What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jimmer on 27 May 2007 09:28 On May 27, 2:34 am, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 26, 12:08 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > <snip> > About Gravity, Inertia and Mass > > Inertia <snip> >While a particle is moving at a constant speed and >all the geometrical parameters are set, it won't >experience any inertial forces, but as it >accelerates and the relationships change, it needs >to keep adjusting to its new energy/space >consumption settings. That's why relativistic >effects are so real. When accelerated in relation >to other particles, space shrinks, time slows down >and mass (process) grows within the particle to >balance energy usage in momentum space and >maintain its dependence and relation to spacetime >in accordance to energy conservation laws. I have 3 questions. First. You wrote above that ".. time slows down, and mass (process) grows WITHIN the particle" but isn't it that in the concept of Special Relativity, a particle or you or your ship doesn't experience any changes even at near lightspeed. It is only the other person (or thing) viewing you in another frame of reference that would see your ship or particle as having length contractions, time slowing down, etc. It doesn't happen to your actual ship or particle. What do you say about this. 2. Second question. How do you model the double slit experiment especially in the one photon (or electron, etc.) at a time experiment. Why does the particle interfere with itself. I think you subscribe to the Pilot Wave of Bohm. Don't you. What's the difference between yours compare to it? How do you model QFT using Bohm or your equivalent pilot wave? 3. Third and last. You mention the non-local signal moves in the aether which knows no time nor space so the information is simultaneous everywhere in the universe. This means there is possibility we can send information that is more than the randomness inherent in quantum mechanics. This means instantaneous information exchange between two particles in separate frame of reference. This means time travel is possible. What is your view of this. Or could there be a no time travel barrier somewhere here. I'd like to know if there is such barrier because there is really theoretical possibility of sending information non-local via the Aether or whatever pathway and I'm concern the time travel consequences. I hope you can answer this with your words and not quoting an entire article in your collection. J.
From: FrediFizzx on 27 May 2007 14:50 "GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1180248463.245420.241120(a)z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > 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. Yeah, Bilge wants to hold to the 19th Century notion of what the aether should or could be. > 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. A bigger question would be; can hbar be a property of a Higgs-like field that fills space near mass-energy? If yes, then we can have "quantum vacuum charge" = sqrt(hbar c) in CGS units. Or sqrt(4pi eps0 hbar c) in SI. Quantum vacuum charge is necessary to support the concept of eps0 and mu0. The reason being is that eps0 and mu0 imply "vacuum" capacitance and inductance. Which you will not have without quantum vacuum charge. Of course this charge has to be all bound charge. >> The vacuum is the ray in hilbert space which contains no particles. Fortunately, I don't think that decribes the "quantum vacuum". The true "void" vacuum would be that which has no particles be they real, virtual or "less than virtual". Best, Fred Diether Moderator sci.physics.foundations http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.foundations
From: Sue... on 27 May 2007 17:33 On May 27, 3:47 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 The ether-characteristics of your original post look strikingly like those for free-space. Einstein was kind enough to use the term "inertial ether" in his Nobel lecture. If you are referencing the same space it would be helpful if you use the same term. Also I'd be curious to see how you relate a powder charge accelerating a bullet to 377 ohms impedance. Sue...
From: Jimmer on 28 May 2007 05:56 On May 27, 2:34 am, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > About Gravity, Inertia and Mass > > Gravity > > CMBR is a mix of the particles that make up material space. Like > light, also known as EMR, which are considered particles, and ZPR, > also considered particles, but of a very different nature. > > What I call aether is before this material space, it is what Einstein > called 'the gravitational ether'. > > What I call space (sometimes material space) is not the same as what > 19th century and early 20th century physicists called space (now > called 'the classical vacuum'). Back then there were no CMBR, nor > Wheeler's quantum foam. That's why Einstein couldn't conciliate > Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. Today, space is considered to be > material, a collection of small particles which many now call dark > matter (CMBR). That's why modern physics now say that space is grainy. > > Gravity occurs as a result of drag caused by material space (quantum > matter), as concentric matter waves constantly flow into matter as > quantum matter (space) condenses and crystallizes to its objective > state (particulate or rock like state). I think I have detected the source of your confusion all these years. You underestimated the power of reality and mathematics to be intertwined. What General Relativity is saying is simply these which someone has summarized in very clear words. "Gravity, as the theory goes, is a curvature in space and time. A particle sitting stationary in space is still going forward in time, and the curvature sort of tells you how much the particle is deflected into a spatial direction when it does that." So the reason our bodies are on the ground of earth is because as our bodies move forward in time, the curvature of spacetime tells how much our bodies are deflected into a spatial direction which is the ground of earth." Using General Relativity. One can model Black Holes and other cosmic objects such as gravitional lensing. You can't even go near it with your aether version of gravity. It's most likely there is no Aether and the physical world is a unique place where mathematic laws that is possible determine reality. You can say that the physical world is the aether but this is silly. Come on, drop off the aether thing. It doesn't make any sense if you look at it hard. J.
From: Sue... on 28 May 2007 06:20
On May 27, 10:28 am, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 3. Third and last. You mention the non-local > signal moves in the aether which knows no time nor > space so the information is simultaneous > everywhere in the universe. This means there is > possibility we can send information that is more > than the randomness inherent in quantum mechanics. > This means instantaneous information exchange > between two particles in separate frame of > reference. This means time travel is possible. > What is your view of this. Or could there be a no > time travel barrier somewhere here. I'd like to > know if there is such barrier because there is > really theoretical possibility of sending > information non-local via the Aether or whatever > pathway and I'm concern the time travel > consequences. You are refering to evanescent or reactive near-field components. These don't exist in violation of the finte speed of light but rather as a direct result of the finite speed of light. They don't move mass or the energy equivalent so have no potential for communication. Some study of nearfield geometry is necessary to understand what their ~existence~ really means. << Figure 3: The wave impedance measures the relative strength of electric and magnetic fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >> http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html Formerly: http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html Time-independent Maxwell equations Time-dependent Maxwell's equations Relativity and electromagnetism http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html If you don't want to get that involved in antenna theory you can simply dismiss the *apparent* superluminal paths as something measured with an imaginary clock and therefore just as imaginary as the apparent power of a reactive induction motor. http://www.sayedsaad.com/fundmental/666_Power%20in%20AC%20Circuits.%20.htm Sue... > > I hope you can answer this with your words and not > quoting an entire article in your collection. > > J. |