What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Laurent on 1 Jun 2007 10:41 On Jun 1, 10:13 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > "Laurent" <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1180706588.501014.195480(a)h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On May 31, 2:09 pm, "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? > > > " 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. " -- Einstein > > > The aether is devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but > > helps to determine mechanical events. Do you understand? > > > " 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. " -- > > Einstein > > > The idea of motion may not be applied to it. Got that? > > What's your point? Einstein says that the "aether" of relativity > has no physical existence, and that instead space is endowed with > certain specific properties that are divorced from any sort of > ponderable existence. He is not advocating the classical aether. Right, he is not. Just read his 1920 paper and you will understand. > > Cranks and other aether proponents often cite this quote as though > it were an endorsement for the classical aether, that is, a medium > that carries light as water carries water waves, but it is not.
From: GSS on 1 Jun 2007 10:50 On May 31, 11:07 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "GSS" <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1180615311.511701.64100(a)q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > >> [....] > >>>> 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. > > Sorry, I said it wrong. Free space impedance is time per length in CGS. > >> 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. > > Not changing speed to T/L; that was a mistake as noted above. Speed can > be changed to a dimensionless number by setting c = 1 though. No > physics is "killed" since c is now defined to be fixed. It is not > possible for a consistent system of units to "kill" physics. However, > some physics is more clear by using a particular system of units. > Kindly note the dictionary meaning of the word *arbitrary* is "based on random choice or whim". As such the assertion 'Dimensions of no single physical parameter can be changed *arbitrarily*' is correct. For example, if you change the dimension of speed from [L/T] to [T/L], or [LT], or [L^2/T^3], or [ML/T^2] etc. *arbitrarily* 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. > > Sorry, eps0 is not lumped with charge in CGS. It is equal to 1/4pi. > The combo of the whole SI Coulomb constant is what is set equal to 1. > k_e = 1/(4pi eps0) = 1 It is a common misconception that eps0 > "disappears" in CGS and natural units. It doesn't. > > Best, > > Fred Diether Let me illustrate the fundamental notion of physical dimensions through a trivial example. Let us consider a sale transaction of 'x' number of cows sold at sale price of 'P_x' dollars per cow and 'y' number of elephants sold at a sale price of 'P_y' dollars per elephant, such that total sale transaction amounted to 'Q' dollars. This transaction can be represented through an equation. x.P_x + y.P_y = Q ..... (1) Here x, P_x, y, P_y and Q are all 'dimensioned' parameters. Dimension of x is 'cows', dimension of y is 'elephants' and dimension of Q is 'dollars'. Equation (1) can be said to be 'dimensionally balanced'. In that the dimension of RHS is dollars and the dimension of each of the additive factors on LHS is also dollars. When we say that equation (1) is dimensionally balanced it implies that the mathematical equation (1) represents the *physical situation* correctly. On the other hand consider the following equation, x.P_y + y.P_x = Q ..... (2) Here equation (2) is dimensionally *not* balanced. It implies that the mathematical equation (2) does not represent the *physical situation* correctly. But if we set the dimensions of 'cows' as equal to dimension of 'elephants' arbitrarily and show that equation (2) now gets balanced, it will imply that we have arbitrarily *distorted* the physical situation such that it defies logic. Your notion of *natural units* in which you arbitrarily set [L]=[T]=[M], you might be able to show the dimensional balance in mathematical equations, you distort the physical situation such that it defies logic. 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. 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. For further elaboration of the linkages between dimensions of various physical parameters and clarification of their basis in Physics, probably you did not refer to, http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/htm_art/eps_mu.html GSS
From: Greg Neill on 1 Jun 2007 10:53 "Laurent" <cyberdyno(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1180706867.127297.317330(a)q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On May 31, 2:15 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > "Laurent" <cyberd...(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). > > A medium stiffer than steel? What medium is that? Speed of propagation of a wave in a material depends upon the stiffness of the material. The last time I looked, the speed of light was much higher than the speed of sound in steel. > > Do you understand Mach's explanation of inertia? If you do, then you > should also know what momentum is. Non sequitur.
From: Greg Neill on 1 Jun 2007 10:58 "Laurent" <cyberdyno(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1180708873.453975.266500(a)g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 1, 10:13 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > > > What's your point? Einstein says that the "aether" of relativity > > has no physical existence, and that instead space is endowed with > > certain specific properties that are divorced from any sort of > > ponderable existence. He is not advocating the classical aether. > > Right, he is not. Just read his 1920 paper and you will understand. > I don't know what points you are trying to make. Your statements often do not follow in any logical way from the flow of the thread, or seemingly contradict what appeared to be the point you were trying to make in previous posts. I don't enjoy such conversations, so I am going to bow out now. No doubt you will find others to duel with.
From: Jimmer on 1 Jun 2007 11:10
On Jun 1, 10:24 pm, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 31, 10:14 pm, 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. > > Imagine yourself in this emty space before the Big Bang, would be able > to tell its size? No. Size is not a property of empty space, neither > is motion. Empty space has no beginning and no end, it is eternal and > immutable. It is also all pervading or omnipresent. But the most > interesting property of empty space is its oneness, its wholeness. As > Einstein said, it is not composed of parts that follow a timeline. The > aether is one and it's everywhere, that's why is doesn't need to move. Ok. Tomorrow night. I'll re-read Ludwik "Einstein and the Ether" in one sitting so we can get this over with. I still don't get how you can state that the aether has no size nor beginning nor end (an abstraction without form nor mathematic concept) yet it can explain the space-time interval in the minkowski framework explaning why rod contracts, time dilates, mass increases when perceived in other inertial frames. This is where the battleline will be drawn and decided and your psyche penetrated. J. > > In the Big Bang, space was created in the Bang > > > as space expands. > > Yes, but that space you are talking about is not empty, it is packed > full with photons. > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |