What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Greg Neill on 20 Jun 2007 09:53 "Florian" <firstname(a)lastname.net> wrote in message news:1i003pb.x7encc14kc6d2N%firstname(a)lastname.net... > Greg Neill <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > > Strange, because experiments designed to measure their diameter show them > > to be indistinguishible from point particles. Note that this is not the > > same as determining their position in, say, an atomic orbital, or their > > "fuzzy" position vs velocity relationship due to the uncertainty > > principle. > > Measure the diameter of a stationary wave? What a strange idea. ing the > Measurwavelength is certainly a much better idea. Wave-particle duality. Experience has shown that you can't simply ignore one aspect and embrace the other. If you make the assumption that particles are just stationary waves, then you quickly run into all sorts of problems empirically. > > > > > Etherons would not have charge or mass or spin. Those properties would > > > be macroscopic properties derived from the motion of etherons that form > > > the particle. > > > > How are these properties then quantized and conserved? > > Quantized means there are stable level for the stationary wave. > Conserved means that collisions of etherons are elastic. Really? Please explain how electric charge is a level for the stationary wave. How can charge be the result of the positional geometry of the constituents? How can this geometry result in an infinite range force that's many, many orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force produced by the same constituents? Please explain how particle pair production works, wherein new complete particles come into existence with their own charges, masses, and spins, using only the kinetic energy of the collision. > > > > Nah. If aether is absorbed continuously then there must be a continuum of > > masses for every particle. > > Nope. Particles couldn't absorbed etherons in motion, unless the > absorbtion is sufficient to reach the next stable level of the particle. What does that mean? This aether somehow knows not to flow into a particle until, all at once, exactly the right amount to spawn a new particle suddenly flows all at once into that particle? I though you said that the aether flowed continually radially into matter. I also thought that you imagined the aether flow to be responsible for gravitation. If that's so, then particles would be gravitationally massless between gulps of aether. Yet their ballistic trajectories (such as in mass spectrometers) are smooth curves, not jagged lines. Your aether is becoming more and more intelligent as time goes by. > > > Otherwise you'd have to propose that the aether simply disappears from > > existence as it is absorbed. And if you did that, you'd have no way to > > make new particles during collisions. > > Still looking for good ideas here. You're welcome to share yours. A > possibilty would be that particles absorbes ether in quanta, i. e., get > excited, and at some point, they become unstable so that they > disintegrate into more particles? > > > I think your theory has a problem. > > Sure, that's not even a theory, just thoughts. > > > > Also, we can measure events and reactions down to time intervals of about > > a femtosecond with pulsed laser technology. Plenty of very short unstable > > states have been "seen" in atomic processes. > > femtosecond? Light has the time to travel 300 nm during 1 femtosecond. > I'm afraid that's way too slow. Why? We're talking about the period of unstable states, not the distance that light travels during that time period. You suggested that intermediate states of aetheron absorbtion are not stable, and I'm suggesting that we can 'see' activities at very short time intervals, and haven't seen any such states. Note that we *can* see such excited states in atomic nuclei. Also, even if we imagine that there is a quantum principle involved wherein only certain steps are possible, the steps would necessarily be small enough so as to reproduce our 'smooth' view of the operation of the world. Atomic transitions are like that, and we can certainly detect and measure their discrete states. If particles absorbed aether in chunks, we would expect to see, for example, the masses of particles caught in a Penning Trap change over time. We don't. > > > > > At a particle scale, you can certainly consider that etherons make > > > collisions. That's an approximation of course. But there is no need to > > > complicate the picture trying to figure out what etherons are. Let's > > > proceed sequentially. > > > > You need a theory of their interaction in order to proceed. > > > What could it mean for particles to actually touch? We have no examples > > from experimental or theoretical physics. > > The use you make of the term "particle" is confusing. I reserve the term > particle for matter, i. e., stationary wave in ether = etherons in > organized motion. So? This doesn't answer the question of what it means for particles to actually touch. What is touching, what forces arise, how are they transmitted and at what speed does the influence travel through the extent of the particles (speed of sound in the particle body), or are these particles infinitely rigid? > > > > > > Waves carrying energy usually transmit their energy via the > > > > electromagnetic force. > > > > > > Right. How does a wave transmit energy to particle though > > > electromagnetic force? In other words: what is that energy? What is an > > > electromagnetic force? What is a particle? How do they interact? ;-) > > > > Maxwell's equations. Photons. It's all in the standard models. Photons > > carry momentum and spin. > > That's the macroscopic description. Tell me about the microscopic > description. A photon or an electromagnetic field, what is it made of? No, its not. Photons are photons. There is no substructure. > > > > Well, invisible massless pink elephants are also not ruled out by theory. > > Do we need them? > > You can perfectly describe a wave in the ocean without considering > the existence of water molecules. But would those wave exists without > water molecules? Of course not. See, it's not different for ether. The difference is, we can detect ocean waves but not aether waves, we can 'see' water molecules but not aether particles. All attempts to detect aether have come up with negative results. > > > > Sometimes, the simpler model is not the best one. > > > > How so? If the simple model makes accurate predictions under all > > circumstances, why would a more complex model be better? It wouldn't > > predict anything different. > > GR does not make accurate predictions under all circumstances. e. g., > what are the prediction of GR inside a black hole? Why doesn't it > predict the rotation curve of galaxies? GR's predictions inside a black hole are fine until very, very close to the singularity. That is, the mathematics does not break down until close proximity to the singularity. At that point we know that quantum effects will arise. That we don't yet know how to reconcile GR with Quantum Theory under those circumstances does not alter the spectacular accuracy with which GR works otherwise. Regarding the rotation curve of galaxies, we do not know that it does not work there! Our expectations of the rotation rates are based upon estimates of the amount of gravitating mass involved. In the past these estimates were based upon extrapolation from the amount of matter that could be seen by telescopes, including stars, gas and dust, etc. There is increasing evidence that there is something else that gravitates yet does not show up visually (electromagnetically) in telescopes. i.e. the so-called Dark Matter. > > > > It's not "inventing more trick" if the mathematics is already in place in > > the current theory. MOND is an attempt to ignore theory and employ a > > curve-fit model instead. > > MOND is the demonstration that the current theory is innaccurate in some > circumstances, much like newton gravitation law was in some > circumstances. No, it certainly is not such a demonstration. Only empirical evidence is a demonstration in science. MOND is a theoretically unmotivated tinkering with the mathematics of Newtonian gravitation in order to curve-fit observations. > > > > Dark matter is not a "trick" in that it is an empirical necessity. > > Dark matter is an empirical necessity to support the theory, but has not > been empirically identified. Unless it is found, it means that the > theory does not fit the observations. Time to get a more accurate one. Take a look at the latest results of observations that have detected dark matter components in the aftermath of galactic collisions. See, for example, http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/1e0657/ http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11860-ring-of-dark-matter-surrounds-cosmic-collision.html http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/html/heic0709.html > > > > > A side question. You mentioned the expansion of the universe. Do you > > > think that the Big Bang theory is definitively proven? > > > > In science no theory is ever definitively proven. All we can do is keep > > testing our current best theories against reality to see if and where they > > are deficient and change or modify them as required. > > > > Suppose it were shown that General Relativity or The Big Bang were > > incorrect in some way. > > Not incorrect, but inaccurate in some context. That is exactly equivalent to incorrect. Inaccurate predictions are what it means for a theory to be incorrect. > > > A new theory to replace them would have to not only fix the 'wrong' bit, > > but also make all the currently verified predictions of the theory it > > replaces. Now, GR and BB have been testied in a *lot* of scenarios. GR > > in particular makes certain predictions that have been experimentally > > verified to about 14 decimal places. So any replacement for GR is going to > > look an *awful* lot like GR -- so don't expect its tensor calculus to be > > suddenly replaced with high school algebra. > > Of course not. But you're conscient that the model of the new theory has > to me a little bit more complex than the previous one. Ether could > certainly be that complication. Not very likely, since aether has too many problems with mundane circumstances, never mind exotic ones. I've yet to see a single proposed thing that aether contributes that is supported by evidence, is not fraught with theoretical difficulties, or does not unnecessarily complicate things in order to remain consistent with observation. Perhaps you can suggest some? > > > > I'm sure you don't like status quo and wouldn't mind making some > > > progress? > > > > How do you define progress in a scientific model? > > improving accuracy. GR is currently accurate to the extreme limits of experimental accuracy. So is QED. In order to improve on that, or indeed determine if improvement is necessary, we must first find a discrepancy. > > > What if it were to turn out that GR is correct? (It's probably not, but > > it may be damned close). > > GR is correct in a specific context. It may not be correct in all > contexts. What particular specific context do you have in mind? To my knowledge, GR has proven accurate over an enormous range of circumstances and scales. We have yet to find a single empirical case where GR has not made accurate (within experimental capabilities) predictions. Not one. > > > What kind of progress would you like to see? > > A theory that would provide a more accurate description of nature :-) See above. > > > > > They would be globally attracted to a mass like the particle of a gas > > > would be attracted by a low pressure center. A lower pressure attract a > > > higher amount of particles. You can't say that the particle of the gas > > > all move toward the low pressure, right? > > > > What maintains a low pressure of aether around a mass? In a gas, a > > pressure imbalance is quickly equilibrated unless some work is being doe > > to maintain it. > > That's were I'm struggling. I can't figure out why the stationary wave > would correspond to a depression in ether. Eventually, the etherons in > the stationary wave occupy less space? > > > > It would mean that, like a photon bath in a closed container, it would > > soon be absorbed by the container and "darkness" would prevail in a very, > > very short time. > > Photons are wave in a medium. Can you compare the behaviour of the wave > and the medium ? Sorry, in the standard models photons are not waves in a medium; there is no medium that waves. The photons themselves are individual 'objects' with both wavelike and classical particle-like properties. > > > > Second, can you make a box made of water that can prevent water to go > > > inside that box? ;-) > > > > Sure. Ice. > > Ice is a different phase of water. What about liquid water? Can you make > a box made of liquid water that can prevent liquid water to go inside > that box? Picky, picky. Are you ruling phase transitions for your aether? If so, you're losing a whole lot of wiggle room for future patching of the theory ;-) Bubble formation during cavitation is an example of creating voids (if only temporary) within water, as is the bubble formation in sonoluminescence experiments. > > > > > > > > > Third, let's imagine that you find a way to block etherons from going > > > inside the box. If the global movement of etherons is dictated by low > > > pressure, would an equilibrium soon be reached when the amount of > > > etheron inside the box decreases. > > > > Is that a question or a statment? > > Question, see below. > > > If aetherons move at c and are absorbed by matter then > > they cannot exist for long as free particles in a > > closed matter container. > > If all etherons were absorbed by matter, that would mean that matter > correspond to a zero pressure of ether. If matter is constituted by > ether, is it possible that it does correspond to zero pressure of ether? If matter is an infinite sink for aether particles then it must represent a zero pressure situation. > > > What is your model for how pressure, well let's call it density, dictates > > the flow of particles in a gas? Are you imagining some kind of force > > pulling the particles into the low density region? > > I imagine nothing special. The particles of gas will tend to fill the > whole volume of a close container because they collide and propagate to > all direction. But you know that. > > sidenote: There are plenty of simulation on the web that show this. For > example: http://www.falstad.com/gas/ > > Set gravity to zero and volume to minimum. Then increase the volume to > maximum. Funny isn't it ;-) I thought your aether particles moved at c? An ideal gas has a continuum of particle velocities.
From: John C. Polasek on 20 Jun 2007 12:18 On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:15:43 -0700, "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote in message >news:l20h7359ctfot73g0qeng6mg9d1h3e28te(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:51:53 -0700, "FrediFizzx" >> <fredifizzx(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>I suppose the main argument is whether or not the "vacuum" is >>>polarizable. SI'ers are convinced that CGS buries "vacuum" >>>polarization >>>when it doesn't necessarily do so. If the "vacuum" is polarizable, >>>then >>>we will have "vacuum" capacitance and "vacuum" inductance. In order >>>to >>>have those, there must be "vacuum" charge. Which can be expressed as >>>"Quantum Vacuum Charge" = +,- sqrt(hbar*c) in CGS and which must be >>>all >>>bound. Your vacuum charge is defined by hbar and c, whose definitions are not in dispute in either system of units. The product hbar*c can be shown in SI as equal to 3.16e-16 meter*volt* coulombs. We don't want to take the square root of such a thing, and call it charge. We discussed this before. We get relief by multiplying by Coulomb's constant, in other words re-introduce eps0, so that now we try hbar*c/eps0 whose square root is 5.974e-8 volt*meters. Now you have a cgs representation of charge in esu's voltmeters. The whole cgs system looks increasingly more synthetic with each foray. >>>SI's statement >>> >>>c^2 = 1/(eps0 mu0), (1) >>> >>>is merely shorthand for >>> >>>c^2 = lambda^2/(4pi^2 Cvac Lvac), (2) No, Eq. (1) is not shorthand for Eq. (2). Eq. (1) conveys the substantive fact that c depends on two simple constant vacuum parameters, Their product yields c and their quotient yields Z. Your Eq. (2) is firstly a simple kinematic declaration that a broadcast wavelength times the broadcast frequency equals the velocity of transmission. which can be ascertained by drawing sine waves on paper. You make this velocity c, which is OK, but in the second place, you go too far in naming parameters Lvac and Cvac. Are they properties of the vacuum or of the vagaries of the broadcast transmitter? What is the other constraint (e.g., Z) that allows you to calculate Cvac and Lvac? I can make Cvac be 1 farad or any value, then solving for Lvac. These C and L's can't be properties of the vacuum; they must have the happy values that would satisfy F_brdcst. There is no new information in (2) and it does not in any way resemble (1). >> It looks like you are assigning lump constants Cvac and Lvac to a >> continuum. I have lost track of your derivation. Is lambda the Compton >> wavelength? > >What does c = 1/sqrt(eps0 mu0) represent? Lambda is the wavelength of >the EM radiation of interest relative to a detector. > >>>which would be true in any system of units if the "vacuum" is >>>polarizable. >>> >>>So it is pretty easy to see that it doesn't really matter which unit >>>system is used. > >> Well, I'm distressed to see you chose not to include any of my >> arguments, but I will repeat one of them. With cgs ignoring eps0 and >> mu0, cgs is reduced to such critical equations as >> D = E and B = H >> which contain absolutely no information of any value and in fact are >> highly misleading. >> As a practical test, given a field intensity of 1 million volts/meter >> calculate D and H >> >> D = E*eps0 = 10^6V/m*eps0 = 8.857e-6 coulombs/meter^2 >> Similarly in free space the same electric field can determine H: >> H = E/Z = 10^6V/m/377 ohms = 2.6e3 Amp/m >> How would you write these equations in cgs? > >Why do you think it is important to distinguish D and E or B and H for >free space EM radiation? I don't think it really matters. I would >rather use Cvac and Lvac anywise since they would be valid for any >system of units. > >Best, > >Fred Diether >Moderator sci.physics.foundations John Polasek
From: ram on 20 Jun 2007 14:28 "It's most likely there is no Aether and the physical world is a unique place where mathematic laws that is possible determine reality" sure? Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com
From: Spirit of Truth on 21 Jun 2007 02:17 "Greg Neill" <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message news:466d36b9$0$25784$9a6e19ea(a)news.newshosting.com... > "Spirit of Truth" <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote in message > news:D24bi.18061$C96.12346(a)newssvr23.news.prodigy.net... >> >> "Greg Neill" <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message >> news:466cbd78$0$8748$9a6e19ea(a)news.newshosting.com... > >> > So what? The fact of the matter is that only *one* twin >> > feels the acceleration. It's therefore a symmetry breaker. >> >> Common, Greg, apply yourself to this! >> What I can tell you, Greg, is truth. If you are moving towards >> the mountains at say 20 miles per hour then the mountains are >> moving towards you at 20 miles per hour and if you press >> on the accelerator and accelerate at 5 miles per hour the mountains >> will accelerate towards you at that additional 5 miles per hour. > > Oy vey. An accelerometer on the car will measure the > acceleration engendered by pressing on the gas. A > similar accelerometer on the mountainside will not > measure a damned thing (no change). That's a rather silly note, Greg, as if you applied that in SR one side also would not show any motion. Spirit > Since you can't seem to wrap your head around this > trivial concept, it would be pointless to continue > conversing. > > Have fun. > >
From: Spirit of Truth on 21 Jun 2007 02:24
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message news:466d2fd5$0$21103$9a6e19ea(a)news.newshosting.com... > "Spirit of Truth" <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote in message > news:kk3bi.1304$TC1.1254(a)newssvr17.news.prodigy.net... > >> Greg, you are coping out again. The lack of simultaneity example in there >> shows exactly why lack of simultaneity is false. > > Simultaneity is an observer dependent thing, and should > be (to any thinking individual) an obvious consequence of > the finite speed of light. Greg, the example has a reality of a destroyed train in one frame and no destroyed train in the other frame...both going into the future ....thus I guess you must believe in a zillion universes? Spirit |