What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: GSS on 29 May 2007 08:44 On May 29, 5:15 am, Bilge <dubi...(a)radioactivex.sz> wrote: > On 2007-05-28, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > [...] > > > 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) > > Do you really think that the ratios of human defined SI constants > (not to mention redundant ratios of those constants) has any basis in > physics? > Are you familiar with the system of dimensions and units in Physics? Can you distinguish between 'physical dimensions' and the 'unit systems'? For the 'quantification of observations' in Physics, we need systems of physical dimensions, systems of measurements and systems of reference coordinates. The fact that in mathematics we mainly deal with dimensionless numbers, distinguishes its domain from that of physics. Some scientists, who are deeply engrossed in mathematical aspect of Physics, tend to dismiss the dimensional aspect of physical quantities rather casually, as something quite arbitrary. Dimensions provide an extremely important linkage between mathematics and physical reality and hence constitute an essential part of physics which aims to study and grasp physical reality by making use of mathematical tools. A unit system is highly inter-related and dimensions of any one parameter can not be arbitrarily changed without affecting many other parameters. Real physical entities or objects of nature are given a symbolic representation in Physics. There is direct one to one unique correspondence between these physical objects and their corresponding symbolic representation. The concept of dimensions is based on established physical laws (like Newton's laws of motion), and observed inter-relationship between various physical quantities. Just as the physical laws and observed inter-relationships are not arbitrary, the dimensions of corresponding physical quantities are also not arbitrary. Quoting Percy William Bridgman from an article in Encyclopedia Britannica : "The view has been very common that a dimensional formula expresses the essential physical nature of a quantity. From this point of view the present indeterminateness in dimensional formulas is an expression of our present incomplete knowledge of the complete physical mechanism, and the time is anticipated when we shall be able to write the correct dimensional formula for the dielectric constant and the magnetic permeability of empty space." For further elaboration of the linkages between eps0, mu0, z0 and c in free space or vacuum and clarification of their basis in Physics, kindly refer to, http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/space_aether_vacuum.pdf > [...] > > > In my opinion, the study on these lines can explain most of the > > The difference between having an opinion and supporting an argument > with calculations and experimental data is the difference between > crackpots and physicists. Kindly be assured that I usually make my comments on the basis of tremendous amount of intricate calculations which cannot be presented in these discussions. Just for illustration, let me reproduce my comments given on another thread titled "What is the shape of an electron?". If you are interested in the supporting calculations, I will be pleased to present the same!! GSS What is the shape of an electron? ------------------------------------------------ "We may imagine the electron structure as consisting of a central core of about 1.61 fm (10^-15 m) radius containing a standing wave 'electrostatic' field and surrounded by a radial phase wave field with decaying amplitude. The radial wave field for electron may be given by f(r).e^(iK(r+ct))and that for positron by f(r).e^(iK(r-ct)). Here K represents the wave number of the radial wave field and could be of the order of 10^15 m^-1. The amplitude factor f(r) is proportional to 1/r. The concept of charge is related to the direction of propagation, intensity and interaction characteristics of radial wave field. As you can see this picture of the electron is drastically different from the conventional point mass and point charge notion generally taken for granted. In this *core-field picture of electron* (or positron), the mass energy is characteristically distributed in space and its charge property is represented by the interaction characteristic of its wave field. This wave field replaces the notion of virtual photons. About 65 percent of the total mass energy of the electron (positron) is contained in the central core region and the remaining 35 percent is distributed in its wave field. The characteristic frequency of oscillations of the standing wave field of the electron/positron core is of the order of 8X10^22 Hz. When two opposite charges interact, their electrostatic wave fields get superposed thereby reducing the amplitude of the resultant wave field and reducing the combined field energy of the interacting charges. This reduction in the combined field energy amounts to a net release of a portion of their field (mass) energy (called negative interaction energy) which could either get transferred to the kinetic energy of the interacting charges or gets used up in creation of a photon or some other transient elementary particle. If the released interaction energy is given out or gets extracted from the system then the interacting charge particles are said to get bound together and the amount of interaction energy extracted from the system is termed as their binding energy. When two similar charges interact, their electrostatic wave fields get superposed thereby increasing the amplitude of the resultant wave field and increasing the combined field energy of the interacting charges leading to positive interaction energy. The Coulomb interaction between two charged particles is essentially the interaction between their radially decaying wave fields and is strictly valid for separation distances greater than 3.2 fm." --------------- " The approximate shape of the electron described in my previous post is based on a detailed mathematical model. Let me introduce some relevant background of that model. Under the proposed viewpoint, the E&M fields as well as all elementary particles could be viewed as space-time 'distortions' or dynamic deformations in the space continuum. That is these 'deformations' will constitute a 'structure' of these particles and cover a finite region of space. Therefore we need to shed the current notion of elementary particles being 'point' or 'point-like' particles with characteristic properties. Instead, we need to derive the characteristic properties from the 'structure' and the 'interactions' of these particles. There are two reasons why we need to move beyond the conventional view point even if it is more difficult and arduous task. Firstly we need to understand the fundamental nature of E&M fields as well as all elementary particles with such clarity that we should be able to mentally visualize the same just as we do most other physical entities. Secondly, at present the space-time curvature is considered a very respectable concept whereas the notion of space-time 'distortions' or deformations is generally considered something fuzzy. In reality however, space-time curvature is just a mathematical notion depicting an incompatible deformation of space and time. Detailed analysis of this incompatibility of space-time curvature induced deformations is available at, http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/htm_art/continuum_strain.htm http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/invalidity_gr.pdf The electric and magnetic fields could be viewed as dynamic deformations in the space continuum with physical properties of eps_0 and mu_0. Let U be a time dependent 'displacement' vector in the space continuum such that it satisfies the Maxwell's vector wave equation Del^2(U) = (1/c^2) D^2(U)/Dt^2 ...... (1) where D represents the partial derivative symbol. A solution of equation (1) for U that satisfies the essential boundary conditions, will represent a transverse wave field if Del.U = 0. Further, we may identify U with the conventional electric and magnetic fields E & B in 'free space' through the identities, E = - (1/eps_0).(1/c). DU/Dt and B = (1/c).(1/eps_0).(Del X U). The displacement vector field U will now satisfy all the electromagnetic field equations that are satisfied by E & B in 'free space'. To develop some insight into this otherwise highly complex phenomenon of space-time 'distortions' or the dynamic deformations of the space continuum, equation (1) given above could be an excellent starting point. We may try to *solve* equation (1) in terms of components of displacement vector U in any convenient coordinate system subject to appropriate boundary and stability conditions. For example in Cartesian coordinates we have to solve (1) for displacement vector components u_x, u_y and u_z as functions of x, y, z and t. In spherical polar coordinates we have to solve for u_r, u_theta and u_phi as functions of r, theta, phi ant t. Of course it is very important to clarify two points regarding space- time distortions in the very beginning. Firstly, all space-time distortions or dynamic deformations of the space continuum can be identified with or referred to as strained states of the continuum. Secondly all space-time distortions will be associated with corresponding energy density of the deformed or the strained state. The space-time derivatives of the displacement vector U will yield the strain components like Du_x/Dx or Du_r/Dr. In a particular 'deformed' or 'strained' region of the space continuum, the energy density is given by, W = (1/2eps_0)*[sum of squares of all strain components] .... (2) As mentioned earlier, all permissible solutions of equation (1) in a specified deformed region of the space continuum will have to satisfy appropriate boundary and stability conditions. The most important boundary and stability conditions are, (a) All displacement vector components u_i must be finite and continuous within the specified region and must vanish at the boundaries of the specified 'deformed' region of the space continuum. (b) All strain components u_i,j must be finite and continuous within the specified region. (c) The total strain energy within the specified region obtained by integration of the energy density W over the whole specified region must be finite and constant or invariant with time. Logically, for any observably finite and distinct region of 'space- time distortions' we should be able to *find* appropriate solutions of equation (1) which satisfy the above mentioned boundary and stability conditions. But that is an extremely difficult exercise. Putting it other way round, if the solutions of equation (1) for a finite and distinct region of 'space-time distortions', satisfy the above mentioned boundary and stability conditions, that region of the space continuum will be found to be an observably distinct entity. Such distinct regions of the space continuum, with finite, stable total energy content will be seen to behave like 'elementary particles', which I personally prefer to call *Strain Bubbles*. It may be pointed out here that none of the permissible solutions of equation (1) is a static (i.e. independent of time) solution. Electron/ Positron type elementary particles or strain bubbles may possibly be represented by spherically symmetric solutions of equation (1) depicting 'standing strain wave oscillations'. The approximate shape of the electron described in my previous post is based on a detailed solution of equation (1) obtained for spherically symmetric boundary conditions." GSS
From: Laurent on 29 May 2007 09:56 On May 27, 9:28 am, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. When I said no time travel I was thinking about time machines, but theoretically we could, that's what the Twins Paradox is all about, but we just wouldn't be able to get back.
From: Laurent on 29 May 2007 10:03 On May 28, 5:56 am, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. First, what is the central infinite processor? And I stil subscribe to space flow theories. Which one? I don't have a specific one but I believe they are on the right track.
From: Laurent on 29 May 2007 10:04 On May 28, 5:56 am, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. Look, as I have been saying, you can't deny there is space between particles, right?
From: Laurent on 29 May 2007 10:27
On May 28, 9:05 am, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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?" I wasn't anywhere and it does not exist. Since it is not matter, it is but it does not exist. It is like a point, dimensionless. > > 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. That's why is better to call it aether. The space you are talking about is the space Einstein described, and yes, that space is material, unlike the aether. 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. Read Einstein's "The Ether and the Thoery of Relativity" |