What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Eric Gisse on 24 May 2007 22:15 On May 24, 6:34 pm, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 24, 8:02 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 24, 3:55 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The aether is a concept accepted by those whose knowledge of physics > > > ranges from "none" to "very little". > > > The aether is unknowingly accepted by those who abide to GR as a > > religion. > > > In 1908, when Minkowski presented the spacetime equation, for the > > first time the model of the Aether is identified according to the > > Goettingen group which included Kline, Hilbert, Schwarzschild, and > > Minkowski himself. Since SR does not manifest the concept of > > spacetime because the Lorentz transform forbids the mathematical > > mathematical model of spacetime, GR had a big disconnect with SR. > > > The GR folks should jump up and down for joy because the mathematical > > model of the Aether is identified as the equation of spacetime > > itself. Instead, they choose to deny GR having anything to do with > > the Aether 'till this day. <shrug> > > Correct, that's why Einstein also called it "The Gravitational Ether" > as he claimed the universe is one single process, one single field. > That's why everything is related. > > These guys think they know physics but when you ask them why is it > that the properties of any object in motion depend on the objects > around it they can't without admiting wholeness and > interconnectedness. You know, like covariance, why is there > covariance? Why can't an object travel at near light speed without > time dilation or space contractions in relation to other objects? Covariance follows from the equivalence principle, whiner. This is explained in the relativity textbooks you do not read. Dilational and contraction effects are projection effects from geometry, nothing more. > Could it be because energy is finite and the propagation speed of > fields need to remain constant in order for matter to hold together? No. Word salad does not make physics. > heheh, they can't even answer that! [snip remainder philosophical whining]
From: Jimmer on 24 May 2007 22:59 On May 25, 9:34 am, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Correct, that's why Einstein also called it "The Gravitational Ether" > as he claimed the universe is one single process, one single field. > That's why everything is related. > > These guys think they know physics but when you ask them why is it > that the properties of any object in motion depend on the objects > around it they can't without admiting wholeness and > interconnectedness. You know, like covariance, why is there > covariance? Why can't an object travel at near light speed without > time dilation or space contractions in relation to other objects? > Could it be because energy is finite and the propagation speed of > fields need to remain constant in order for matter to hold together? > heheh, they can't even answer that! > > The thing is that you need to understand that Physics depends on > Philosophy, if you don't get the philosophical basis, then all you > could with all that physics is make roller coasters and such, or maybe > get a job as a clerk... hey, that's a respectable thing to do, look at > Einstein heheh > > -- > Laurent- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - When you watch a movie, how does the character move in the screen, does it have its aether? No. Likewise, it is very possible reality is all projections from a source. This can explain quantum mechanics and relativity. The source uses infinite processing power and the most advance of mathematics. Call the source Platonia. Hence aether is not necessary. The universe is not made of things and concrete objects. It's more like a projection with each changes anywhere reacting on the whole configuration. This can explain non-locality where as it projects it also seeks input from our measurement and then reflecting on the entire configuration of the universe. This makes much more sense. If you agree with the concept of the Source and Platonia and wants to call it Aether. Then drop of the Aether wording. What you are doing is like you are in a village about to be attacked by rebels and you send a message to the National Guard saying "I am Laurent, a boogeyman, call in reinforcement". Instead if you say "I am Laurent, a folk of Kansas, call in reinforcement", the listener would be more serious. Likewise, by mentioning Aether to physicists. You already shut the door before ever continuing with your concept. J.
From: Bilge on 25 May 2007 00:40 On 2007-05-24, Laurent <cyberdyno(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The aether is simply the space between two points. In other words, it is nothing. Have a nice day and thank you for saying nothing in less than 5 pages. > David Bohm called > it general space as he said space is what unite us, not what separates > us. Mach called it momentum space as he explained the force of > Inertia. Einstein and others like called it free space as they > explained permeability and permittivity. So there is no question the > aether is, it is the empty space between points, the question is, does > it have physical properties? Einstein maintained it did until the day > he died. > > --- > > Whether you can call it God or not would depend on what you think God > is. To me God was a thing incapable of thinking or feeling until > matter and brains came into existence. Besides that, many, like > Buddhists for example, call it Consciousness, others call it Mind, but > they are all referring to same THING I am talking about, a universal > being. The aether, like God, is omnipresent, eternal, with no > beginning and no end. The aether is the seat of the field, and without > fields there would be no universe, right? Therefore, it is the source > of everything there is. > > David Chalmers likes to ask - what is that which is? - he calls this > "the hard problem", and the answer is, the aether is that which is. > Why? Because it is immutable, it is now what it always was, and there > is nothing in this universe that you can say that about, simply > because matter is in constant change, what was five seconds ago, is > not anymore. > > -- > Laurent >
From: GSS on 25 May 2007 04:25 On May 25, 2:31 am, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The aether is simply the space between two points. David Bohm called > it general space as he said space is what unite us, not what separates > us. Mach called it momentum space as he explained the force of > Inertia. Einstein and others like called it free space as they > explained permeability and permittivity. So there is no question the > aether is, it is the empty space between points, the question is, does > it have physical properties? Einstein maintained it did until the day > he died. [........] > Laurent The notions of aether, physical space, empty space, vacuum and their modern reincarnation the quantum vacuum, all mean the same entity - call it by any name. The Physical Space ------------------ The notion of physical space implies the spatial extension of the universe wherein all material particles and all fields are embedded or contained. The existence of physical space does not depend in any way on the existence or non-existence of coordinate systems and coordinate spaces. Of course for the study and analysis of physical space and the material particles and fields embedded in the physical space we do need the structure of coordinate systems as a quantification tool. The most significant point to be highlighted here is that whereas the metric scaling property is only associated with coordinate space, the physical properties of permittivity, permeability and intrinsic impedance are only associated with physical space. Notion of Aether ---------------- In the 19th century Physics, the notion of an all-pervading medium called aether was considered a necessity for distinguishing the concept of physical space from that of the coordinate space. However, some self-contradicting properties had to be ascribed to this aether. It was supposed to be an extremely thin medium to enable resistance free motion of solid bodies through it. At the same time it was required to be a highly elastic solid to enable the transverse (light) wave propagation through it. This was essentially due to the fact that matter and aether medium were regarded as two separate, independent entities. Maxwell's development of the electromagnetic theory of light, null result of Michelson-Morley experiment and Einstein's special theory of relativity rendered the notion of aether superfluous. The electromagnetic field was granted an independent status, capable of independent existence just as matter. The relativity theories just brushed aside the very necessity of aether by declaring through its postulates that the coordinate space is de facto the physical space. Vacuum or Quantum Vacuum ------------------------ Now, there is a growing realization in the scientific circles that matter and electromagnetic field, both appear to be having a common origin in the 'empty space' or the 'vacuum'. There is also a notion of vacuum energy and the phenomenon of creation, annihilation and transmutation of unstable elementary particles occurring in vacuum. As per the current viewpoint the 'empty space' or vacuum no longer represents nothingness but is supposed to be the seat of or supporter of all ultra-microscopic phenomenon of nature. This entity representing the old 'empty space' or vacuum has now been assigned a modern name of 'quantum vacuum'. This reincarnation of poor old aether certainly looks much more sophisticated and acceptable. The quantum vacuum is thought of as a "seething froth of real particle- virtual particle pairs going in and out of existence continuously and very rapidly". The quantum vacuum is considered to be a dynamic condition of equilibrium in which this reversible process is occurring everywhere extremely quickly. In reality however, all these notions of physical space, empty space, vacuum, aether and their modern reincarnation the quantum vacuum, all mean the same entity - call it by any name. It is said that a rose by any other name will smell as sweet. Similarly the aether by any other name like vacuum or quantum vacuum will still have the same physical properties. Physical Properties of Vacuum or Aether -------------------------------------- Fundamental properties of this vacuum or empty space are represented by the following parameters. Permittivity of free space = eps_0 = 8.854 X 10^-12 Coulomb^2 /N. m^2 Permeability of free space = mu_0 = 1.257 X 10^-6 Weber / Amp. m = 1.257 X 10^-6 N / Amp^2 Speed of propagation of EM waves in vacuum = c = 2.998 X 10^8 m/s The intrinsic impedance of vacuum = Z_0 = 377 Ohms These four parameters are dimensional constants and hence represent fundamental physical properties of vacuum. The speed c of propagation of electromagnetic disturbances is governed by the permittivity eps_0 and permeability mu_0 constants associated with the empty space or vacuum. Since these four parameters are inter-related, only two of these are independent. c = 1/sqrt(eps_0.mu_0) Z_0 = sqrt(mu_0/eps_0) It needs to be strongly emphasized over here that the parameter c given above represents a fundamental physical property of vacuum or aether and not a property of photons or EM waves. Similarly Z_0 represents a fundamental physical property of vacuum or aether and not a property of EM field. http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/htm_art/eps_mu.html Further it is interesting to note, for example, that mu_0 can be replaced with Z_0/c and 1/eps_0 can be replaced with c.Z_0 in all relations involving mu_0 or eps_0. These parameters are quite routinely measured experimentally and are universally well known. Since the intrinsic impedance of vacuum that is Z_0 = 377 Ohms, it does give the impression that perhaps the aether or vacuum is primarily the seat of electrical phenomenon of nature. However the propagation of transverse waves in a continuous media is essentially a feature of mechanical phenomenon, we need to reinterpret these physical properties in mechanical terms. Mechanical Interpretation of Properties of Vacuum ------------------------------------------------- Now we have two different notions of vacuum or aether; one with dimensional properties of eps_0, mu_0, c and Z_0 and the second with fundamental dimensional properties of elasticity and inertia to enable transverse wave propagation through it. In order to establish a correlation between these two notions of aether or vacuum or quantum vacuum, we need to postulate the equivalence of their fundamental properties. Thus we assume that the parameter 1/eps_0 (or c.Z_0) represents the elastic constant and mu_0 (or Z_0/c) represents the inertial constant of the aether. Appropriate physical dimensions can be assigned to these parameters through dimensional analysis. The plausibility of this assumption is confirmed by the fact that square root of (elastic constant / inertial constant) represents the velocity of strain wave propagation in an elastic continuum and the square root of ((1/eps_0)/mu_0) also represents the velocity of transverse electromagnetic wave propagation in vacuum. Further, since the light and electromagnetic waves propagate as transverse waves, the fluid characteristics of aether or vacuum are totally ruled out. Ideally speaking, this fact should get highlighted in a more appropriate name of aether or vacuum or quantum vacuum. With this correlation between different notions of aether or quantum vacuum, it is formally established that the aether, vacuum, physical space, empty space and the quantum vacuum, all represent one and the same entity. To make this entity a little more representative of its elastic properties, which are so very necessary for supporting transverse electromagnetic wave propagation, we may assign a more appropriate name to this entity - 'The Elastic Aether' or ' The Elastic Vacuum' or 'The Elastic Continuum'. After all a rose by any other name will smell just as sweet!! Detection of Aether or Elastic Continuum ---------------------------------------- Obviously, most readers will have one crucial question uppermost in their mind; that is, how exactly do we detect the presence of aether or vacuum or the elastic continuum? The detection and measurement of any entity actually involves the detection and measurement of some of its characteristic attributes. Such characteristic attributes of the Aether or the Elastic Continuum are eps_0, mu_0, c and Z_0, all of which are well known and have been measured quite precisely. http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/space_aether_vacuum.pdf GSS
From: Laurent on 25 May 2007 08:38
On May 24, 10:59 pm, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 25, 9:34 am, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Correct, that's why Einstein also called it "The Gravitational Ether" > > as he claimed the universe is one single process, one single field. > > That's why everything is related. > > > These guys think they know physics but when you ask them why is it > > that the properties of any object in motion depend on the objects > > around it they can't without admiting wholeness and > > interconnectedness. You know, like covariance, why is there > > covariance? Why can't an object travel at near light speed without > > time dilation or space contractions in relation to other objects? > > Could it be because energy is finite and the propagation speed of > > fields need to remain constant in order for matter to hold together? > > heheh, they can't even answer that! > > > The thing is that you need to understand that Physics depends on > > Philosophy, if you don't get the philosophical basis, then all you > > could with all that physics is make roller coasters and such, or maybe > > get a job as a clerk... hey, that's a respectable thing to do, look at > > Einstein heheh > > > -- > > Laurent- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > When you watch a movie, how does the character move in the screen, > does it have its aether? No. Likewise, it is very possible reality is > all > projections from a source. This can explain quantum mechanics and > relativity. > The source uses infinite processing power and the most advance of > mathematics. > Call the source Platonia. Hence aether is not necessary. The universe > is not > made of things and concrete objects. It's more like a projection with > each > changes anywhere reacting on the whole configuration. This can explain > non-locality where as it projects it also seeks input from our > measurement > and then reflecting on the entire configuration of the universe. This > makes > much more sense. If you agree with the concept of the Source and > Platonia > and wants to call it Aether. Then drop of the Aether wording. What you > are > doing is like you are in a village about to be attacked by rebels and > you send > a message to the National Guard saying "I am Laurent, a boogeyman, > call > in reinforcement". Instead if you say "I am Laurent, a folk of Kansas, > call in > reinforcement", the listener would be more serious. Likewise, by > mentioning > Aether to physicists. You already shut the door before ever continuing > with > your concept. > > J. There is no source or Platonia. All existing information exists within the system that contains and uses it, nothing coming from an external source. -- Laurent |