Einstein and the Aether
Laurent
Einstein's aether - which is the aether I mostly talk about - isn't
bound by time , but by topolgical properties, a set of ratios
determined at the aether scale; frame independent constants. A very
small number of fixed laws by which all matter and space must abide.
Physical (real) but non-material quantities (topological). Time
independent continuity and connectedness. We can also call it
topological space, inertial space, or even momentum space.
Aether is what allows EPR (non-local communication) type phenomena to
take place.
Lorentz invariant values originate at the aether level, they are real
but non-material ratios which often help determine Lorentz invariant
geometrical properties of objects. Take the fine structure constant for
example, change its value and you get a totally different universe.
" Quantum phenomena are caused by fractal topological defects embedded
in and forming a growing three-dimensional fractal process-space, which
is essentially a quantum foam. " --- Reginald T. Cahill
"Topological space (aether) can be defined as a set with a collection
of subsets satisfying the conditions that both the empty set and the
set itself belong to the collection, the union of any number of the
subsets is also an element of the collection, and the intersection of
any finite number of the subsets is an element of the collection." --
Webster dictionary
Einstein's non-material aether of 1920 even comforms to topological
quantum field theory.
" 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."
" 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. " ------
Albert Einstein
[This are excerpts from a John Baez essay "Higher-dimensional algebra
and Planck scale physics", published in the book "Physics Meets
Philosophy at the Planck Scale"]
***" ...in topological quantum field theory we cannot measure time in
seconds, because there is no background metric available to let us
count the passage of time! We can only keep track of topological
change. "***
" The topology of spacetime is arbitrary and there is no background
metric. "
" Quantum topology is very technical, as anything involving
mathematical physicists inevitably becomes. But if we stand back a
moment, it should be perfectly obvious that differential topology and
quantum theory must merge if we are to understand background-free
quantum field theories. In physics that ignores general relativity, we
treat space as a background on which the process of change occurs. But
these are idealizations which we must overcome in a background-free
theory. In fact, the concepts of 'space' and 'state' are two aspects of
a unified whole, and likewise for the concepts of 'spacetime' and
'process'. It is a challenge, not just for mathematical physicists, but
also for philosophers, to understand this more deeply. " -------- John
Baez
"When theorizing about an all-inclusive reality, the first and most
important principle is containment, which simply tells us what we
should and should not be considering. Containment principles, already
well known in cosmology, generally take the form of tautologies; e.g.,
"The physical universe contains all and only that which is physical."
The predicate "physical", like all predicates, here corresponds to a
structured set, "the physical universe" (because the universe has
structure and contains objects, it is a structured set). But this usage
of tautology is somewhat loose, for it technically amounts to a
predicate-logical equivalent of propositional tautology called
autology, meaning self-description. Specifically, the predicate
physical is being defined on topological containment in the physical
universe, which is tacitly defined on and descriptively contained in
the predicate physical, so that the self-definition of "physical" is a
two-step operation involving both topological and descriptive
containment. While this principle, which we might regard as a statement
of "physicalism", is often confused with materialism on the grounds
that "physical" equals "material", the material may in fact be only a
part of what makes up the physical. Similarly, the physical may only be
a part of what makes up the real. Because the content of reality is a
matter of science as opposed to mere semantics, this issue can be
resolved only by rational or empirical evidence, not by assumption
alone." -------- Christopher Michael Langan
http://www.ctmu.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.html
---------------------------------------------------------
There isn't a change in the incoming flux of quantum matter (ZPR,
material space, Guth's 'false vacuum') as much as there is a change in
the information processing, or more simply said, a change in process
speed.
Since the speed of light, hence, the propagation speed of fields, must
remain constant for all the other constants to continue to be
proportianally the same, process (mass) has to increase in order to
keep up... to a point, once you go over the speed limit and fields
can't keep up, matter disintegrates.
To measure aether drag all you need to do is measure the momentum of a
moving object.
--------------------------------------------------------
Some say the aether concept was already discredited, but they are
wrong. Please read carefully:
Einstein and the Ether - by Ludwik Kostro
(Apeiron, Montreal, 2000)
"Whether gravitational, electrical, and nuclear interactions can be
encompassed within a unified theoretical structure, and whether such a
structure will be conceived as a plenary space with physical
properties, remains to be seen. But if the history of the successive
dynasties of aether is any guide, we can eventually proclaim:
The luminiferous aether is dead!
Long live the aether!" --- Owen Gingerich
Nowadays, nobody talks any longer about the ether in scientific
ortohodox books, in higher school or university classes, etc., yet this
concept has been one of the corner stones of many rational
interpretation of natural phenomena for a great long time - to such an
extent that a good physicist recently wrote to us that all XIXth
century physics tried to "prove the existence of the ether which was
later proved not to exist".
If we ask why the ether has disappeared from the major scenes of our
knowledge of Nature, everybody will answer that Einstein has proved,
with his celebrated theory of relativity, that the ether does not
exist. This was one of those concepts that old physicists were
accustomed to use in their "primitive" speculations, but today,
luckily, it has been completely overthrown, together with other similar
relics of "superstition", by XXth century scientists. It was in that
time that mankind has realized the greatest achievements of ever in
science and technology, which can be interpreted as the goal of a long
walk, that began thanks to such men like Copernic, Galilei, Descartes,
Newton,... just sprung out from the darkness of Middle Ages.
"common people", and even the "common scientist", would be surprised in
reading this book (about 240 pp.), written by the physicist and
philosopher Ludwik Kostro, and intended for physicists as well as for
historians of science, philosophers, or in general for any people
interested in the development of scientific culture. As a matter of
fact, it is entirely dedicated to the troublesome relationships between
the greatest scientist of all times - or at least many people think so!
- and the elusive ether.
Let us see the question with the author's own words (Introduction):
"In the eyes of most physicists and philosophers, Albert Einstein has
acquired a reputation for abolishing the concept of the ether as a
medium filling space (or identified with it), which was responsible for
carrying electromagnetic, gravitational and other interactions. Today,
this notion is echoed in textbooks, encyclopaedias, and scientific
reviews. However, it does not fully reflect the historical truth, and
in a sense even represents a distortion [...] Einstein denied the
existence of the ether for only 11 years - from 1905 to 1916.
Thereafter, he recognized that his attitude was too radical and even
regretted that his works published before 1916 had so definitely and
absolutely rejected the existence of the ether."
The author proves this assertion directly referring to the opinions
which Einstein himself expressed during his life, in a book which is
therefore full of quotations and precise bibliographical references (up
to the point of quoting even the original Deutsch passages in a special
appendix). Here they are some examples of Einstein's thoughts:
"It would have been more correct if I had limited myself, in my earlier
publications, to emphasizing only the nonexistence of an ether
velocity, instead of arguing the total nonexistence of the ether, for I
can see that with the word ether we say nothing else than that space
has to be viewed as a carrier of physical qualities."
Moreover:
" [...] in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to
speak about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too
radical, as we will see later when we discuss the general theory of
relativity. It does remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium
filling all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and
matter as well) are its states.
[...] once again 'empty' space appears as endowed with physical
properties, i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the
case according to special relativity [...] ".
And again:
"This word ether has changed its meaning many times in the development
if science [...] Its story, by no means finished, is continued by
relativity theory."
It seems interesting to quote even the following passages by Einstein,
where he somehow admits the rational necessity of the ether, that is to
say, the necessity of conceiving a space which cannot be thought of but
endowed with physical properties:
"There is an important argument in favour of the hypothesis of the
ether. To deny the existence of the ether means, in the last analysis,
denying all physical properties to empty space."
"The ether hypothesis was bound always to play a part even if it is
mostly a latent one at first in the thinking of physicists."
http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep3-24.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------
>From - ETHER AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY by A.Einstein (1920)
" But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in
favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to
assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The
fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view. ---
*For the mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system hovering freely in
empty space depends not only on relative positions (distances) and
relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which
physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the
system in itself.* --- In order to be able to look uponthe rotation of
the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises
space. --- * Since he classes his absolute space together with real
things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also
something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute
space "Ether"; what is essential is merely that besides observable
objects, --- *another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked
upon as real,* --- to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon
as something real.
It is true that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as real something
which is not observable by endeavouring to substitute in mechanics a
mean acceleration with reference to the totality of the masses in the
universe in place of an acceleration with reference to absolute space.
But inertial resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant
masses presupposes action at a distance; and as the modern physicist
does not believe that he may accept this action at a distance, he comes
back once more, if he follows Mach, to the ether, which has to serve as
medium for the effects of inertia. But this conception of the ether to
which we are led by Mach's way of thinking differs essentially from the
ether as conceived by Newton, by Fresnel, and by Lorentz. Mach's ether
not only conditions the behaviour of inert masses, but is also
conditioned in its state by them.
Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general
theory of relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities
of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different
points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing
outside of the territory under consideration.
(Which means that all points in space are interconnected) -- Laurent
This spacetime variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards
of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that "
empty space " in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor
isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the
gravitation potentials g[greek subscript mu, nu]), has, I think,
finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. 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 undulatory 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.*
What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of
relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, ---
*that the state of the former is at every place determined by
connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring
places,* --- which are amenable to law in the form of differential
equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of
electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is
everywhere the same. The ether of the general theory of relativity is
transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute
constants for the functions of space which describe the former,
disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also
say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the
outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation. "
[...]
" ...when H. A. Lorentz entered upon the scene. He brought theory into
harmony with experience by means of a wonderful simplification of
theoretical principles. He achieved this, the most important advance in
the theory of electricity since Maxwell, by taking from ether its
mechanical, and from matter its electromagnetic qualities. As in empty
space, so too in the interior of material bodies, the ether, and not
matter viewed atomistically, was exclusively the seat of
electromagnetic fields. According to Lorentz the elementary particles
of matter alone are capable of carrying out movements; their
electromagnetic activity is entirely confined to the carrying of
electric charges. Thus Lorentz succeeded in reducing all
electromagnetic happenings to Maxwell's equations for free space.
As to the mechanical nature of the Lorentzian ether, it may be said of
it, in a somewhat playful spirit, that immobility is the only
mechanical property of which it has not been deprived by H, A. Lorentz.
It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether
which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in
taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its
immobility. " ---- Albert Einstein
----------------------------------------------------
Sir Edmund T. Whittaker in the preface to his scholarly and scientific
"A history of the Theories of Aether and Electricity" published in 1951
said:
"As everyone knows, the aether played a great part in the physics of
the nineteenth century; but in the first decade of the twentieth,
chiefly as result of the failure of attempts to observe the earth's
motion relative to the aether, and the acceptance of the principle that
such attempts must always fail, the word "aether" fell out of favour,
and it became customary to refer to the interplanetary spaces as
"vacuous"; the vacuum being conceived as mere emptiness, having no
properties except that of propagating electromagnetic waves. But with
the development of quantum electrodynamics, the vacuum has come to be
regarded as the seat of the "zero-point" oscillations of the
electromagnetic field, of the "zero-point" fluctuations of electric
charge and current, and of a "polarisation" corresponding to a
dielectric constant different from unity. It seems absurd to retain the
name "vacuum" for an entity so rich in physical properties, and the
historical word "aether" may fitly be retained." ----- Sir Edmund T.
Whittaker
-----------------------------------
In 1954 P.A.M. Dirac, a Nobel Prize winner in physics in 1933, said -
"The aetherless basis of physical theory may have reached the end of
its capabilities and we see in the aether a new hope for the future."
--- P. Dirac
-----------------------------------
The science popularizer Zukav writes -
"Quantum field theory resurrects a new kind of ether, e.g. particles
are excited states of the featureless ground state of the field (the
vacuum state). The vacuum state is so featureless and has such high
symmetry that we cannot assign a velocity to it experimentally." ----
G. Zukav
-----------------------------------
The very well known Tao of Physics by Capra states -
"This [quantum field] is indeed an entirely new concept which has been
extended to describe all subatomic particles and their interactions,
each type of particle corresponding to a different field. In these
'quantum field theories', the classical contrast between the solid
particles and the space surrounding them is completely overcome. The
quantum field is seen as the fundamental physical entity; a continuous
medium which is present everywhere in space. Particles are merely local
condensations of the field; concentrations of energy which come and go,
thereby losing their individual character and dissolving into the
underlying field. In the words of Albert Einstein:
" We may therefore regard matter as being constituted by the regions of
space in which the field is extremely intense ... There is no place in
this new kind of physics both for the field and matter, for the field
is the only reality. " (page 210)
--------------------------------------------------------
And they allowed Apollonius to ask questions; ...and he asked them of
what they thought the cosmos was composed; but they replied:
"Of elements."
"Are there then four" he asked.
"Not four," said Iarchas, "but five."
"And how can there be a fifth," said Apollonius, "alongside of water
and air and earth and fire?"
"There is the ether", replied the other, "which we must regard as the
stuff of which gods are made; for just as all mortal creatures inhale
the air, so do immortal and divine natures inhale the ether."
Apollonius again asked which was the first of the elements, and Iarchas
answered:
"All are simultaneous, for a living creature is not born bit by bit."
"Am I," said Apollonius, "to regard the universe as a living creature?"
"Yes," said the other, "if you have a sound knowledge of it, for it
engenders all living things."
- The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, Philostratus, 220AD.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Physical knowledge has advanced much since 1905, notably by the
arrival of quantum mechanics, and the situation [about the scientific
plausibility of aether] has again changed. If one examines the question
in the light of present-day knowledge, one finds that the aether is no
longer ruled out by relativity, and good reasons can now be advanced
for postulating an aether. . . . We can now see that we may very well
have an aether, subject to quantum mechanics and conformable to
relativity, provided we are willing to consider a perfect vacuum as an
idealized state, not attainable in practice. From the experimental
point of view there does not seem to be any objection to this. We must
make some profound alterations to the theoretical idea of the vacuum. .
. . Thus, with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced
to have an aether."
---- P. A. M. Dirac, "Is There an Aether?"
Nature 168 (1951): 906-7.
----------------------------------------------------------
"...that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum,
without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their
action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great
an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a
competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be
caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but
whether this agent be material or immaterial I have left to the
consideration of my readers." --- Isaac Newton
--------------------------------------------
--
Laurent
Eric Gisse
Laurent wrote:
> Einstein's aether - which is the aether I mostly talk about
[....]
You write a lot about a subject that does not exist...
Androcles
"Laurent" <cybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162035133.5...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
|
|
| Einstein's aether - which is the aether I mostly talk about - isn't
| bound by time , but by topolgical properties, a set of ratios
| determined at the aether scale; frame independent constants. A very
| small number of fixed laws by which all matter and space must abide.
| Physical (real) but non-material quantities (topological). Time
| independent continuity and connectedness. We can also call it
| topological space, inertial space, or even momentum space.
|
| Aether is what allows EPR (non-local communication) type phenomena to
| take place.
|
| Lorentz invariant values originate at the aether level, they are real
<rant deleted>
RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.
To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and
more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes. - Sir Isaac Newton.
I have no regard in this place to a medium, if any such there is, that
freely pervades the interstices between the parts of bodies. - Sir Isaac
Newton.
Since aether is your religion, say three Hail Aethers.
Hail Aether,
Full of Light,
Einstein is with thee.
Blessed art thou among absolute frames of reference,
and blessed is the fruit of thy tomb, Lorentz Transform.
Holy Aether,
Daughter of Lunacy,
prey on us morons now,
and at the dilated hour of death.
Androcles
Sam Wormley
Einstein says in his first 1905 relativity paper:
"The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be superfluous
inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an ``absolutely
stationary space'' provided with special properties, nor assign a
velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic
processes take place".
Surfer
wrote:
"Einstein denied the existence of the ether for only 11 years - from
1905 to 1916. Thereafter, he recognized that his attitude was too
radical and even regretted that his works published before 1916 had so
definitely and absolutely rejected the existence of the ether."
Einstein and the Ether - by Ludwik Kostro
Here are some quotes from:
Surfer
Thank you for these excellent and referenced quotes.
I particularly liked:
"Einstein denied the existence of the ether for only 11 years - from
1905 to 1916. Thereafter, he recognized that his attitude was too
radical and even regretted that his works published before 1916 had so
definitely and absolutely rejected the existence of the ether."
Einstein and the Ether - by Ludwik Kostro
as that put into perspective the following quotes from:
George
"Androcles" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_d> wrote in message
news:k7K0h.117488$3D1....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Good one. I think that one deserves framing. Thanks.
George
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
The point in a fact, is that, somewhere among his exploration of a
philosophy, as along his immersion in a thermodynamics at ETH, as also along
his independant post-ETH research, Einstein, has had already began to forge
an approach to physics along a detailed model building.
However, ETH is the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, which it has had
frustrated Einstein by not paying an adequate attention to the relativity
along the theories of electricity and a magnetism, as it has had been, a
just, more important a name electricity and a name magnetism, which it a
just has to correspond to anything substantial along its own way.
Therefore, along that moment has had been an introduction of the name "
ether " into the theories of electricity, which it has been made to attain a
fastidious conception of a medium whose motion would be a described without
any special way to ascribe any physical meaning.
Finally, along that moment, has had, Sir William Thomson, said, along that
matter, that it was a just a business arrangement, nothing at all a
scientific, and this is, what it is all about, a definitely as a matter a
fact.
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Surfer" <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote in message
news:hi37k21nnqr123ede...@4ax.com...
Dirk Van de moortel
>
> Thank you for these excellent and referenced quotes.
>
> I particularly liked:
>
> "Einstein denied the existence of the ether for only 11 years - from
> 1905 to 1916. Thereafter, he recognized that his attitude was too
> radical and even regretted that his works published before 1916 had so
> definitely and absolutely rejected the existence of the ether."
> Einstein and the Ether - by Ludwik Kostro
>
> as that put into perspective the following quotes from:
> ETHER AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY by A.Einstein (1920)
[snip]
| As to the ether (to return to it once more), though the
| conception of it has certain advantages, it must be
| admitted that if Einstein had maintained it he certainly
| would not have given us his theory, and so we are very
| grateful to him for not having gone along the
| old-fashioned roads.
Lorentz, 1927
Sam Wormley
Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some
injudicious comments to the effect that relativity theory could be said
to ascribe physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that sense,
to involve a kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the kind of
"aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the
nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon ever since,
by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence that
"gtr is an aether theory".
Sam Wormley
Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and Relativity
RP
Laurent wrote:
> Einstein's aether
Then the task left is to define action-at-no-distance, if you can.
At most the aether, if it is to be retained, is just a set of
conditions, one set for each point within space per each inertial frame
of reference, defining the influence on charges that might happen to
pass through them. If there are any mediators of that influence, of any
sort, then they are not detectable by any means other than their
influence on those passing charges. But that influence is tracable
directly to other charges in the universe, meaning that any mediators
are superflous additions to the interactions between those charges.
Whether we regard action-at-a-distance as magical, or impossible, this
is of no consequence, since this is nonetheless what we observe. An
electron jiggles on the Sun, and eight minutes later an electron
jiggles on the Earth.
So rather than attempting to alter reality in order to conform it to
our preconception of some sort of material contact between colliding
particles, of which we do not know the origin or even whether that
sentiment might be trustoworthy, it might be a more scientific approach
to stick with the observables, and accordingly change our
preconceptions to fit the observed reality. If charges interact over a
distance, then what real objection can you formulate other than a
distaste for that process? And when you examine the roots of that
dissatisfaction, then you might realize that it is a perfectly baseless
argument. One must first define space-like displacement before even
beginning to argue the point. This is what Minkowski did, and as it
turns out particles interact through a null geodesic in space-time, so
that what you regard as a separation of interacting particles
(space-like displacement) is not at all a complete separation of them
in reality, but just an illusion impressed upon you by the Galilean
viewpoint of space and time.
Richard Perry
David Thomson
And look where Einstein's superfluous ether got him, he couldn't unify
the forces with his theory. Yet, by properly quantifying the Aether, I
was able to properly unify the forces:
http://www.16pi2.com/files/Calculations_UFT.pdf
Dave
Sam Wormley
No, that is not the case!
harry
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162035473.0...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Not so: he mostly copied writings by people such as Einstein, Baez and
Dirac. But that collection is just loose sand.
Harald
harry
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:yaK0h.212314$FQ1.41671@attbi_s71...
Indeed. And he later regretted that "radical" stand, as he put it in his1920
paper "Grundgedanken und Methoden der Relativitätstheorie in ihrer
Entwicklung dargestellt:
"Therefore I thought in 1905 that in physics one should not speak of the
ether at all. This judgement was too radical though as we shall see with the
next considerations about the general theory of relativity. It moreover
remains, as before, allowed to assume a space-filling medium if one can
refer to electromagnetic fields (and thus also for sure matter) as the
condition thereof ".
Harald
Sam Wormley
Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and Relativity
harry
Could you give me a reference of that 1924 work? I never heard of it!
Anyway, I would be surprised if anyone in this discussion about Einstein's
ether would be thinking of some kind of 19th century material ether, and the
OP already pointed out in the first few lines that he likes to discuss
Einstein's kind of ether. Thus that citation is (at least for now) misplaced
in this thread.
Harald
she...@yahoo.com
Thanks Laurent for interesting reading!
Perhaps we will see increased use of the term, but I'm not making any
bets. It is easy enough to get the same idea across with other words
such as space-time, quantum vacuum, etc. The benefit is that older
ideas about the aether (which have been disproved) are then no longer
associated.
Cheers - shevek
she...@yahoo.com
I see you like that quote.
Could you tell us more as to how GTR is not an aether theory?
Bear in mind that every point in space, even in vacuum, is ascribed by
GTR quantitative physical characterstics via a metric tensor or
Christoffel connection.
Also bear in mind that these fields (as all fields) can be described as
moments of a statistical distribution of microscopic constituents.
I agree with Einstein that the working definition of "aether" is broad
enough to include such characteristics. The use of the indefinite
article makes it very difficult to refute that "GTR is an aether
theory".
- shevek
Sam Wormley
Pretty much boils down to what different people mean by the word "ether"
doesn't it?
Ref: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
"What Einstein really meant was that the aether which had been
overthrown by str (and thus was incompatible with gtr, which
incorporates str) involved a a specific "preferred frame of
reference" in the classical field theory, whereas the field equation
of gtr involves no "prior geometry" (such as the euclidean geometry
of "space" which has assumed by Maxwell and his contemporaries), much
less any "preferred frame". Nonetheless, gtr does not quite say there
is "nothing" in "empty space"; in general there will be gravitational
waves running about, and these carry (very tiny) amounts of energy,
which gravitate. So in this sense, a very different kind of "aether"
in the very weak sense of there being "something there" in a vacuum
(namely nonlocalizable gravitational field energy, metric properties
of "space" in a 3+1 decomposition, etc.), could be said to enter into
gtr. In modern quantum field theories, of course, there are still
more "things which are there" in a vacuum, but again these do not
constitute an "aether" in the nineteenth century sense in which this
word was used as a technical term".
FrediFizzx
Sure. ;-)
Volovik says it like it is very well in his book "The Universe in a
Helium Droplet" page 461 sect. 33 Conclusion;
"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium
called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century.
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields
transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent
different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."
I think perhaps that it is pretty silly to think that anything at all
"couples" to space or spacetime. Space is merely the stage for the
quantum "actors" to play on. Quantum objects couple to each other. The
left hand side of the EFE, Guv = Tuv, is describing the interactional
geometry of quantum objects. And there are probably some quantum
objects involved that we don't know about yet.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
RP
Anything that has been postulated to exist between cannot be proven to
exist between, and from that standpoint anything that is postulated to
exist between is superfluous regardless of any particular form of
modelling of it, and one might as well retain Lorentz's original notion
of the aether, given that it is superfuous in precisely the same way as
the "modern" aether.
Richard Perry
RP
Anything that has been postulated to exist between cannot be proven to
exist between, and from that standpoint anything that is postulated to
exist between is superfluous regardless of any particular form of
modelling of it, and one might as well retain Lorentz's original notion
of the aether, given that it is superfluous in precisely the same way
Ilja Schmelzer
<she...@yahoo.com> schrieb
> It is easy enough to get the same idea across with other words
> such as space-time, quantum vacuum, etc. The benefit is that older
> ideas about the aether (which have been disproved) are then no longer
> associated.
Which benefit?
Which disproved ideas?
Ilja
harry
<she...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162224155.2...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I fnd it amazing that (according to Baez) the 19th century ideas of the
ether have not been fully replaced by the early 20th century relativistic
ideas of the ether, even one century later. What could have caused this
delay? I suspect that poor explanation in common textbooks played a major
role.
Harald
Androcles
"harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:116228...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
1 tonne + 1 day = ?
Hint: you need a brain transplant.
shevek
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> <she...@yahoo.com> schrieb
> > It is easy enough to get the same idea across with other words
> > such as space-time, quantum vacuum, etc. The benefit is that older
> > ideas about the aether (which have been disproved) are then no longer
> > associated.
>
> Which benefit?
>
Good question. Personally, I think the problems with abonding the term
"aether" may outweigh the benefits, one of which is to eliminate
reference to disproved ideas.
> Which disproved ideas?
>
For example, that there should be an observable anisotropy in the round
trip travel time of a light signal when the laboratory is not in the
aether rest frame.
Also, that partices "move through" the aether, like a ball moving
through the air.
There are many theories of the aether, as outlined in e.g. Whittaker's
excellent texts. Some are wrong. My rationalization of the current
fear of the term is that it's use brings up some of these older ideas
which haven't withstood the test of time. Even today, there are many
people pushing aether theories that have problems. By cloaking your
ideas in newer terminology you can avoid having your readers think you
are involved with the concepts of the aether that aren't valid.
Keep up the good work - shevek
shevek
I agree entirely. Especially the references to the Michelson Morley
experiment in countless texts which contradict explicitly the
conclusions of those authors.
However the situation is not as bleak as it might look. The ideas have
been replaced, and the terminology with them.
- shevek
harry
"shevek" <she...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162306636....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Exactly - just like Newton did when he called his ether "space".
Cheers,
Harald
Dirk Van de moortel
"harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:1162309...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
What do you call yours, Harry's Little Helper?
>
> Cheers,
> Harald
Sniffers,
Dirk Vdm
harry
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:zkK1h.158683$kw3.2...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
And you? "Dirk's Spacetime" perhaps? ;-)
maxwell
> "Laurent" <cybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1162035133.5...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> |
> |
> | Einstein's aether - which is the aether I mostly talk about - isn't
> | bound by time , but by topolgical properties, a set of ratios
> | determined at the aether scale; frame independent constants. A very
> | small number of fixed laws by which all matter and space must abide.
> | Physical (real) but non-material quantities (topological). Time
> | independent continuity and connectedness. We can also call it
> | topological space, inertial space, or even momentum space.
> |
> | Aether is what allows EPR (non-local communication) type phenomena to
> | take place.
> |
> | Lorentz invariant values originate at the aether level, they are real
>
> Hi Androcles:
A pleasure to read some intelligent commentary from you. It is a pity
you often spoil the effect of your communications by resorting to
abuse. As you are obviously a student of history & parables, I am
surprised that you seem to often forget that "honey catches more
flies".
> <rant deleted>
> RULE I.
> We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
> and sufficient to explain their appearances.
>
> To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and
> more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity,
> and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes. - Sir Isaac Newton.
>
>
>
> I have no regard in this place to a medium, if any such there is, that
> freely pervades the interstices between the parts of bodies. - Sir Isaac
> Newton.
>
> Since aether is your religion, say three Hail Aethers.
>
> Hail Aether,
> Full of Light,
> Einstein is with thee.
> Blessed art thou among absolute frames of reference,
> and blessed is the fruit of thy tomb, Lorentz Transform.
> Holy Aether,
> Daughter of Lunacy,
> prey on us morons now,
> and at the dilated hour of death.
>
> Androcles
maxwell
can't be measured: a very sound basis for developing science (thank
you, Occam). There has long been a psychological preference for
causation = touching, hence the aether. The original Maxwell also
started out (1864) with analyzing asynchronous action-at-a-distance
(AAAD) but his religious motivations drove him to focus on all the
points in space where there was nothing, except his Sandemanian god .
Since he did not know about the particulate existence of electricity
(electrons) this was a valid mistake. I agree that we need to refocus
on AAAD.
Androcles
"maxwell" <sp...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:1162330154.3...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Androcles wrote:
| > "Laurent" <cybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1162035133.5...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > |
| > | Einstein's aether - which is the aether I mostly talk about - isn't
| > | bound by time , but by topolgical properties, a set of ratios
| > | determined at the aether scale; frame independent constants. A very
| > | small number of fixed laws by which all matter and space must abide.
| > | Physical (real) but non-material quantities (topological). Time
| > | independent continuity and connectedness. We can also call it
| > | topological space, inertial space, or even momentum space.
| > |
| > | Aether is what allows EPR (non-local communication) type phenomena to
| > | take place.
| > |
| > | Lorentz invariant values originate at the aether level, they are real
| >
| > Hi Androcles:
| A pleasure to read some intelligent commentary from you. It is a pity
| you often spoil the effect of your communications by resorting to
| abuse. As you are obviously a student of history & parables, I am
| surprised that you seem to often forget that "honey catches more
| flies".
I'm not a flycatcher, vinegar works better on pests I want to be rid of and
I certainly do not wish to attract vermin. It's bad enough when my cat
brings
home fleas.
Latest update:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/Doppler.htm
Dirk Van de moortel
>> "Laurent" <cybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1162035133.5...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> |
>> |
>> | Einstein's aether - which is the aether I mostly talk about - isn't
>> | bound by time , but by topolgical properties, a set of ratios
>> | determined at the aether scale; frame independent constants. A very
>> | small number of fixed laws by which all matter and space must abide.
>> | Physical (real) but non-material quantities (topological). Time
>> | independent continuity and connectedness. We can also call it
>> | topological space, inertial space, or even momentum space.
>> |
>> | Aether is what allows EPR (non-local communication) type phenomena to
>> | take place.
>> |
>> | Lorentz invariant values originate at the aether level, they are real
>>
> Hi Androcles:
> A pleasure to read some intelligent commentary from you.
Whenever he says something intelligent, (1) he copied it from
somewhere without mentioning his source, in this case
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/newton-princ.html ,
(2) he doesn't understand it, and (3) he thinks it's false and
his quoting it is a pathetic attempt at sarcasm.
> It is a pity
> you often spoil the effect of your communications by resorting to
> abuse. As you are obviously a student of history & parables, I am
> surprised that you seem to often forget that "honey catches more
> flies".
One thing is for sure, *you* are not going to catch dog
shit with your honey... don't count on it ;-)
Dirk Vdm
RP
maxwell wrote:
> I preferred your earlier view - don't invent concepts for things that
> can't be measured: a very sound basis for developing science (thank
> you, Occam). There has long been a psychological preference for
> causation = touching, hence the aether. The original Maxwell also
> started out (1864) with analyzing asynchronous action-at-a-distance
> (AAAD) but his religious motivations drove him to focus on all the
> points in space where there was nothing, except his Sandemanian god .
> Since he did not know about the particulate existence of electricity
> (electrons) this was a valid mistake. I agree that we need to refocus
> on AAAD.
Actually Maxwell was aware of the particle nature of electricity,
having gone over Weber's work with a fine-toothed comb. It was Weber
who postulated the particulate nature of charge in order to account for
the observed effects. What Maxwell disliked about Weber's theory was
the supposed non-conservation of energy inherent in it. In response he
(Maxwell) assumed that the energy lost by the conductors was
transferred to an electrical medium of some sort, which he modeled as a
dense collection of infinitesimally small vortices. What Maxwell, as
well as a large number of others keep overlooking is the fact that such
a medium does not resolve action at a distance, since it's particles or
substance must have some means to interact with the electrons and with
its own parts. While Maxwell assumed a hydrodynamic model, it escaped
his notice that in hydrodynamic processes the molecules interact via
their em fields rather than by direct mechanical contact. The problem
of action at a distance still remains--the distance has simply been
reduced but not eliminated.
There is no possible physical medium that can resolve the problem of
action at a distance, because "it's turtles all the way down" is not
exactly a scientific sort of statement. Bohm's conception of fields
rigidly attached to the particles of charge resolves the issue, that
is, when taken in conjunction with Minkowski's space-time. A
furtherance of the idea is that the field of the charged particle
extends not only through space, but through time as well, or through
"space-time". When looked at from a Galilean perspective (3D plus
time), the field seems to distort, but from the 4D perspective it
remains perfectly inverse square. In other words, if you map the field
onto a Cartesian plane under the instructions that t is not the same
everywhere in the plane, but varies as r/c, then the 3D distortion that
was observed disappears, and the field will be inverse square in this
Minkowskian coordinate space. The field and the light cone are then
essentially one and the same entity, i.e. the field only "exists" along
the light cone, which is why causality in the form of interaction of
charges occur with the light speed delay. The speed of light is thus
just r divided by the difference in time between the instantaneous
(Galilean) position and its retarded (Minkowskian) position, and is
thus an observational effect generated by an incorrect assumption that
t is the same everywhere wrt an inertial frame of reference, i.e. the
Galilean perspective. Our present is actually composed entirely of
past events, thus it is the latter that are real or in another sense
"simultaneous" to us. When viewed from this perspective causality
occurs essentially at infinite speed rather than at c, which
corresponds to the statement that "in our theory c plays the role of an
infinite speed."
In summary, action at a distance is explained in the Bohm model by
allowing the particles to always be in contact with one another, and to
actually be completely superposed over one another. In this view, the
fields of the particles would be real, being the particles themselves,
but in another sense, they are superfluous, since the interactions can
be quantified without reference to them. Still, from a philosophical
PoV, the fields must exist, else we would have to conclude that
light-like events are not causally related, but are rather only
perceived to be. Without cause and effect we will have lost all of our
foundation for theorizing about anything, and we would be limited to
simply making a record of observations and hoping that in the patterns
that we see, and will see, that repeatability is favored by the Big
Serendipitous Accident called the universe.
These fields are not however like those of Maxwell, since as explained,
they are the particles themselves, and thus cannot obviously exist
independently of them. In a sense they are also the aether, that is,
when superposed over each other, since space, as noted by Einstein, is
actually just a reference to coordinate systems, which are a
construction of pure imagination, while the field is that which
separates. Space, field and matter are all one and the same thing.
But then it is still possible that the alternate view that there is no
cause and effect has not been ruled out, and in that view the fields
aren't necessary, though the particles are.
Richard Perry
Androcles
"RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162352295.1...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
| There is no possible physical medium that can resolve the problem of
| action at a distance, because "it's turtles all the way down" is not
| exactly a scientific sort of statement.
Ok, then we are compelled to accept that there is no possible physical
medium that can resolve the axiom of action at a distance.
Ranting won't help and Maxwell was dead before J.J. Thompson
announced the electron which blows a hole in your fantasy theories.
Androcles
Ilja Schmelzer
"shevek" <she...@yahoo.com> schrieb
> Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> > <she...@yahoo.com> schrieb
> > > It is easy enough to get the same idea across with other words
> > > such as space-time, quantum vacuum, etc. The benefit is that older
> > > ideas about the aether (which have been disproved) are then no longer
> > > associated.
> >
> > Which benefit?
> Good question. Personally, I think the problems with abonding the term
> "aether" may outweigh the benefits, one of which is to eliminate
> reference to disproved ideas.
>
> > Which disproved ideas?
> For example, that there should be an observable anisotropy in the round
> trip travel time of a light signal when the laboratory is not in the
> aether rest frame.
This idea does not exist in the Lorentz-Poincare aether.
> Also, that partices "move through" the aether, like a ball moving
> through the air.
Ideas about particles are no longer relevant in the age of quantum field
theory. Except as an old-fashioned name for excitations of quantum
fields.
> There are many theories of the aether, as outlined in e.g. Whittaker's
> excellent texts. Some are wrong. My rationalization of the current
> fear of the term is that it's use brings up some of these older ideas
> which haven't withstood the test of time.
There is no reason to fear ideas. Even old ideas may be revived.
> Even today, there are many
> people pushing aether theories that have problems.
Most of them have only one problem - they don't know modern
physics.
I have no problems caused by old ideas. Except ignorance by the
mainstream.
> By cloaking your
> ideas in newer terminology you can avoid having your readers think you
> are involved with the concepts of the aether that aren't valid.
Unfortunately, I'm involved with some really old ideas (like a preferred
frame, and like doing something very different in spatial and temporal
direction, and condensed matter models for the fields). Renaming doesn't
help here.
Ilja
RP
Weber didn't need confirmation by Thompson before postulating its
existence. It's also a matter of historical record, so sorry, no holes
in the theory as you call it. It wasn't a theory, it was simply a
statement of the historical record, one that you are free to verify.
The atom was also postulated long before it was confirmed. But actually
there are still those who dispute both, despite the arguments in favor.
I'm not however one of those. The original logic was fairly sound--the
smallest particle possible that retains the properties of the
substance.
Richard Perry
Androcles
|
| Androcles wrote:
| > "RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:1162352295.1...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
| >
| > | There is no possible physical medium that can resolve the problem of
| > | action at a distance, because "it's turtles all the way down" is not
| > | exactly a scientific sort of statement.
| >
| >
| > Ok, then we are compelled to accept that there is no possible physical
| > medium that can resolve the axiom of action at a distance.
| > Ranting won't help and Maxwell was dead before J.J. Thompson
| > announced the electron which blows a hole in your fantasy theories.
|
| Weber didn't need confirmation by Thompson before postulating its
| existence.
Androcles doesn't need Perry to postulate action at a distance is
a fundamental law of Nature.
RP
Androcles wrote:
> "RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1162388186....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> |
> | Androcles wrote:
> | > "RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> | > news:1162352295.1...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> | >
> | > | There is no possible physical medium that can resolve the problem of
> | > | action at a distance, because "it's turtles all the way down" is not
> | > | exactly a scientific sort of statement.
> | >
> | >
> | > Ok, then we are compelled to accept that there is no possible physical
> | > medium that can resolve the axiom of action at a distance.
> | > Ranting won't help and Maxwell was dead before J.J. Thompson
> | > announced the electron which blows a hole in your fantasy theories.
> |
> | Weber didn't need confirmation by Thompson before postulating its
> | existence.
>
>
> Androcles doesn't need Perry to postulate action at a distance is
> a fundamental law of Nature.
Not surprising, since Androcles is all-knowing.
Richard Perry
Hexenmeister
Ranting won't help you.
RP
I have no idea what position you're arguing. Given that you agree that
there is no intervening medium, the only objection that you might have
is that I, or rather Bohm, achieves the observable results without the
aid of a medium and even better, without the need for spinning bullets.
If it isn't testable, then it isn't physics, it's philosophy. What is
it about my model that isn't testable? It does nothing more than
predict a delay in the interaction between charges. How can we test
for the existence of your spinning bullets? What are they moving
through?
Richard Perry
Hexenmeister
Very surprising, since Perry is all-knowing.
Eric Gisse
Hexenmeister wrote:
[...]
Aww, look who nymshifted again :)
mountain man
> Unfortunately, I'm involved with some really old ideas (like a preferred
> frame, and like doing something very different in spatial and temporal
> direction, and condensed matter models for the fields). Renaming doesn't
> help here.
What do you think about the model developed by Cahill concerning
his "quantum foam" aka "space", claimed by theory to be moving at
400 k/s passed the earth/sun and into the hub of the Milky Way, with
a component moving into the sun (as a sink), and another component
moving into the earth (as a sink). Its very specific, and now claimed
to have experimental signals by which these components can be
identified.
Glad to see you're still in the world Ilja, and keep the old ideas in
constant circulation.
Best wishes for now,
Pete Brown
she...@yahoo.com
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> "shevek" <she...@yahoo.com> schrieb
> > Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> > > <she...@yahoo.com> schrieb
> > > > It is easy enough to get the same idea across with other words
> > > > such as space-time, quantum vacuum, etc. The benefit is that older
> > > > ideas about the aether (which have been disproved) are then no longer
> > > > associated.
> > >
> > > Which benefit?
>
> > Good question. Personally, I think the problems with abonding the term
> > "aether" may outweigh the benefits, one of which is to eliminate
> > reference to disproved ideas.
> >
> > > Which disproved ideas?
>
> > For example, that there should be an observable anisotropy in the round
> > trip travel time of a light signal when the laboratory is not in the
> > aether rest frame.
>
> This idea does not exist in the Lorentz-Poincare aether.
>
I agree entirely.
> > Also, that partices "move through" the aether, like a ball moving
> > through the air.
>
> Ideas about particles are no longer relevant in the age of quantum field
> theory. Except as an old-fashioned name for excitations of quantum
> fields.
>
I think you have a good point. However, the concept of "particles" is
quite important and depends on your scale of interest. If you are
studying galactic dynamics, a star is a particle. Population dynamics,
a person is a particle. If you are studying gas dynamics, a molecule
is a particle. If you are studying field theory in the quantum vacuum,
an aether constituent is a particle. There are always particles at the
"microscopic" regime of any system we consider, unless true atoms
exist.
> > There are many theories of the aether, as outlined in e.g. Whittaker's
> > excellent texts. Some are wrong. My rationalization of the current
> > fear of the term is that it's use brings up some of these older ideas
> > which haven't withstood the test of time.
>
> There is no reason to fear ideas. Even old ideas may be revived.
>
Again I agree.. however I fear some conservative editors would not.
> > Even today, there are many
> > people pushing aether theories that have problems.
>
> Most of them have only one problem - they don't know modern
> physics.
>
> I have no problems caused by old ideas. Except ignorance by the
> mainstream.
>
Sometimes words go out of favor, and often not for rational reasons.
Though I have tried to come up with some reasons for the negativity
often associated with the word "aether", I agree with you and try to
increase its reputation whenever possible.
> > By cloaking your
> > ideas in newer terminology you can avoid having your readers think you
> > are involved with the concepts of the aether that aren't valid.
>
> Unfortunately, I'm involved with some really old ideas (like a preferred
> frame, and like doing something very different in spatial and temporal
> direction, and condensed matter models for the fields). Renaming doesn't
> help here.
>
I am interested in your ideas, not so much the language you use to
describe them. But the two are actually quite difficult to separate.
Incidentally, that is something else Einstein got wrong at one point:
"The words of language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem to
play any role in my mechanism of thought. The physical entities which
seem to serve as elements in thought are certain signs and more or less
clear images." - A. Einstein
Not a linguist, was he.
Thanks - shevek
Ilja Schmelzer
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> schrieb
> What do you think about the model developed by Cahill concerning
> his "quantum foam" aka "space",
Nothing, because I don't know it.
AFAIU quantum foam, it is more a problem than a solution. A problem
which appears if you try to quantize GR. And which does not appear
in my theory, because my theory has a classical fixed background.
Without such a fixed background, it seems, you have to quantize
space itself, and the resulting uncertain space (with uncertain and
varying topology) is sometimes named foam. I'm glad that I do
not have to consider such things in my approach.
> claimed by theory to be moving at
> 400 k/s passed the earth/sun and into the hub of the Milky Way, with
> a component moving into the sun (as a sink), and another component
> moving into the earth (as a sink).
I don't understand what you mean.
Ilja
Ilja Schmelzer
> > > Also, that partices "move through" the aether, like a ball moving
> > > through the air.
> >
> > Ideas about particles are no longer relevant in the age of quantum field
> > theory. Except as an old-fashioned name for excitations of quantum
> > fields.
> I think you have a good point. However, the concept of "particles" is
> quite important and depends on your scale of interest. If you are
> studying galactic dynamics, a star is a particle. Population dynamics,
> a person is a particle. If you are studying gas dynamics, a molecule
> is a particle. If you are studying field theory in the quantum vacuum,
> an aether constituent is a particle. There are always particles at the
> "microscopic" regime of any system we consider, unless true atoms
> exist.
Ok, my point was only that the "particles" of particle theory (leptons,
quarks, gauge bosons) are only excitations of the related fields,
similar to phonons in quantum condensed matter theory.
BTW, the constituents of my ether are not particles but elementary
cells. Their state may be described by an affine transformation
(say from a standard reference state).
> > There is no reason to fear ideas. Even old ideas may be revived.
> Again I agree.. however I fear some conservative editors would not.
;-))
> > Unfortunately, I'm involved with some really old ideas (like a preferred
> > frame, and like doing something very different in spatial and temporal
> > direction, and condensed matter models for the fields). Renaming doesn't
> > help here.
> I am interested in your ideas, not so much the language you use to
> describe them.
Have you seen <e4ed3k$h23$1...@sycamore.fernuni-hagen.de>?
I have understood now the gauge groups, can compute the
gauge group of the standard model to be a subgroup of
U(3)_c + U(2)_L + U(1)_em.
> "The words of language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem to
> play any role in my mechanism of thought. The physical entities which
> seem to serve as elements in thought are certain signs and more or less
> clear images." - A. Einstein
Close to my own thinking.
Ilja
Jeff…Relf
Time_Space_Energy ( 5-D ) is the ground state ( a.k.a. the ether, the sea ).
How many spatial dimensions you can observe depends on how far you zoom out.
For example, cosmological time is the best way to see the energy dimension.
Yet, in theory, X oscillations of a laser could define the kilogram.
It's a _Hard_Ass_ fact that time is the first spatial dimension because
nothing could ever be truly random.
Therefore, all changes ( including so-called " choices " ) are _Virtual_.
Where are the _Real_ choices ? To Live/Die faster or slower ? no.
Each is imprisoned in a virtual casino... in then end, the house takes all.
The cosmic _God_ ( infinite in power and knoweldge ) is infinitely remote.
A God/Devil is whatever has Life/Death control over something.
Eric Gisse
Jeff...Relf wrote:
[...snip idiotic word salad...]
You are too stupid. Go back to harassing comp.os.linux.advocacy with
your idiocy.
T Wake
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2...@Cotse.NET...
> Hi Laurent, Speaking of Einstein's ether ( a.k.a. spacetime )...
>
> Time_Space_Energy ( 5-D ) is the ground state ( a.k.a. the ether, the
> sea ).
Nope.
> How many spatial dimensions you can observe depends on how far you zoom
> out.
Incorrect. Please spend some time learning what spatial dimensions *are* and
what evidence we[tinw] have as to how many of them there are.
> For example, cosmological time is the best way to see the energy
> dimension.
> Yet, in theory, X oscillations of a laser could define the kilogram.
Word Salad.
> It's a _Hard_Ass_ fact that time is the first spatial dimension because
> nothing could ever be truly random.
Nonsense based on false reasoning stemming from a total lack of
understanding.
Laurent
Eric Gisse wrote:
> Laurent wrote:
>
>
> You write a lot about a subject that does not exist...
Right. It isn't matter, therefore, can't exist... yet, it is...
Hey, is empty space real? Is it measurable? Can it be detected?
No?
Then, why is it considered real by your physics?
;)
--
Laurent
Laurent
FrediFizzx wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:Uiq1h.216310$FQ1.43308@attbi_s71...
> > she...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> >>> Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and
> >>> Relativity
> >>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
> >>>
> >>> Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some
> >>> injudicious comments to the effect that relativity theory
> >>> could be said
> >>> to ascribe physical properties to spacetime itself, and in
> >>> that sense,
> >>> to involve a kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the
> >>> kind of
> >>> "aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in
> >>> the
> >>> nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon
> >>> ever since,
> >>> by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence
> >>> that
> >>> "gtr is an aether theory".
> >>
> >>
> >> I see you like that quote.
> >>
> >> Could you tell us more as to how GTR is not an aether theory?
> >>
> >> Bear in mind that every point in space, even in vacuum, is ascribed
> >> by
> >> GTR quantitative physical characterstics via a metric tensor or
> >> Christoffel connection.
> >>
> >> Also bear in mind that these fields (as all fields) can be described
> >> as
> >> moments of a statistical distribution of microscopic constituents.
> >>
> >> I agree with Einstein that the working definition of "aether" is
> >> broad
> >> enough to include such characteristics. The use of the indefinite
> >> article makes it very difficult to refute that "GTR is an aether
> >> theory". - shevek
> >>
> >
> > Pretty much boils down to what different people mean by the word
> > "ether"
> > doesn't it?
>
> Sure. ;-)
>
> Volovik says it like it is very well in his book "The Universe in a
> Helium Droplet" page 461 sect. 33 Conclusion;
>
> "According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
> neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium
> called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century.
> The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields
> transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent
> different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."
>
> I think perhaps that it is pretty silly to think that anything at all
> "couples" to space or spacetime. Space is merely the stage for the
> quantum "actors" to play on. Quantum objects couple to each other. The
> left hand side of the EFE, Guv = Tuv, is describing the interactional
> geometry of quantum objects. And there are probably some quantum
> objects involved that we don't know about yet.
And these quantum actors come from where? Or do you believe in creation
ex nihilo?
Empty space is like a point, dimensionless, yet, it contains the
universe.
--
Laurent
>
> FrediFizzx
>
> Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
> http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
> or postscript
> http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
> http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
> http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Laurent
Those are flowing space theories, and they are probably the best
representation of what's going on. It not only says how gravity works,
but also what it is. But that space is material space, or what is now
called CBR, Einstein's backgroundless universe does not see space as
matter, his Aether, the one described in his 1920 essay, is immaterial.
The space in Einstein's spacetime is material, though, and that's the
space Cahill plays with.
--
Laurent
G=EMC^2 Glazier
dynamic part of the universe Bert
Laurent
maxwell wrote:
> I preferred your earlier view - don't invent concepts for things that
> can't be measured: a very sound basis for developing science (thank
> you, Occam). There has long been a psychological preference for
> causation = touching, hence the aether. The original Maxwell also
> started out (1864) with analyzing asynchronous action-at-a-distance
> (AAAD) but his religious motivations drove him to focus on all the
> points in space where there was nothing, except his Sandemanian god .
> Since he did not know about the particulate existence of electricity
> (electrons) this was a valid mistake. I agree that we need to refocus
> on AAAD.
Hegel: "...the idea that the two basic factors in nature are what Hegel
calls the 'aether' and 'matter'. The 'aether' is the way the absolute
appears most basically in nature as 'unity' and it develops into
'difference' in various ways (or as the 'universal' that is
differentiated into 'particularities'); the aether develops itself into
'matter' and this 'matter' then develops itself into the various
appearances of nature."
>From Hegel's biography: "In the draft of his 'Logic' in 1804, Hegel
returned again to the philosophy of nature, taking up the same themes,
such as the appeal to a dynamic of an 'aether' or 'absolute matter'.
"...in the 1805-06 draft of the 'system'...Hegel opened the section on
nature with the statement that his conceptions of 'absolute matter or
the aether'...are equivalent in meaning to pure spirit, for this
absolute matter is nothing sensuous but rather the concept as pure
concept within itself, spirit existing as such. 'Absolute nmatter',
that is, is not something that we empirically encounter in the
observation of nature; it is a 'posit', an 'ideality, the 'totality'
presupposed by the more determinate explanations offered by the
physicists".
--
Laurent
Laurent
"AETHER, or ETHER (Gr. I burn, though
Plato in his Cratylns (410 B) derives the name from its perpetual
motionart, a substance of a more subtle kind than visible bodies,
supposed to exist in those parts of space which are apparently
empty.
The hypothesis of an aether has been maintained by different
speculators for very different reasons. To those who maintained the
existence of a plenum as a philosophical principle, nature's
abhorrence of a vacuum was a sufficient reason for imagining an
all-surrounding aether, even though every other argument should be
against it. To Descartes, who made extension the sole essential
property of matter, and matter a necessary condition of extension,
the bare existence of bodies apparently at a distance was a proof of
the existence of a continuous medium between them. But besides these
high metaphysical necessities for a medium, there were more mundane
uses to be fulfilled by aethers. Aethers were invented for the
planets to swim in, to constitute electric atmospheres and magnetic
effluvia..."
Quote from - http://68.1911encyclopedia.org/A/AE/AETHER.htm