What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Rudolf Drabek on 30 May 2007 09:49 On 24 Mai, 23:54, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: snip > aether > o current and successful theories don't require an aether > o none is detectable > o no properties are ascribed or measured > o it's a dead concept EM waves are propagating thru this nondetectable and acc. to SR not necc. medium. But it has 377 Ohm's.
From: Sam Wormley on 30 May 2007 10:13 Rudolf Drabek wrote: > > EM waves are propagating thru this nondetectable and acc. to SR not > necc. medium. > But it has 377 Ohm's. > > "The characteristic impedance of free space, also called the Zo of free space, is an expression of the relationship between the electric-field and magnetic-field intensities in an electromagnetic field (EM field) propagating through a vacuum. The Zo of free space, like characteristic impedance in general, is expressed in ohms, and is theoretically independent of wavelength. It is considered a physical constant".
From: Sue... on 30 May 2007 10:37 On May 30, 10:49 am, Rudolf Drabek <newsr...(a)aon.at> wrote: > On 24 Mai, 23:54, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > snip > > > aether > > o current and successful theories don't require an aether > > o none is detectable > > o no properties are ascribed or measured > > o it's a dead concept > > EM waves are propagating thru this nondetectable and acc. to SR not > necc. medium. > But it has 377 Ohm's. Bodies responsible for Z_0 are easily detectable and can even be seen to alter the value when there density is increased. http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html Formerly: http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html They don't however have sufficient mass to provide the reaction force of Newton's third law locally. << This is not logically inadmissible although it is unsatisfactory. For this reason E. Mach demanded a modification of the law of inertia in the sense that the inertia should be interpreted as an acceleration resistance of the bodies against one another and not against "space". >> http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html Sue...
From: Laurent on 30 May 2007 10:42 On May 30, 12:23 am, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. Nonlocal Aspects of a Quantum Wave Authors: Y. Aharonov, L. Vaidman (Submitted on 23 Sep 1999) http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9909072 Fundamental Physics Applications The NI is the only device that gives direct access to the phase of neutron waves. This ability has long been utilized to investigate fundamental problems in quantum mechanics. Important experiments such as the 4 spinor rotation of fermions and gravitationally induced quantum interference have been carried out. This important basic research continues at the NIOF. Experiments such as a ***Wheeler Delayed-Choice experiment*** and a precision measurement of the Aharonov-Casher effect are being designed in collaboration with physicists from universities and other research institutions. More at: http://physics.nist.gov/MajResFac/InterFer/text.html > > 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. " But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that of the ether of the mechanical ondulatory theory of light. The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events. " " Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it. " "It would have been more correct if I had limited myself, in my earlier publications, to emphasizing only the nonexistence of an ether velocity, instead of arguing the total nonexistence of the ether, for I can see that with the word ether we say nothing else than that space has to be viewed as a carrier of physical qualities." " [...] in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical, as we will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity. It does remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states. [...] once again 'empty' space appears as endowed with physical properties, i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to special relativity [...] ". "This word ether has changed its meaning many times in the development if science [...] Its story, by no means finished, is continued by relativity theory." "There is an important argument in favour of the hypothesis of the ether. To deny the existence of the ether means, in the last analysis, denying all physical properties to empty space." "The ether hypothesis was bound always to play a part even if it is mostly a latent one at first in the thinking of physicists." --- A. Einstein
From: Sue... on 30 May 2007 10:42
On May 30, 11:37 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On May 30, 10:49 am, Rudolf Drabek <newsr...(a)aon.at> wrote: > > > On 24 Mai, 23:54, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > snip > > > > aether > > > o current and successful theories don't require an aether > > > o none is detectable > > > o no properties are ascribed or measured > > > o it's a dead concept > > > EM waves are propagating thru this nondetectable and acc. to SR not > > necc. medium. > > But it has 377 Ohm's. > Bodies responsible for Z_0 are easily detectable and can even be seen to alter the value when there density is increased. Oops! URLs should have been: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html > > They don't however have sufficient mass to provide the > reaction force of Newton's third law locally. > > << This is not logically inadmissible although > it is unsatisfactory. For this reason > E. Mach demanded a modification of the > law of inertia in the sense that the > inertia should be interpreted as an > acceleration resistance of the bodies > against one another and not against "space". >>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-le... > > Sue... |