What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Bilge on 2 Jun 2007 12:39 On 2007-06-01, Spirit of Truth <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote: > > "Greg Neill" <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message > news:465f0fee$0$15975$9a6e19ea(a)news.newshosting.com... >> "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). > > woh! > > Alright, since you understand all of this...please explain > to me (and others) the twin paradox in simple words referring to > the physical univese without using words like "frames" please! Please provide an example of what you mean (newtonian mechanics will be fine). Oh, wait... You probably did not realize that a galilean frame is still a frame and newtonian mechanics hinges on the galilean definition of a frame. > Through relavity whether GR or SR I get reciprocal accelerations, > reciprocal inertial motion, reciprocal decelerations AND reciprocal > time dilations, and cannot get where the difference comes in no > matter what answer to the problem I constantly review! Naturally, since it wasn't worth your effort to calculate something which would contradict your opinion of the result. > this is relevant under this subject as with an aether theory one > can somewhat do away with the reciprocity! So, are you suggesting that physicists abandon a theory which makes perfect physical sense and serves as the basis for theories which agree with all known experimental data in favor of theory based on a principle which precludes the comparison of two measurements of the same phenomena and a mysterious substance that still can't account for any of the phenomena for which it was hypothesized and whose only prtoperty seems to be an uncanny ability to influence any physical process so as to evade detection? Gee, sign me up...
From: Androcles on 2 Jun 2007 12:40 "maxwell" <spsi(a)shaw.ca> wrote in message news:1180798812.776035.152620(a)z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com... : On May 25, 7:00 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: : > "Laurent" <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message : > : > news:1180137297.580772.224220(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... : > : On May 25, 7:31 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: : > : > On May 25, 5:58 am, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: : > : > [...] : > : > : > : > Philosophy is not physics. : > : : > : : > : DUH!!! : > : > Endorsed. : Only a mathematician or engineer could agree with this viewpoint. : I must remind everyone that Newton described himself as a "Natural : Philosopher". I endorsed "Duh!" Only an idiot student like Gisse would say "philosophy is not physics". I must remind you to check attributes and decide who's viewpoint you agree with. Not too bright, are you?
From: FrediFizzx on 2 Jun 2007 14:08 "GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1180709414.911574.11260(a)a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > 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. >>> 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. Ok, maybe I missed your point at first. I would think that your arbitrary choices are screwy in the case of above but of course you would have to change the dimensions of all physical parameters for the new system to be consistent. There is nothing wrong with that. They are just man-made labels. The only thing important is consistency. >>> 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. > 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. I can assure you that no physicist would make the mistake of arranging your eq. (2) and have it try to make sense. ;-) > 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. If by [M] you meand mass, then it should be 1/M. > 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. That is why it is called a "system of units". Physicists have no problem with using different systems of units and converting between them. > 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 I am sorry but your misconceptions have nothing to do with whether or not space is filled with a relativistic medium in the presence of matter-energy. I can assure you that eps0 and mu0 do not disappear in other systems of units if that is what you are worried about. Best, Fred Diether Moderator sci.physics.foundations
From: Spirit of Truth on 2 Jun 2007 18:36 "Bilge" <dubious(a)radioactivex.sz> wrote in message news:slrnf62els.3qi.dubious(a)iris.lebesque-al.net... > On 2007-05-30, Spirit of Truth <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote: >> "Bilge" <dubious(a)radioactivex.sz> wrote in message >> news:slrnf5g3mm.c9g.dubious(a)iris.lebesque-al.net... >>> On 2007-05-26, Spirit of Truth <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote: >>> >>> Is ``Spirit of Truth'' some sort of backwoods slang for moonshine? >>> >>>> Thus Einsteinian relativity actually postulates an ever existent past >>>> and future, no free will and a blocktime universe... all of which >>>> IS false. >>> >>> Gee. That's news to me and the rest of the physics constabulary, I'm >>> sure. >>> Could you please reference the origional article by einstein in which >>> those >>> postulates appear? >> >> Read 'The Fabric Of The Cosmos' by Brian Greene...a Best Seller. >> Einstein refers in his 1905 ? lecture to lack of simultaneiety...just >> doesn't expose it's real consequence. > You mean like the experimental data which support it? You obviously HAVEN'T read it. >>>> What Relativitists ignore is that 'lack of simultaneity' is not real >>> >>> Ahhhh... Yet another fruitcake whose definition of ``real'' is >>> ``that which contradicts real experiments.'' >> >> ??? You are surely not saying that what is actual in the Universe >> does not take precedence over the math one choses to use >> even when that math is inappropriately used? > > Which part of why you are a fruitcake did you not understand? The part where you pretend to be unintelligent. >> Lack of simultaneiety has never been experimentally proven. > > The many epr experiments. List even one experiment proving lack of simultaneity, Bilge. >> It IS false. > Which only proves my point regarding your definition of real being that > which contradicts real experiments Do you even know what "simultaneity" means? >>>> so the Lorentz math is not the correct math to use for the >>>> M & M experiment neither for the aether theory nor SR. >>> >>> Get another hobby. Apparently, geometry and trigonometry are over >>> your head. >> >> >> No, you really should look at how an event could possibly happen >> in one frame at a different time from another frame (not including >> time for c to bring information nor doppler effect). > > It's very simple for anyone who can understand basic geometry and > trigonometry if the person isn't too stupid to realize that the universe > might not fit his/her preconceptions. Again, the NOW event is physical and all observers perceive the same NOW event. Inappropriate math is simply that. from: Spirit Of Truth (using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
From: Jimmer on 2 Jun 2007 20:43
On Jun 1, 11:10 pm, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 1, 10:24 pm, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > J.- Hide quoted text - > "State of the Guv = Ether" Laur, I finally re-read the Ludwik book "Einstein and the Ether" which you asked me to and I finally understood your situation and everything. The following is the last 2 pages of Ludwik book for setting the mood of my arguments. I'll continue commenting after it "It might be claimed that a return to Einstein's concept of a "new ether" would create a certain confusion in terminology, because in the minds of physicists (and not just physicists) the expression "ether" is closely linked with the notions and concepts of nineteenth century physics. Hence, it would not be advisable to use it from the didactic point of view, because for many it would mean a reversion, in one way or another, to the concepts of the past. But this is certainly not true, because a good teacher would be able to differentiate these concepts and teach all the different models of the ether using different names and adjectives, e.g., Einstein's ether, Lorentz's ether, Weyl's ether, Eddington's ether, Dirac's ether . and "new ether," "relativistic ether," stationary ether, nineteenth century physics ether, and so on-each in its proper context. Consequently, everything would be clear for students, and there is no reason why the expression "ether" should not be used from the didactic point of view. On t he contrary; for precisely this reason it is preferable to use a traditional word, because it fully expresses the particular kind of materiality of the space-time continuum. When we use only the expression "space-time continuum," its materiality is not indicated in any way. We therefore need a special word to express it. The traditional word "ether" is ideally suited to this purpose. The expressions "new ether" and "relativistic ether" are particularly useful from the physical point of view because they, indicate immediately that in the Theory of Relativity, space-time is of a material nature. It is well to recall the reasons why, Einstein attributed material properties to the space-time continuum: 1. The space-time continuum participates, in a real and active way, in physical becoming. Eg. the gravitational potentials described mathematically by the <g,,,. components of the metrical tensor determine the inertio-gravitational behaviour of test particles. 2. Space-time is a field, and there is no qualitative difference between field and matter. Field is characterised by a certain distribution of energy, and therefore, materiality. Note that, after 1916 and until his death, Einstein was never against the in his expression "new ether." He used this term frequently 'n his scientific correspondence with scientists, and in his scientific interpretative Papers until 1938. After 1938 he did not write any new interpretative papers on the ether, but he authorised re-releases of his Leiden lecture on the the ether and other papers about the relativistic ether. In one of them, as we know, he introduced some amendments. He instructed the Publisher to omit the part that was no longer in accordance with his opinions. but he did not remove the idea of the new ether. In the revised version of the paper, the expression "new ether' acquir ed an even more general meaning. It is fitting to close this essay with two quotes from Einstein that show in which meaning the word "ether" can be used in his relativity theory, and why we cannot do without the ether in theoretical physics. "We may still use the word ether but only to express the physical properties of space. The word ether has changed its meaning many times in the development of science. At the moment, it no longer stands for a medium built up of particles. lts story, by no means finished, is continued by the relativity theory." [...] we will not be able to do without the ether in theoretical physics, i.e., a continuum which is equipped with physical Properties; for the general theory, whose basic points of view physicists surely will always maintain, excludes direct distant action. But every contiguous action theory presumes continuous fields, and therefore also the existence of an "ether." ----------------------------------------- My comments. Ok. The above mentioned that a good teacher can distinguish between the different terms of the aether. For you have been here in this newsgroup for a decade and the most brightests among them can't seem to differentiate so your decision to use the word Aether may not be productive. I agree that the word Aether would denote some materiality to space and time rather than the term space-time continuum which sounds disembodied. Btw let it be noted that your Aether is not exactly the same as Einstein "Guv = Ether" thing because you wanted your Aether to almost encompass the theory of everything where it creates matter, space time as well as rule the spacetime interval relationship, etc. Einstein relativistic aether only rules the inertial and gravitational status of spacetime. Now if the genius like Uncle Al can't differentiate between Maxwellian Aether and Relativistic Aether. What hope would there be for lesser men to accomplish the comprehension. Therefore you are alone in this. No physicists can help you. And the most logical thing for you is to to become a physicist yourself and be master of mathematics. Try to get the mathematical footing of your Aether dynamics. Invariance, symmetries and gauge theory for example certainly rule your Aether. When you add new terms for example to balance and fulfill the local phase invariance of the relativistic version of schroedinger equation. The photons naturally came out. So the Aether obviously involves some complex relationship and math between the matter, field and energy. It's harder than it is because we are not dealing with 3D relationship. The aether being omniflexible can operate in many dimensions. For example. In the spin of particles. It takes 2 complete revolutions for one cycle. So there is multidimensional thing going on. Thanks for letting me re-read the book as I finally understood where to draw the line. It also reminds me to study General Relativity in depth because the secret to solve it may lie there. I think its ok to completely drop the thing Aether and instead use "Total Field" which Einstein used in the last decades of his life. Hopefully the Total Field or Aether is true, because if it is not. We may be living literally instead in some kind of multidimensional Cosmic Matrix that is programmed. So it's either the Aether or Matrix. Apply Occam's razor. Although it is possible the Matrix uses the Aether in the execution of its program. Or maybe reality is more weirder than that. Whatever, try to make your Aether falsifiable. Even the Many World Interpretation can be falsified when using certain intelligent quantum computer algorithm. Goodluck dude. Remember with math your aether becomes physics. Without math, it is just philosophy. I grasped your situation. No further questions. J. |