What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: GSS on 31 May 2007 08:41 On May 31, 1:00 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "GSS" <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1180596752.519177.244050(a)o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > [....] >>>> 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 > >> Isn't it too vague? You may not be convinced with my arguments, but >> the question was "Can you distinguish between 'physical dimensions' >> and the 'unit systems'?" Please be specific, either say that such a >> distinction doesn't exist or say that you are not clear about it. > >>> prove me right with your silly, superficial argument below. > >> ... >> OK I delete my arguments and let us consider yours instead. > >> To help you express your point of view clearly, let me frame a few >> relevant questions which you may answer as briefly as you please. >> Further, let me assure you that I do not regard you as an idiot or >> crackpot unless you prove otherwise by your *conduct* (and not by >> differences in viewpoints). > >> 1. Dimensions & Units >> ------------------ >> (a) Do you think the dimensions and units of *speed* are both >> arbitrary and you can change them as you please? Or do you think that >> only units of speed are arbitrary but its dimensions are linked with >> those of a large number of physical parameters (like force, momentum, >> energy, distance, time etc.) and hence cannot be tampered with >> arbitrarily. > >> (b) The intrinsic *impedance* Z_0 of space continuum is measured to >> be 377 ohms. Do you consider that either the magnitude or units or >> dimensions of Z_0 are arbitrary and can be changed as you please? > >> (c) If by any chance you agree that the dimensions of speed 'c' and >> impedance 'Z_0' cannot be changed arbitrarily, then do you agree that >> the dimensions of eps_0 and mu_0 can also not be changed arbitrarily? > > Sure, they all can be changed arbitrarily. Why not? In CGS units, the > impedance of space is 4pi/c. Which is length divided by time. In > natural units, the impedance of space is 4pi. Eps0 becomes 1/4pi. All > magnitudes of velocities become equal to or less than 1 and > dimensionless. > > Best, > > Fred Diether No, you are mistaken. Dimensions of no single physical parameter can be changed *arbitrarily*. For example, if you change the dimension of speed from [L/T] to [T/L] without changing the dimensions of all other physical parameters like force, momentum, energy, distance, time etc., you will be *killing* the physics. Kindly note that in cgs system of units the eps_0 parameter has been 'lumped' up with charge and hence the dimensions of charge, current and potential do not match in SI and CGS systems. That is the notions of charge and all other parameters involving charge, do not refer to the same physical entity in the two systems. For further elaboration of the linkages between dimensions of various physical parameters and clarification of their basis in Physics, kindly refer to, http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/htm_art/eps_mu.html GSS
From: Jimmer on 31 May 2007 09:05 On May 31, 10:19 am, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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 - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Isn't it that invariant spacetime properties is what limit the speed > > of light and the reason it is our ruler is because the photon has > > zero mass. If you suddenly lose the mass in your body and > > become lightspeed. You'd become light. > > On second thought. If you'd lose all the mass in your body. I wonder > if you'd really go lightspeed. There are differences between photons > and electrons even if they are both particles and waves. > Photons are associated with vector field while electrons > are associated with spinor field. Also electron field > follow the so called Fermi-Dirac statistics (called > fermions) while photon field (EM field) follow the so called > Bose-Einstein statistics (called bosons). Now if say there > is Higgs uncoupling in the electrons making it lose complete > mass. What would become of its behavior. Oh I don't think a higgs uncoupled electron would go lightspeed. Recalling QFT lessons in years past. Electromagnetic wave has real wave in the form of electric and magnetic field in perpetual linking, while the wave of the electron is just a probabilistic wave (as in garden variety quantum mechanics). When they apply quantization to the electromagnetic field, it is because the photons are there by default so more natural. In the canonical quantization for fermions, there is a difference and in the treatment of creation and annihilation operators as well. QFT is a good subject to be thoroughly familiar with. The failure to get a QFT version of gravitation is a subject that may remotely even need some kind of aether for the right formulation of quantum gravity. Who knows. So let's kick Aether only 99.9%. J. > > > > About the Aether. I think you are like the religious folks. Jehovah, > > Allah is their God. Aether is your God. To destroy aether is to > > destroy your God which you can't allow so there is nothing we > > can do for Laurent the Aether disciple. > > About the Aether again. It's just say we need the cooperations > of physicists for example when borrowing the billion dollar Large > Hadron Collider. If you mention Aether, they won't even let you > near the entrance of it. So try to find synonyms of Aether or > whatever. This weekend. I'd review Lukwik book to understand > Laurent obsessions with the Aether. I wonder if it is purely mental > or does it have a religious like emotional component to it > (in this latter case, there would be no hope as he would be > trapped inside his mind like those religious nuts believing > God has two feet and a cane and decide the fate of the > entire universe with the whim of the mood (for example, > drowning folks in the time of Noah and later having some > regret and bowing not to do again. They may as well > believe in the Aether as God. At least here Aether the God > is simply the law and intelligence of the universe. > > J. > > > > > J.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Greg Neill on 31 May 2007 09:55 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:1180618405.527050.212010(a)p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > Learn some physics: > Propagation in a dielectric medium > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space > http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html You're conflating fields and properties of space with aether. Learn some physics yourself: Into the early 20th century the need for Aether vanished. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Free+Energy%2C+Gravity+and+the+Aeth... Relevant References Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(1) 010401 (2002) Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 060403 (2003) Phys. Rev. Lett. 42(9) 549 (1979) Phys. Bull. 21 255 (1970) Europhysics Lett. 56(2) 170 (2001) Gen. Rel. Grav. 34(9) 1371 (2002)
From: Jimmer on 31 May 2007 10:04 On May 31, 2:56 am, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 30, 12:18 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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. > > Einstein's fatal mistake was that he was never able to > differentiate between spacetime and empty space, he thought they were > both the same. Otherwise, I think he would have been able to fuse GR > to quantum mechanics. > > Einstein's aether - which is the aether I mostly talk about - isn't > bound by time , but by topolgical properties, a set of ratios > determined at the aether scale; frame independent constants. A very > small number of fixed laws by which all matter and space must abide. > Physical (real) but non-material quantities (topological). Time > independent continuity and connectedness. We can also call it > topological space, inertial space, or even momentum space.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - Einstein's aether was just a passing fancy. Remember Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics (he believed in a deterministic theory) til the very day he closed his eyes. Since Einstein was wrong on QM and right on Relativity. He is human after all. This means Laurent has right to protest being human he is too. What Laurent is doing all these years is like trying to figure out the physical mechanism whereby a real triangle in the world obey Pythagoras' Theorem. He invoked the Aether to do it. So if he can answer why a triangle obeys Pythagoras Thoerem. He can explain SR and GR too. This is what Laurent Aether is all about. To explain why things happened. But this is outside physics and to continue we have to go underground. But do we really have to understand (or can understand) why a real triangle in the world obey Pythagoras' Theorem. Is there a causal mechanism for it? If there is none, then forget about using it to explain SR/GR. But if there is, it can explain SR/GR too. It's not bad to try. So what's the explanation why real triangle obey pythagoras? The answer would give the same mechanism whereby physical laws obey the minkowski spacetime framework such as SR and GR. Hope you got the point. Do you and others? Pls. comment as this is the heart of the Aether obsession of Laurent and others. J.
From: Jimmer on 31 May 2007 10:34
Why does a real triangle obey Pythagoras theorem? Laurent: "It's because of the Aether. It isn't bound by time, but by topolgical properties, a set of ratios determined at the aether scale; frame independent constants. A very small number of fixed laws by which all matter and space must abide. Physical (real) but non-material quantities (topological). Time independent continuity and connectedness. We can also call it topological space, inertial space, or even momentum space." In this context. Laurent Aether may makes sense. We are born into it and so used to it that we take for granted the question why real triangle obey Pythagoras theorem. This is exactly the same situation with physicists who are so used to SR and GR that it becomes like a normal law in the world. What do you think? J. |