What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Laidback on 26 Jul 2007 22:22 "John C. Polasek" <jpolasek(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:ai8ha3lrskhl4v3erej0mscr6iel0fkhsq(a)4ax.com... : On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 08:41:50 -0700, Stuart Lavin : <yabba_dabba_ding_dong(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: : : >On May 24, 11:55 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: : > : >> The aether is a concept accepted by those whose knowledge of physics : >> ranges from "none" to "very little". : > : >I still find the word "ether" handy, for want of a better term, to : >differentiate between the "nothing" of empty space (which has various : >properties and is "something") and actual, conceptual nothing (e.g., : >"what there would be" if there was no universe at all). : > : >I think I'm right in thinking (correct me if I'm wrong, because I : >recognise that I right be) that "ether" was first proposed before : >electromagnetic fields were fully understood. People had this idea : >that light travelled as a wave, but a wave in what? So the idea of : >"ether" was basically their way of saying that vaccuum was still was : >full of something - in their case, a mythical fluid that filled the : >cosmos - and light travelled through it as ripples. : > : >Even though we now have a clearer idea of what light is, I still find : >the word "ether" useful (if somewhat whimsical) in merely casual : >speech when trying to indicate that vaccuum is *something* and has : >properties (from simple ones such as dimension, to more complicated : >ones like - e.g. - virtual particles popping in and out of existence : >at the quantum level). : : You're right-there has to be an ether to carry light waves. It's just : that the first effort to find it in our xyz space had to fail for one : thing because it had to be stiffer than steel (and therefore hard to : walk through). : For the other, because they did not conceive of a dual space to : contain the ether. Think of dual space as an ocean (e.g. Dirac's sea) : that is the storehouse for the material that populates our vacuum, : Everything in our universe began with electrons launched from this : sea. The electrons became our particles; the positrons behind mimic : these particles. The real physics is in the dual space, : electromagnetism and gravity both. : Virtual PAIRS can pop out under gamma rays, but not any single : particles (e- or p+) which would have to be created in order to do : that. : We go through the motions and exertions, but the twin in dualspace has : to contend with a real ether to see if you can really jump 6 feet. : : Science is mystified by the problem of where all the antiparticles : went? They are the positrons in dual space that exactly 1:1 "twin" : the particles in our visible universe. : : Look at my permittivity paper at http://www.dualspace.net. Every : possible parameter of the "vacuum" is computed there including the : Youngsmodulus/mass density = c^2 = 1/eps0*mu0. My Dual Space book is : better than the paper. : John Polasek The omission of details implies to magic and or religious concepts and or constructs where one can overlook the real TRUTH.. Magical Popping in and out, sure sounds like a whole lot of details are ignored.. In fact the only way it is possible is if we are uncertain of the REAL Truth, does uncertainty sound familiar? it should! If one is an advocate to "QM", "QED" and "The Standard Model", what with theoretical Particles being treated as if they are REAL n all! <ROTFLOL> Look - When one learns basic Electronics and with further advanced Electronics research, all that implied magic which is implied via QM,QED and The standard model is replaced with many details, these details make it obvious.. That the whole universe consists of a single Electromagnetic Field where everything possible MUST comply to its truth statement, if something doesn't, it simply is not TRUTH!.. Any questions? -- Pete. ________________________________________ May the Universe return 100 Fold of your output.
From: Stuart Lavin on 27 Jul 2007 09:14 "Our father, who art in heaven. Hallowed by thy name--" "Hallowed?! Now look. You can call me RAY, or you call me JAY--" I think I've been misconstrued slightly here :o) I *don't* think that there's an ether or aether through which light travels. I think we should co-opt the quaint idea of "ether" as a handy label to differentiate between the "nothing" that fills most of the visible universe, which we could (in theory) travel through and which has dimensions and other properties, and the "conceptual" nothing that would exist if the universe simply didn't. I.e., "It's meaningless to ask what was outside the universe before the big bang. NOTHING did. Not like the dark, starry nothing of outer space - the 'ether' which the stars and other bodies pass through - but pure conceptual NOTHING." -- rt Lavin - - - Stuart Lavin - - - Stuart Lavin - - - Stuart Lavin - - - Stua
From: Spirit of Truth on 29 Jul 2007 06:27 "Greg Neill" <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message news:467a5f1e$0$24382$9a6e19ea(a)news.newshosting.com... > "Spirit of Truth" <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote in message > news:RQoei.395$K44.183(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.net... >> >> "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? > > No, it does not. This is another case of your > criticizing a theory without understanding it > or its mathematics. Once again I feel that we > have no basis for a productive discussion, so > I will bow out. Have fun. You bow out because you will not confront truth. You say what I state is incorrect but _factually_ it is not. from: Spirit (using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
From: Richard Saam on 3 Aug 2007 12:13
Richard Schultz wrote: > > Or, as the author of our textbook put it, > > For a treatment of the fundamental physics of fields and > matter, [the MKS system] has one basic defect. Maxwell's > equations for the vacuum fields, in this system, are > symmetrical in the electric and magnetic field only if H, > not B, appears in the role of the magnetic field. . . . > On the other hand. . . B, not H, is the fundamental > magnetic field inside matter. This is not a matter of > definition or of units, but a fact of nature, reflecting > the absence of magnetic charge. Thus the MKS system, as > it has been constructed, tends to obscure either the > fundamental electromagnetic symmetry of the vacuum, or > the essential asymmetry of the sources. > > But then again, the author of the above was only a Nobel Prize winner > in physics, and hence can't really be expected to know what he was > talking about. > > ----- > Richard Schultz schultr(a)mail.biu.ac.il > Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel > Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University > ----- > "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad." I have used the Unitless nature of CGS permittivity and Permeability for developing the symmetry basis for the subject 'Aether' which scales from nuclear to cosmological dimensions still in keeping with Maxwell's equations. I have tried to work the variability of Permittivity and Permeability with distance and energy scale using the classical Maxwell concepts of permittivity(epsilon), permeability, displacement field (D), electric field (E), magnetic field (Hc) etc. in a particular geometric form (with momentum and real space identity defined in terms of length dimensions A & B) filling a vacuum and expressed in CGS notation/units: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9905007 k*Tc = h*(1/time)/2 =(h^2/(2*m))*(1/(2*B)^2) = m*vdx^2/2 = (chain/cavity)*e^2/(gs*Permittivity*B) = gs^2*(1/2)*(1/(4*pi))*cavity*D*E = gs^2*(1/2)*(1/(4*pi))*cavity*E*E*Permittivity = gs^2*(1/2)*(1/(4*pi))*cavity*D*D/Permittivity = chain*Hc*Hc/(8*pi) = P*cavity k = Boltzmann constant Tc = lattice critical temperature h = planck's constant time = lattice resonance time + or - 1/B = wave vector 1/A = wave vector atan(A/B)= angle (22.8 degree) m = lattice cell pseudo mass necessary for resonance = 56 Mev/c^2 (1E-25 g) (6.53E11 K/c^2) (non baryonic) vdx = pseudo mass resonant velocity in x direction = c/sqrt(permittivity*permeability) + or - = h (1/B) / (2 m) + or - = 2*B/time + or - vdy = pseudo mass resonant velocity in y direction = (4*B/SQRT(3))/time + or - = h (SQRT(3)/(4*B)) / (2 m) + or - vdz = pseudo mass resonant velocity in z direction = (B/A)^2 * 4*A/time + or - = h (1/A) / (2 m) + or - vde = c/sqrt(permittivity) + or - c = speed of light e = charge + or - permittivity = lattice dielectric permittivity (dimensionless) = D/E = (1/gs^3)*(1/COS(Angle))*(me/mt)* permittivity_x permeability = lattice magnetic permeability (dimensionless) 2*B = lattice cell length 2*sqrt(3)*B^2 = lattice cell area (section) 2*sqrt(3)*B^2*A = lattice cell volume (cavity) (cells fill lattice volume) chain/cavity = 2/3 Permittivity/B = constant1 = 2.79E9 /cm Permeability/B = constant2 = 2.83E12 /cm D = lattice displacement field vector + or - = 4*pi*e*cos(angle)/section E = lattice electric field vector + or - = m^2*vdx*vdy*vdz*cos(angle)/(e*h) P = pressure gs = unitless constant at 1.0097138 Again, the model essentially defines a wave vector 1/B such that de Broglie velocity (vdx) and momentum space is defined by vdx = h (1/B) / (2 m) with real space dimension B = time * vdx where k*Tc = h*(1/time)/2 and in the case of the Universe vacuum critical density state: m/cavity = critical space density 2 H^2 / (8 pi G) = 6E-30 g/cm^3 Now define dimensionless Maxwell's permittivity and permeability such that classically vdx = c/sqrt(permittivity_x*permeability) = ve/sqrt(permeability) = 1.5E-3 cm/sec vde = c/sqrt(permittivity) = 1.2E+5 cm/sec and Tl = m * c^2 / k = Energy-Matter Equivalency temperature 6.53E11 K Tb = (1/4)*gs^3*(m*vde^2)/Boltzmann = Black Body radiation (CMBR) at 2.73 K (hc/(3kTb) = .19 cm) (3*k*Tb)/h = 160.2 GHz) Tc = (1/2) * m * vdx^2 / k = Dark Matter temperature extremely cold at 8.11E-16 K and B = 22 cm time = 29,600 sec Model can be extrapolated to any length scale and has the inherent 'conservation of energy and momentum (elastic)' assumption. In the space vacuum, dimensionless permittivity and permeability are necessarily very large (6E10 & 6E13) but nothing in theory would prohibit these magnitudes. So CMBR radiation is emitted in Black Body spectral form (frequency shifted due to space permeability) from a Black Body defined by Dark Matter/Energy with 'c' constraint. This Dark Matter/Energy Black Body form represents a cell in a lattice ubiquitous in the Universe accounting for most of universe mass (non baryonic) and congruent with pervasive CMBR. m = 56 Mev/c^2 remains constant from nuclear to cosmic scales expressing itself in many ways -nuclear Fermi energy -work energy in slowing Pioneer spacecraft -EGRET extra galactic x-ray spectra -Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) power spectrum at 1/29,600 sec^-1 -identity of quantum energy = gravitational energy h * H = (3/2) * G * m^2 / Rp = 1.5E-44 erg where: h = Planck's constant 6.63E-27 g cm^2 sec^-1 H = Hubble Constant 2.31E-18 sec^-1 71.2 km/sec-million parsecs Rp = proton radius 6.65E-14 cm = 3*h/(32*pi*m*c) G = gravity constant 6.67E-8 cm^3 sec^-2 g^-1 **** Questions: Assuming the Dark Matter/Energy is a black body at the extremely low temperature of 8.11E-16 K, it would not be detectable in usual electromagnetic (EM) spectrum (it would negligibly absorb more conventional EM in gamma - x-ray - radio waves. but more completely at frequencies on the order of 1/29,600 sec^-1 ? An object moving through the Dark Matter/Energy Lattice would result in momentum transfer from lattice cell to object releasing m*c^2 (56 Mev) work- energy per lattice cell? Observable CMBR apparent black body is linked to Dark Matter/Energy black body by space permeability? Why doesn't the model radiate black body at nuclear dimensions? At this nuclear dimension, the velocities vx and ve are superluminal (>c) may be the answer? Mass (m) is a consequence of a resonant elastic condition? Does the quantum energy = gravitational energy relationship h * H = (3/2) * G * m^2 / Rp help explain action at a distance? Richard D. Saam http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9905007 |