What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: GSS on 28 May 2007 08:06 On May 27, 11:50 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "GSS" <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > >> 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. > Here it appears that you are trying to find the fundamental basis for the existence of the physical properties (eps_0, mu_0, Z_0 and c) of the aether continuum or vacuum. I am following a different approach. I take these known physical properties of the aether continuum as the starting point and proceed to develop the observed macroscopic phenomenon like propagation of transverse and longitudinal waves, occurrence of standing wave oscillations in a bounded region of the continuum etc. etc. This way I intend to develop the structure and interaction characteristics of elementary particles. In my opinion, the study on these lines can explain most of the material phenomenon in terms of the wave oscillations in the underlying aether continuum. Only then we may turn to explore the fundamental basis for the existence of the physical properties (eps_0, mu_0, Z_0 and c) of the aether continuum or vacuum which you are attempting to explore now. For example, a preliminary study of the aether continuum (which I prefer to call Elastic Continuum) I have found that the interactions among all elementary particles take place through super-position of their wave-fields and not through the exchange of any hypothetical or virtual particles. GSS >>> 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
From: Y on 28 May 2007 08:37 The aether is a schizophrenic idea for space. Space cannot produce meaning. If you establish a science based on finding the production of meaning from space, then you are purchasing a one way bus ticket to the luminiferous lunatic asylum. Question : Where do you get off the bus ? If you get off the bus in a place, then good for you. If you get off a space bus in outer space, all the best : You might need another space bus (another place) to pick you up from that 'position'. This should cause a stir . . . Question for physicists. How much friction exists between the earths outer reaches of the atmosphere and space ? Maybe the hole in the ozone layer is because the earth is grinding itself away. In case you don't realize. I am being completely sarcastic. -y
From: Jimmer on 28 May 2007 09:05 Laurent keeps emphasizing that his Aether is Empty Space which is the source of everything. He mentions in the 2 paragraphs (my comment follows after it): "First of all, before we continue, we must distinguish empty space from material space. I see empty space as the seat to all fields, synonymous to Einstein's aether, and I see it as primary. Material space, or what I call the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), is a product. Since in my view these are synonymous, from now on I will talk about aether and empty space as one and the same thing. Supposedly, from the MMX results we should conclude that the aether is immaterial and unobservable. Now, if empty space were here before matter and could exist independently from the Universe, isn't the classical vacuum immaterial and unobservable too?" My comment. Before the Big Bang. We can't say there was empty space. In the Big Bang, space was created in the Bang as space expands. Space seems to be part of the physical world or whatever is it that banged. Isn't it that there are vacuum fluctuations in every planck bit of space. Space is part of the physical world. Now when we say physical world, we tend to think it is just a concrete world of nut & bolt. But maybe let's just look at it as some kind of reality where mathematics laws can shapeshift into physicality. Therefore there is no need for an Aether because the physical world is not a concrete world we think it is but mathematics objectified. Anyway. I think it is all just semantics. He (& some) wants to use the word Aether but one can describe everything he said by just assuming that the physical world is it. In Gauge Theory, etc. where higher mathematics produce all those experimental data such as electroweak force, etc. We know that physical reality is unique and mathematics objectified. Therefore fragmenting reality into physical and aether or physical and fredi vacuum in a concrete connections won't produce all the predictions offered by the math. In other words, you can't model math as interactions between aether and physical, etc. or vacuum dynamics. The physical world is simply a unique place or a mathematical living machine. J.
From: Jimmer on 28 May 2007 09:34 Laurent keeps emphasizing that his Aether is Empty Space which is the source of everything. He mentions in the 2 paragraphs (my comment follows after it): "First of all, before we continue, we must distinguish empty space from material space. I see empty space as the seat to all fields, synonymous to Einstein's aether, and I see it as primary. Material space, or what I call the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), is a product. Since in my view these are synonymous, from now on I will talk about aether and empty space as one and the same thing. Supposedly, from the MMX results we should conclude that the aether is immaterial and unobservable. Now, if empty space were here before matter and could exist independently from the Universe, isn't the classical vacuum immaterial and unobservable too?" My comment. Before the Big Bang. We can't say there was empty space. In the Big Bang, space was created in the Bang as space expands. Space seems to be part of the physical world or whatever is it that banged. Isn't it that there are vacuum fluctuations in every planck bit of space. Space is part of the physical world. Now when we say physical world, we tend to think it is just a concrete world of nut & bolt. But maybe let's just look at it as some kind of reality where mathematics laws can shapeshift into physicality. Therefore there is no need for an Aether because the physical world is not a concrete world we think it is but mathematics objectified. Anyway. I think it is all just semantics. He (& some) wants to use the word Aether but one can describe everything he said by just assuming that the physical world is it. In Gauge Theory, etc. where higher mathematics produce all those experimental data such as electroweak force, etc. We know that physical reality is unique and mathematics objectified. Therefore fragmenting reality into physical and aether or physical and fredi vacuum in a concrete connections won't produce all the predictions offered by the math. In other words, you can't model math as interactions between aether and physical, etc. or vacuum dynamics. The physical world is simply a unique place or a mathematical living machine. J.
From: Jimmer on 28 May 2007 19:48
Every few months Laurent would remind us about the Aether. I always made it a point to tag them with a short note in my memo pad on their main idea and how modern physics sees it. Laurent case is this. He wrote in the first paragraph of his web site: "The reason that, in spacetime, frames must be related is because it all comes from a single entity, reality is one single process. The aether is one, and because of that, the universe is also one. All frames within the observable universe are related by the aether, through the aether. All frames depend, in every way, on the aether." Modern physics can say it with this instead, ""The reason that, in spacetime, frames must be related is because it all comes as a consequence of minkowski geometry". You see. Modern physics is less vague and more direct to the point. Laurent is like asking "Why is lines straight, it is because of the aether which is a single entity". Actually. He is not really wrong to say that lines are straight because of the aether if he has other definition of aether. So What Is the Aether? (which is the title of this thread). Aether made lines straight. Could Aether be something which made mathematical reality manifest into physicality?? At this point. It's philosophy and no longer physics. But Laurent is a philosopher. I won't mind if he continue exploring why in the physical world line is straight and circle is round and following the laws of mathematics. Actually Smolin is also asking the same question why lines are straight and he refers the answer to just God. So in a way. Laurent is more specific because at least he uses a worn out concept of physics to explain why lines in the physical world are straight and obey mathematics (in the similar situation Special Relativity is so because of the spacetime geometry which follows mathematics). But then philosophically contemplating why lines are straight may be a futile effort (for me). We may as well spend time figuring out why there are 3 generations of matter instead (for example, electron muon, tau). But I understand that for some of us without the mathematical skills of Witten. We can just contemplate on the beauty of sunset, the blooming of flowers, the reason why lines are straight. It may even made us closer to God and the Universe than those mathematicians who simply use the logical right brain. Left brain is poetry, romance, beauty. J. |