains no particles. The Hilbert space and a ray in Hilbert space are purely mathematical notions. The coordinate spaces are man made mathematical constructs which are used to facilitate the study of physical space and not to 'influence' it anyway. For example consider the fact that the coordinate spaces or the functional Hilbert spaces did not *exist* a few centuries ago whereas the physical space existed as it is now. > If the difference is not obvious to you, then you need a serious course > in remedial logic. Yes a 'serious course in remedial logic' is required for all mathematicians and physicists. In my opinion the crisis of modern physics can be attributed to a wide spread mix-up between the mathematical abstract notions and the physical concepts. For example the abstract mathematical notion of *spacetime* is generally being regarded as a physical entity which could even get *curved*!!! GSS |