What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Laurent on 25 May 2007 19:54 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!!!
From: RP on 25 May 2007 20:09 On May 25, 6:54 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > "RP" <no_mail_no_s...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1180135320.277919.306230(a)h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > : On May 25, 5:48 pm, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > : > On May 25, 6:27 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > : > > : > > : > > : > > : > > : > > "Laurent" <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > : > > : > >news:1180131237.076224.102260(a)o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > : > > : On May 25, 5:13 pm, pantel...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > : > > : > On 24 mei, 23:31, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > : > > : > > : > > : > > The aether is simply the space between two points. > : > > : > > Laurent > : > > : > > : > > : > It is very simple. > : > > : > Take 2 points in space, the ears for example. > : > > : > Some say there is nothing in between, > : > > : > and some say there is something there. > : > > : > ;-) > : > > : > : > > : > : > > : Well, like I said to Uncle Al, what would you prefer to call the > space > : > > : between particles? > : > > : > > "space", "nothing", "void", "emptiness", "zilch" and all synonyms > thereof. > : > > "that which has no properties whatsoever" > : > > : > Cool. I often call it empty space. > : > > : > But I agree with Einstein in that it does have physical properties.- > Hide quoted text - > : > : I went to the store the other day and picked up a bag of nothing. I > : cooked it up for dinner, but upon swallowing it my stomach imploded. I > : concluded that space is good to have inside your stomach, and > : something different than nothing. > > Facetiousness aside, A TV tube or CRT contains no-thing even if it has > an electron beam, two triangular magnetic fields and a static electric field > when operating, and I'm not calling it aether, either (or other). Is an em field nothing? > > The "no-thing" has no physical properties, I can deflect, increase and > decrease the beam current solely by changing the external fields, and I do. Are the electrons moving external to the tube? > If this were not so you'd have no football to watch, just a blank screen > and have to go out and buy a plasma or LCD TV. Right, if there were nothing in the tube I'd be watching an implosion. > > Someday some bright young spark will operate a projection TV on > the Moon (or ISS) without a glass envelope to keep out the air because > he's bored with no-thing to do and the ancient art of glass-blowing > will be lost to antiquity. > > If the fool wants to agree with Einstein he can go without TV, > the aether wind will blow away the electron beam as the Moon > races through it. Whatever name you wish to apply to the equations that best simulate reality, the workings of the TV are not dependent upon that name, nor even upon those equations. Physics is not the master of the universe, it is subject to nature's mandates. If it isn't testable, it isn't physics. That's the bottom line. Everything else is opinion.
From: Jimmer on 25 May 2007 20:16 Laurent situation is simply this. He wants to explore the causal mechanisms behind the world. This is not bad by itself. What is bad is he wants to use the term "Aether" which 99.5% of physicists already understood to be non-existence in light of Special Relativity. In other words. He wants to redefine the Aether and go against the mainstream. Try to invent another name for it for what you describe has some validity. For example. If there is nothing between space. How come correlations occur in entanglement.. It's like there is something in space that "conducts" it although in a new nonclassical manner. Also somehow the wavefunctions seem to have an existential counterpart which may be "located" (excuse for this term) 'somewhere" in space although everything is not newtonian but way beyond it. In short. Laurent "Aether" descriptions have some existence but using the word "Aether" just makes it so hard to convey it. But then maybe Laurent enjoys debate and is so attached to the word "Aether" like using it as a weapon to dealt a blow into convensional physics. But the resistance you'd face would be hard and we only have one lifetime and don't waste half of it debating on the use of the Aether term. Focus on the mechanisms and invent new terms. It's a fact that there are more things going on in this world than thought of (or even dreamt of) by physicists. In centuries to come. It will be more clear but we have to be more accurate in terms and in the conveyance. J.
From: Laurent on 25 May 2007 20:17 Bohm on the subject of empty space... Well, perhaps we should finish with this business about empty space. If you follow through the mathematics of the present Quantum Theory, it treats the particle as what is called the quantized state of the field, that is, as a field spread over space but in some mysterious way with a quantum of energy. Now each wave in the field has a certain quantum of energy proportional to its frequency. And if you take the electromagnetic field, for example,in empty space, every wave has what is called a zero point energy below which it cannot go, even when there is no energy available. If you were to add up all the waves in any region of empty space you would find that they have an infinite amount of energy because an infinite number of waves are possible. Now, however, you may have reason to suppose that the energy may not be infinite, that maybe you cannot keep on adding waves that are shorter and shorter, each contributing to the energy. There may be some shortest possible wave, and then the total number of waves would be finite and the energy would also be finite. Now, you have to ask what would be the shortest length and there seems to be reason to suspect that the gravitational theory may provide us with some shortest length, for according to general relativity, the gravitational field also determines what is meant by "length" and metric. If you said the gravitational field was made up of waves which were quantized in this way, you would find that there was a certain length below which the gravitational field would become undefinable because of this zero point movement and you wouldn't be able to define length. Therefore, you could say the property of measurement, length, fades out at very short distance and you'd find the place at which it fades out would be about 10^ -33 cm. That is a very short distance because the shortest distances that physicist have ever probed so far might be 10^ -16 cm. or so, and that's a long way to go. If you then compute the amount of energy that would be in space, with that shortest possible wave length, then it turns out that the energy in one cubic centimeter would be immensely beyond the total energy of all the known matter in the universe. Present theory says that the vacuum contains all this energy which is then ignored because it cannot be measured by an instrument. The philosophy being that only what could be measured by an instrument could be considered to be real, because the only point about the reality of physics is the result of instruments, except that it is also said that there are particles there that cannot be seen in instruments at all. What you can say is that the present state of theoretical physics implies that empty space has all this energy, and matter is a slight increase of the energy, and therefore matter is like a small ripple on this tremendous ocean of energy, having some relative stability, and being manifest. Now, therefore, my suggestion is that this implicate order implies a reality immensely beyond what we call matter. Matter itself is merely a ripple in this background. If you take a crystal which is at absolute zero it does not scatter electrons. They go through it as if it were empty. And as soon as you raise the temperature and (produce) inhomogenities, they scatter. Now, if you used those electrons to observe the crystal (e.g., by focusing them with an electron lens to make an image), all you would see would be these little inhomogeneities and you would say they are what exists and the crystal is what does not exist. Right? I think this is a familiar idea, namely to say that what we see immediately is really a very superficial affair. However, the positivist used to say that what we see immediately is all there is or all that counts, and that our ideas must simply correlate what we see immediately. So now, with this vast reserve of energy and empty space, saying that matter itself is that small wave on empty space, then we could better say that the space as a whole (and we start from the general space) is the ground of existence, and we are in it. So the space doesn't separate us, it unites us. Therefore it's like saying that there are two separate points and a certain dotted line connects them, which shows how we think they are related, or to say there is a real line and that the points are abstractions from that. The line is the reality and the points are abstractions. In that sense we say that there are no separate people, you see, but that 'that' is an abstraction which comes by taking certain features as abstracted and self-existent.
From: Gerald L. O'Barr on 25 May 2007 20:39
Subject: Re: What is the Aether? On 25 May 2007 In: <1180081535.931502.136970(a)b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com> To: sci.physics.particle,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > <Many deletes by O'Barr> > > Vacuum or Quantum Vacuum > ------------------------ > . . . > ... quantum vacuum is thought of as a "seething >froth of real particle-virtual particle pairs going >in and out of existence continuously and very >rapidly". The quantum vacuum is considered to be a >dynamic condition of equilibrium in which this >reversible process is occurring everywhere extremely >quickly. ... > ... > O'Barr comments: GSS, I like how you say these things. The ether consists of particles that only have mass (no gravity forces exist between them, no electrical charge force, etc.) They are rather randomly moving in space, most with velocities greater than c. They obey all the conservation laws of mass, energy and momentum, and they enjoy an equal partitioning of energy. In all these ways, they are very much like a simple gas. When they do collide, however, they spall, they do not bounce. It is this spalling that allows two new particles to appear in place of the two old particles. Therefore, your description of there being particles appearing and disappearing is fine. However, these particles are reasonably random in their actual sizes. Certainly there are some classes of particle sizes that are more prominent than others, and it is their size that basically affects their spalling, and thus this is how they basically differ. I do not know if you care about any of this, but on this most basic level, we end up with at least the following parameters: velocity, spin, mass, and size, all of which affects their tendency to spall (large, average or small, etc.) with each other class of particle. The size is important because geometry is critical in the spall process, and can even include multiple favorite dimensions.) Therefore, there are many more parameters than one might think, when all you really have is just mass and space. Other variable can be imagined (I do not use any of these on my computer) such as surface roughness, or any weaknesses in the structure of the particle, etc. The spall is vital. It is what makes the ether to be without any high order drag. And it allows, in the easiest way, for an exchange of mass to introduce forces and all of our QM effects. GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Physical Properties of Vacuum or Aether >-------------------------------------- > . . . . >It needs to be strongly emphasized ... that the >parameter c given above represents a fundamental >physical property of vacuum or aether and not a >property of photons or EM waves. ... > O'Barr comments: Well, some particles have the ability to obtain momentum out of the ether. So if a particle is able to do this, it can end up being a photon, that can automatically move through the ether (or translate in the ether) or it can be a fundamental particle that has a spin, etc. To say that the speed of these motions are determined by the particle or the ether is not possible, since it is the reactions of both that must be present for any of this to happen. It is important to be able to recognize that the particle is not the wave, but the source of the wave. And thus the motion of the particle and the motion of the waves, although they are tied together, they really are not the same. I have never before seen a person who could see this. For one example, there can be precursor waves going faster than the photon, but since they are of such a short range, there is no reason to pay them too much attention in general physics. GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > ... the propagation of transverse waves in a >continuous media is essentially a feature of >mechanical phenomenon, we need to reinterpret these >physical properties in mechanical terms. ... O'Barr comments: Yes, having transverse actions in a gas is strange. But once you have a photon particle that is separate from the wave, so to speak, then it is the motion of the particle that is in control. And in the at theory, the motion of photon particles in straight lines is not easy. It is easy to have particles spin, like most all of our fundamental particles do, or oscillate like some electrons do around an atom. But to move in straight lines has no stability functions for one or two types of combined particles. (All particles that are in the *gas* that makes up the ether are larger particles than those that make up the ether, and generally consist of an actual group of larger particles.) So a photon particle has to either snake its way through this gas, or use a helix action. Sorry if that sounds so silly, but I do not know of any other way of saying some of these things. Any way, the point is, the appearance of a transverse wave is not a problem, once you see that the motion of the particle is not under the control of the wave laws, etc. GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Mechanical Interpretation of Properties of Vacuum >------------------------------------------------- > . . . > since the light and electromagnetic waves propagate > as transverse waves, the fluid characteristics of > aether or vacuum are totally ruled out. ... O'Barr comments: Please do not be too quick in some of these things. The ether is a gas. The at theory might be of some help to you. Thanks for reading. Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...(a)yahoo.com> |