What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Laurent on 30 May 2007 10:44 On May 29, 11:28 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. Still, that is why the speed of light is frame independent. The speed of light is determined at the aether level, like it or not.
From: Laurent on 30 May 2007 10:45 On May 29, 9:55 pm, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 - Sir Edmund T. Whittaker in the preface to his scholarly and scientific "A history of the Theories of Aether and Electricity" published in 1951 said: "As everyone knows, the aether played a great part in the physics of the nineteenth century; but in the first decade of the twentieth, chiefly as result of the failure of attempts to observe the earth's motion relative to the aether, and the acceptance of the principle that such attempts must always fail, the word "aether" fell out of favour, and it became customary to refer to the interplanetary spaces as "vacuous"; the vacuum being conceived as mere emptiness, having no properties except that of propagating electromagnetic waves. But with the development of quantum electrodynamics, the vacuum has come to be regarded as the seat of the "zero-point" oscillations of the electromagnetic field, of the "zero-point" fluctuations of electric charge and current, and of a "polarisation" corresponding to a dielectric constant different from unity. It seems absurd to retain the name "vacuum" for an entity so rich in physical properties, and the historical word "aether" may fitly be retained." ----- Sir Edmund T. Whittaker ----------------------------------- In 1954 P.A.M. Dirac, a Nobel Prize winner in physics in 1933, said - "The aetherless basis of physical theory may have reached the end of its capabilities and we see in the aether a new hope for the future." --- P. Dirac ----------------------------------- The science popularizer Zukav writes - "Quantum field theory resurrects a new kind of ether, e.g. particles are excited states of the featureless ground state of the field (the vacuum state). The vacuum state is so featureless and has such high symmetry that we cannot assign a velocity to it experimentally." ---- G. Zukav ----------------------------------- The very well known Tao of Physics by Capra states - "This [quantum field] is indeed an entirely new concept which has been extended to describe all subatomic particles and their interactions, each type of particle corresponding to a different field. In these 'quantum field theories', the classical contrast between the solid particles and the space surrounding them is completely overcome. The quantum field is seen as the fundamental physical entity; a continuous medium which is present everywhere in space. Particles are merely local condensations of the field; concentrations of energy which come and go, thereby losing their individual character and dissolving into the underlying field. In the words of Albert Einstein: " We may therefore regard matter as being constituted by the regions of space in which the field is extremely intense ... There is no place in this new kind of physics both for the field and matter, for the field is the only reality. " (page 210) -------------------------------------------------------- And they allowed Apollonius to ask questions; ...and he asked them of what they thought the cosmos was composed; but they replied: "Of elements." "Are there then four" he asked. "Not four," said Iarchas, "but five." "And how can there be a fifth," said Apollonius, "alongside of water and air and earth and fire?" "There is the ether", replied the other, "which we must regard as the stuff of which gods are made; for just as all mortal creatures inhale the air, so do immortal and divine natures inhale the ether." Apollonius again asked which was the first of the elements, and Iarchas answered: "All are simultaneous, for a living creature is not born bit by bit." "Am I," said Apollonius, "to regard the universe as a living creature?" "Yes," said the other, "if you have a sound knowledge of it, for it engenders all living things." - The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, Philostratus, 220AD. -------------------------------------------------------------- "Physical knowledge has advanced much since 1905, notably by the arrival of quantum mechanics, and the situation [about the scientific plausibility of aether] has again changed. If one examines the question in the light of present-day knowledge, one finds that the aether is no longer ruled out by relativity, and good reasons can now be advanced for postulating an aether. . . We can now see that we may very well have an aether, subject to quantum mechanics and conformable to relativity, provided we are willing to consider a perfect vacuum as an idealized state, not attainable in practice. From the experimental point of view there does not seem to be any objection to this. We must make some profound alterations to the theoretical idea of the vacuum. . . Thus, with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aether." ---- P. A. M. Dirac, "Is There an Aether?" Nature 168 (1951): 906-7. ---------------------------------------------------------- "...that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial I have left to the consideration of my readers." --- Isaac Newton -------------------------------------------------------- Biography of Hegel: "...the idea that the two basic factors in nature are what Hegel calls the 'aether' and 'matter'. The 'aether' is the way the absolute appears most basically in nature as 'unity' and it develops into 'difference' in various ways (or as the 'universal' that is differentiated into 'particularities'); the aether develops itself into 'matter' and this 'matter' then develops itself into the various appearances of nature." "In the draft of his 'Logic' in 1804, Hegel returned again to the philosophy of nature, taking up the same themes, such as the appeal to a dynamic of an 'aether' or 'absolute matter'. "...in the 1805-06 draft of the 'system'...Hegel opened the section on nature with the statement that his conceptions of 'absolute matter or the aether'...are equivalent in meanig to pure spirit, for this absolute matter is nothing sensuous but rather the concept as pure concept within itself, spirit existing as such. 'Absolute nmatter', that is, is not something that we empirically encounter in the observation of nature; it is a 'posit', an 'ideality, the 'totality' presupposed by the more determinate explanations offered by the physicists".
From: Bilge on 30 May 2007 11:10 On 2007-05-29, GSS <gurcharn_sandhu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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'? Yeah - my point is that you can't make that distinction and you prove me right with your silly, superficial argument below. > 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: Bilge on 30 May 2007 11:45 On 2007-05-30, FrediFizzx <fredifizzx(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "Bilge" <dubious(a)radioactivex.sz> wrote in message >> >> 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. No, I just bought a silicon graphics workstation and didn't copy my killfile over after compiling my newsreader. I can remedy the omission right away. > Sorry Bilge, I don't discuss foundational issues with impolite people > now-a-days. Then why did you respond to harry with your opinion of my reply to his post? What you mean is that you only respond to my posts through replies to other people because you figured (1) I wouldn't see it, (2) posting through a third party about me would let you kid yourself with that self-serving comment. In any case, I don't consider your posts to constitute any sort of discussion related to physics. Personally, I don't consider posting comments about me in replies you don't think I will see, to be a superior moral position, except in your own fantasy world. > You might as well plonk me again if you plan on always > being impolite. As you wish. I consider it my obligation as a physicist to be intolerant of pseudoscience and crackpots. So long as you plan to be a crackpot, I plan to be impolite. Unlike you, I make my comments to the people at whom the comments are directed rather than hiding what I have to say in posts to a third party. <plonk>
From: RP on 30 May 2007 12:18
On May 30, 9:44 am, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 29, 11:28 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > Still, that is why the speed of light is frame independent. The speed > of light is determined at the aether level, like it or not.- Hide quoted text - It's geometric. The standard derivation of light speed using the arbitrary constants e and mu_o is just numerology, plain and simple. c, along with an arbitrary choice of units results in them, rather than they causing c. The medium is just the matter in the universe, all of its parts forming a geometric whole. There isn't matter + something else, there is just matter. OTOH, that doesn't imply that there is nothing in between, in fact it requires that the something in between is that same matter. Fermions and their em fields are one and the same. Since an em wave is the propagation of the change in field strength of a collection of charges (or of a single charged particle), then that field is itself the medium of propagation, that is, it is actually in motion, being rigidly attached to the origin of the charge, what we call the fermion. The delay, or rather the measured delay, is what SR predicts. The wave is thus a disturbance in spacetime itself, and from at least one geometrical perspective the wave doesn't even exist, but rather the particles interact directly through time with each other. There are many interpretations, but there is no physical evidence of the medium being something other than what is already directly observable, i.e. em fields. What's sad is that even though Einstein devoted an entire chapter to the subject to show that space and field are mathematically indistinguishable and thus one and the same, and yet there are those who insist that there is nothing in between. I think the experiment that I provided a link to recently, in which photons from two different sources were split, and then recombined with components from the other source, shows that we can find out what is happening in between without directly measuring the radiation during its propagation. It is there, and it does exist, and it does propagate in wave form. Something must be waving, and thus something must be there to wave. Of course it isn't a material classical aether, it's just spacetime itself, but definitely not nothing. |