What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Greg Neill on 31 May 2007 14:15 "Laurent" <cyberdyno(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1180634509.457250.262660(a)q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On May 31, 9:17 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > > > > MMX was null so is irrelevant. > > All the MMX proved was that they didn't understand the nature of the > aether. Oh, pray, do enlighten us. Hundreds of top minds of the age seem to have missed what you deem obvious. You can start by listing the mechanical properties of the aether as needed to match the observed data such as the speed of light, orbit decay rates, null MMX results, relativistic velocity addition for light, etc., etc. > > You want to measure aether drag? Measure the momentum of a moving > object. You mean like 4+ billion years of Earth orbiting the Sun without significant change in its momentum through a medium stiffer than steel (required for speed of propagation of light).
From: Rudolf Drabek on 31 May 2007 17:58 On 31 Mai, 20:09, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > "Laurent" <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1180634363.526421.224010(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > On May 31, 8:24 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > On May 31, 8:50 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > > > > No. Stop confusing the newbies. If space contained such a > > > > medium then it would have mechanical properties and provide a > > > > preferred rest frame. The whole gammut of tests for such a > > > > medium came up nil, up to and including Michelson-Morley. > > > > Free-space *does* have mechanical properties. What pushes > > > a positive charge pulls a negative charge. That isn't confusing. > > > It is an important distinction from acoustic waves. > > > Right, that's where force lines come from. > > Force lines are a metaphor for the isopotents of the > given field. They have no basis in a mechanical aether. > > If free space has mechanical properties, what is its > stiffness (can't have transverse wave propagation without > a rigid material)? It must be huge for it to carry waves > at the speed of light. What is its Young's modulus? How > about shear strength? Density? How can all these > disparate mechanical properties required to serve the > purpose of a medium for light propagations be reconciled > with null experimental results for its detection? Very simple. 1. MMX gave a null result. To state from that "there is no Aether" is wrong You can only say: "It has not the property to carry EM waves like light we thought" 2. A medium is needed for the propagation of EM waves Evidence: A moving charge creates a magnetic field. How can "no Aether" be a carrier for the E and H field propagating and have 377 Ohm =sqrt(my_o/epsilon_o)? If you can show me what other physical basic principle allows propagation of an EM wave leaving the antenna/transmitter I will thank you very much and I have learned something. But pls avoid Maxwells equations, they say nothing about the transport principle, only what are the rules for the transport, e.g. propagating with c.
From: Jimmer on 31 May 2007 18:45 On May 31, 5:27 pm, Rudolf Drabek <newsr...(a)aon.at> wrote: > On 25 Mai, 16:03, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 8:38 pm, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > What you suggested is more practical of course. The source I'm > > talking > > about is Bohm Implicate Order. But it's ok if you don't take that as > > possibility. > > > Let's go of the Aether. Aether was postulated to explore a possible > > privilege frame of reference. But Special Relativity has proven > > everything esp. motion is relative. So the Aether is already > > destroyed. > > Aether and Special Relativity are opposite. Since Special Relativity > > wins, the Aether loses. So there is no Aether. > > You are completely wrong. Aether has only lost the position to hold as > a FOR. > EM waves need a medium, otherwise they can't propagate. > I assume a lot of people are thinking in math only and forget the > phys. priciples as a > condition sine qua non. > The Aether has at minimum the characteristic 377 Ohm or Z_o if you > like.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I sent a reply to this yesterday 2 times but goggle lost them. I was saying what kind of EM medium would follow the relatistivistc framework. If there is no SR, We can look for the medium. But there is SR and the medium is not necessary and we can treat magnetic and electric field as fundamental things by themselves. If there is a medium, consider the following illustrations. Say a ship is travelling half the speed of light. He shines a flashlight and the light would travel the speed of light. An observer in another frame of reference would not see the same thing the person in the ship see. So what kind of medium would this be. If it is a relativistic medium. The medium would destroy the spirit of symmetry where the Special and General Theory of Relativity are founded. J.
From: Jimmer on 31 May 2007 19:23 On Jun 1, 1:54 am, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 31, 6:21 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 31, 6:55 am, Rudolf Drabek <newsr...(a)aon.at> wrote: > > > > On 31 Mai, 11:46, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On May 31, 6:27 am, Rudolf Drabek <newsr...(a)aon.at> wrote: > > > > > > On 25 Mai, 16:03, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 25, 8:38 pm, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > What you suggested is more practical of course. The source I'm > > > > > > talking > > > > > > about is Bohm Implicate Order. But it's ok if you don't take that as > > > > > > possibility. > > > > > > > Let's go of the Aether. Aether was postulated to explore a possible > > > > > > privilege frame of reference. But Special Relativity has proven > > > > > > everything esp. motion is relative. So the Aether is already > > > > > > destroyed. > > > > > > Aether and Special Relativity are opposite. Since Special Relativity > > > > > > wins, the Aether loses. So there is no Aether. > > > > > > You are completely wrong. Aether has only lost the position to hold as > > > > > a FOR. > > > > > EM waves need a medium, otherwise they can't propagate. > > > > > I assume a lot of people are thinking in math only and forget the > > > > > phys. priciples as a > > > > > condition sine qua non. > > > > > The Aether has at minimum the characteristic 377 Ohm or Z_o if you > > > > > like. > > > > > General Relativity uses the term "Inertial ether" > > > > Electromagnism uses the term "free-space" > > > > > Congratulations on your mastery of the semantic operator > > > > which goes where no imaginary operator has gone before > > > > in confusing and amusing the masses. > > > > > Sue... > > > << ? >> > > > << The key difficulty with the aether hypothesis arose from > > the juxtaposition of the two well-established theories of > > Newtonian dynamics and Maxwell's electromagnetism. > > Under a Galilean transformation the equations of Newtonian > > dynamics are invariant, whereas those of electromagnetism > > are not. Basically this means that while physics should > > remain the same in non-accelerated experiments, light > > would not follow the same rules because it is travelling in > > the universal "aether frame". Some effect caused by this > > difference should be detectable. >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wi... > > > <<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate > > transformation will convert electric or magnetic > > fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields, > > but no transformation mixes them with the > > gravitational field. >>http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html > > > So... unless you can demonstrate how 377 ohms > > helps you express a problem in classical mechanics > > (many have tried), it is not nice to allude to > > Newton's inertial ether or equate it to free-space. > > > We can simply say light propagates in free-space > > without need for what was hypothesized as luminerous > > ether. > > > It is also helpful to seek better terms when we encounter > > words like phlogiston and caloric. ;-) > > > Sue... > > > - Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > Free-space and aether are synonymous.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I'll mention my central difficulty with your original aether concept as depicted in your home page where it is quoted: "Relativity can only refer to relative time or length because it is the description of a whole where objects are physically and energetically dependent on each other. In other words, if an object could be conceived to be accelerating in a perfectly empty void, independently from any object or frame of reference, it could not and would not experience any changes in time or length, but because objects are embedded in a continuous field, a metric which represents the whole, and because the whole's energy is finite, objects exhibit relativistic effects in relation to other objects. It is a property of the whole which arises from a physical need to abide by the laws of thermodynamics and its homogeneity (isotropy).". I don't understand what you refer to the "whole's energy is finite" thing. For example. There are 10 ships in different frames of reference with different speeds relative to one another. They would see their length and time in different sizes and durations. This can easily be explained via the concept of space-time interval and very much like pythagoras' theorem in higher spacetime minkowski formalism. SR is simply a rotational symmetry of our space-time much like noether theorem where for example the invariance with respect to time translation gives the well known law of conservation of energy. Now what do you mean by "whole's energy is finite" etc. thing. Pls. explain it in terms of the space-time interval concept (which is very intuitive). I guess what you are trying to do is deriving the causal mechanism why minkowski pythagorean spacetime interval works. It will be illuminating to know if there is a causal mechanism. Pls. explain in more details esp. as it pertains to the spacetime interval thing. Wheeler said something like "Space is relative, time is relative but spacetime is absolute". The relationship is much like pythagorean thorem in minkowski higher dimension. J.
From: Greg Neill on 31 May 2007 19:48
"Rudolf Drabek" <newsrudy(a)aon.at> wrote in message news:1180648724.033653.114040(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > Very simple. > 1. MMX gave a null result. To state from that "there is no Aether" is > wrong > You can only say: "It has not the property to carry EM waves like > light we thought" Then it ceases to have *any* function at all, and by Occam's Razor becomes entirely superfluous. > 2. A medium is needed for the propagation of EM waves > Evidence: A moving charge creates a magnetic field. How can "no > Aether" be a carrier for the E and H field propagating and have 377 > Ohm =sqrt(my_o/epsilon_o)? That's not evidence for a medium any more than it is for a mass translating through space. > > If you can show me what other physical basic principle allows > propagation of an EM wave leaving the antenna/transmitter I will thank > you very much and I have learned something. > But pls avoid Maxwells equations, they say nothing about the transport > principle, only what are the rules for the transport, e.g. propagating > with c. Huygan's principle, for example. |