What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Laurent on 29 May 2007 10:29 On May 28, 9:34 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?" > > 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. I am a physicalist, and the aether is the physicalists God.
From: Jimmer on 29 May 2007 18:51 Laurent wrote: > On May 28, 9:34 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?" > > > > 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. > > > I am a physicalist, and the aether is the physicalists God. Here is what you are doing. You want to continue where Einstein "Gravitational Ether" left off. We know Einstein Gravitational Ether is not the same as the Maxwellian Aether and so not related to Special Relativity. But you want to relate to SR by claiming Aether is what defines the frames and the relationship. But what defines the relationship can be explained by geometry. So indirectly what you are doing is claiming the Aether is the reason why geometry exists and why in this world circle are round and lines are straight and women bodie are curved. In a way, you may as well call it God. In fact, the Aether is your God. About physicialism. Well. The incredible success of Quantum Field Theory in predicting experiment outcomes down to many signficiant digits can't be matched by any newtonian physical model such as dual space or anything. This is why it appears the physical world is a living mathematical entity. It's not bad to keep talking about the Aether and explaining it is the reason circle is round. But try to cook up more details such as how we can shield gravity if you don't subscribe to General Relativity and attribute gravity as dynamics of aether-physical substance. There must be a way to shield it. Figure it out. About the double slit one photon or electron at a time experiment. Is your model the same as RP? Hope you can explain this in an article in your web. BTW... you said every object has its matter wave. So each electron, quark has its matter wave. You describe it as though the particles always exist. But in pair creation and annihilation. They are cooked up from the vacuum. Maybe you subscribe to the dual space version which is newtonian in fashion but this won't have the same predicting power as the analog QFT. Dual space, RP and your your pilot wave-particle duality explanations are digital and can't produce the complexities of the world. This is the reason I don't subscribe to nuts and bolts stuff anymore in the wave-particle subject and its consequences such as electroweak, QFT, etc. thing.. J.
From: RP on 29 May 2007 21:01 On May 29, 5:51 pm, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Laurent wrote: > > On May 28, 9:34 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?" > > > > 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. > > > I am a physicalist, and the aether is the physicalists God. > > Here is what you are doing. You want to continue where > Einstein "Gravitational Ether" left off. We know Einstein > Gravitational Ether is not the same as the Maxwellian > Aether and so not related to Special Relativity. But you > want to relate to SR by claiming Aether is what defines > the frames and the relationship. But what defines the > relationship can be explained by geometry. So indirectly > what you are doing is claiming the Aether is the reason > why geometry exists and why in this world circle are > round and lines are straight and women bodie are > curved. In a way, you may as well call it God. In fact, > the Aether is your God. > > About physicialism. Well. The incredible success of > Quantum Field Theory in predicting experiment outcomes > down to many signficiant digits can't be matched by any > newtonian physical model such as dual space or anything. > This is why it appears the physical world is a living > mathematical entity. > > It's not bad to keep talking about the Aether and explaining > it is the reason circle is round. But try to cook up more details > such as how we can shield gravity if you don't subscribe to > General Relativity and attribute gravity as dynamics of > aether-physical substance. There must be a way to shield > it. Figure it out. > > About the double slit one photon or electron at a time > experiment. Is your model the same as RP? Hope > you can explain this in an article in your web. BTW... > you said every object has its matter wave. So each > electron, quark has its matter wave. You describe > it as though the particles always exist. But in pair > creation and annihilation. They are cooked up from > the vacuum. Maybe you subscribe to the dual space > version which is newtonian in fashion but this won't > have the same predicting power as the analog QFT. > Dual space, RP and your your pilot wave-particle duality > explanations are digital and can't produce the complexities > of the world. This is the reason I don't subscribe to > nuts and bolts stuff anymore in the wave-particle > subject and its consequences such as electroweak, QFT, > etc. thing.. > > J.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I don't recall that Laurent offered an explanation of the double slit experiment. Even so, before you make up your mind about the outcome of that experiment look at the link again that I provided in that thread. Now I'm going to add to that argument a little something in order to show that E=hf is definitively a special relativistic effect, even a requirement, and derives from the classical production of em waves. To wit, as already stated for any bounded region of a given em wave E/ f is invarant wrt frames of reference, as provided for in Einstein's 1905 paper. Now if we consider an em wave generated by a single orbital electron, it must follow that E/f is invariant for that emitted wave as well. If we then choose a frame of reference in motion wrt the lab frame such that the frequency of that wave is redshifted wrt the moving frame, then from that moving FoR the accelleration of the electron wasn't as great wrt that frame due to the relativistic time dilation effect. One can regard the internal processes of an atom as corresponding to a clock. Thus in the original (lab) frame, if an electron accellerates at this same slower rate, then the waves in the two cases will be identical wrt our respective observers, i.e. identical in energy and identical in frequency. It is thus necessary that a single electron emits radiation always of the same ration E/f, which is experimentally h, independently of the frame of reference from which E and f are measured. You won't find that in your QED texts, either because it demolishes current interpretations of QM, or because I"m the only person thus far who has approached the subject of em radiation from a realistic PoV.
From: Laurent on 29 May 2007 21:51 On May 29, 6:51 pm, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Laurent wrote: > > On May 28, 9:34 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?" > > > > 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. > > > I am a physicalist, and the aether is the physicalists God. > > Here is what you are doing. You want to continue where > Einstein "Gravitational Ether" left off. We know Einstein > Gravitational Ether is not the same as the Maxwellian > Aether and so not related to Special Relativity. But you > want to relate to SR by claiming Aether is what defines > the frames and the relationship. But what defines the > relationship can be explained by geometry. So indirectly > what you are doing is claiming the Aether is the reason > why geometry exists and why in this world circle are > round and lines are straight and women bodie are > curved. In a way, you may as well call it God. In fact, > the Aether is your God. > > About physicialism. Well. The incredible success of > Quantum Field Theory in predicting experiment outcomes > down to many signficiant digits can't be matched by any > newtonian physical model such as dual space or anything. > This is why it appears the physical world is a living > mathematical entity. > > It's not bad to keep talking about the Aether and explaining > it is the reason circle is round. But try to cook up more details > such as how we can shield gravity if you don't subscribe to > General Relativity and attribute gravity as dynamics of > aether-physical substance. There must be a way to shield > it. Figure it out. > > About the double slit one photon or electron at a time > experiment. Is your model the same as RP? Hope > you can explain this in an article in your web. BTW... > you said every object has its matter wave. So each > electron, quark has its matter wave. You describe > it as though the particles always exist. But in pair > creation and annihilation. They are cooked up from > the vacuum. Maybe you subscribe to the dual space > version which is newtonian in fashion but this won't > have the same predicting power as the analog QFT. > Dual space, RP and your your pilot wave-particle duality > explanations are digital and can't produce the complexities > of the world. This is the reason I don't subscribe to > nuts and bolts stuff anymore in the wave-particle > subject and its consequences such as electroweak, QFT, > etc. thing.. > > J. Here, this is why the speed of light is frame independent. "c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep)... where Uo is the permeability and Ep is the permittivity for free space" --- Michael Wales Hey, did you checked out the links to Aharonov?
From: Jimmer on 29 May 2007 21:55
On May 29, 10:27 pm, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Before the Big Bang which gave birth to space. I think the term they used to describe the "space" before there was space was simply the Void. But what you do is call it Aether and attribute some properties of physical matter into it. But why not all the properties of matter being derivable from the Big Bang singularity. In the embryo, all the DNA is already inside the cells. So all physical properties could already be contained in whatever banged. What you are describing about attributing it to the aether or void is is like saying the environment is what causes the fetus and grown up man to have strength to walk when it is in the muscles built right in our body. So same with space that came from the Big Bang which is a child of the Bang connected by virtual quantum processes which define the metric of space. Give proof that the Void gives properties to matter. If it's not provable then its for all intent and purposes just philosophy and guesses (which produced a scenerio in the past where they think the brain is located in the stomach). Lastly. Call the "space" before Big Bang gave rise to space just "Void" to differentiate it from the different descriptions of aether right up to Einstein Gravitional Ether. Since only famous physicists can coin terms and you are not a famous physicist. You can't call the Void Aether. There are just no justifications. Einstein obviously didn't define it such so let's keep and traditional terms for what they are so we standardize communications in all levels of descriptions and society. J. > > 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"- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |