What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: RP on 29 May 2007 23:28 On May 29, 8:51 pm, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Great, Michael Wales just explained how c=c. Now where's the explanation of why permeability and permittivity are invariant? Not that it matters, because the two terms are completely interchangable within any equation by simply using the appropriate conversion constant. In otherwords this is no explanation of c, period. By another name it's called numerology. These terms aren't exactly stress and strain. The standard explanation is woefully incorrect.
From: FrediFizzx on 29 May 2007 23:28 "Bilge" <dubious(a)radioactivex.sz> wrote in message news:slrnf5mru6.228.dubious(a)iris.lebesque-al.net... > On 2007-05-27, FrediFizzx <fredifizzx(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> Yeah, Bilge wants to hold to the 19th Century notion of what the >> aether >> should or could be. > > No, I hold to the idea that physical theories ought to have a basis > in physical phenomena. That idea has spanned centuries. I also > subscribe > to the notion that anyone who deliberately obscures terminolgy which > is well known and well defined, does so because he has a philosophical > agenda which he/she lacks knowledge of any physics and lacks the > imagination, competence and self-confidence in his/her own bullshit to > invest the effort needed to follow through on it. > > > [...] >> A bigger question would be; can hbar be a property of a Higgs-like >> field >> that fills space near mass-energy? > > > Obviously not. hbar is a unit of angular momentum. The higgs is a > scalar. > > [...] >>>> The vacuum is the ray in hilbert space which contains no particles. >> >> Fortunately, I don't think that decribes the "quantum vacuum". The >> true > > It doesn't matter what you think. The quantum vacuum is defied by > quantum field theory, so it is not open for personal interpretation. > If you want to invent something else, give it a different name and > develop the mathematical formalism to go with it. All you and the > other > idiot are doing is attempting to inject philospohical bullshit onto > ideas which have rigorous mathematical definitions that correspond to > specific physics. Hmm... Seems like you took me out of your killfile. Sorry Bilge, I don't discuss foundational issues with impolite people now-a-days. You might as well plonk me again if you plan on always being impolite. Best, Fred Diether Moderator sci.physics.foundations http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.foundations
From: Jimmer on 30 May 2007 00:23 On May 30, 9:51 am, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - What Aharonov links? I have read Ludwik "Einstein and the Aether" years ago when I was contemplating if Aether could be real but founded it faces so many conflicts with the modern physics data. About your speed of light thing. Here's from wikipedia: "... by assuming that the universe has four dimensions that are related by Minkowski's formula the speed of light appears as a constant and it does not need to be assumed to be constant as in Einstein's original approach to special relativity". Minkowski makes everything so intuitive. Well. Big Bang is like a super unclassical computer. You give it math inputs and it creates all kinds of worlds that is not limited by imagination (literally.. as in if it's in the math, reality can produce it). Although I'd still welcome it if everything is derivable from physicalism such as thermodynamics being a dynamics of physical stuff and not mathematical abstraction. But in the quantum and relativistic area. It seems it may not be like thermodynamics where they may be physical mechanisms or causes. J.
From: Spirit of Truth on 30 May 2007 02:39 "Bilge" <dubious(a)radioactivex.sz> wrote in message news:slrnf5g3mm.c9g.dubious(a)iris.lebesque-al.net... > On 2007-05-26, Spirit of Truth <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote: > > Is ``Spirit of Truth'' some sort of backwoods slang for moonshine? > >> Thus Einsteinian relativity actually postulates an ever existent past >> and future, no free will and a blocktime universe... all of which >> IS false. > > Gee. That's news to me and the rest of the physics constabulary, I'm > sure. > Could you please reference the origional article by einstein in which > those > postulates appear? Read 'The Fabric Of The Cosmos' by Brian Greene...a Best Seller. Einstein refers in his 1905 ? lecture to lack of simultaneiety...just doesn't expose it's real consequence. >> What Relativitists ignore is that 'lack of simultaneity' is not real > > Ahhhh... Yet another fruitcake whose definition of ``real'' is > ``that which contradicts real experiments.'' ??? You are surely not saying that what is actual in the Universe does not take precedence over the math one choses to use even when that math is inappropriately used? Lack of simultaneiety has never been experimentally proven. It IS false. >> so the Lorentz math is not the correct math to use for the >> M & M experiment neither for the aether theory nor SR. > > Get another hobby. Apparently, geometry and trigonometry are over > your head. No, you really should look at how an event could possibly happen in one frame at a different time from another frame (not including time for c to bring information nor doppler effect). from: Spirit Of Truth (using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
From: Autymn D. C. on 30 May 2007 03:05
On May 28, 4:56 pm, Bilge <dubi...(a)radioactivex.sz> wrote: > On 2007-05-27, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Aether is a *continuum* > > A ``continum'' of what? Continuum, retard--there are no continua, as there are no black holes, black bodies, points, singularities, shut sustems, or constants in real life. > > 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. > > Please derive a result which explicitly demonstrates what that > means and how that results in any physics. http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+electron+size+big http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+mote+OR+whit http://google.com/groups?q=liht-is-not-a-thing > > 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. > > If you are going to discuss the Z_0, you had better do a great deal > more research. I more than a passing aqcuaintance with weak interactions > and the experimental data associated with it. Z_0, you cretin, not Z^0. As for weak interactions, http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+New-Model. Primitive Cabbibo-head. > >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. > > Well, when you get around to studying enough continuum mechanics to > understand it, you'll realize why it won't work. > >> 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. > > Any time someone drags out that tired cliche, I know that person is > an idiot. If you cannot connect physics to mathematics, that is your > problem. In this case, you are also a complete hypocrite, since your > definition of a ``continuum'' is a philosophical abstraction with no > physical or mathematical content and your appeal to continuum mechanics > as justification only indicates your ignorance of continuum mechanics. > Go buy a copy of goldstein or fetter and walecka. http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+SED -Aut *boom* |