Information and the Aether
Laurent
The aether, consists of basic, changeless, motionless fixed values
(laws), from which everything else, including meaningful information,
is being created as spacetime.
When you think about the infinite capacity of EM waves to store and
propagate information, you have to ask yourself, why should we go
sub-quantum when the quantum level and spacetime provide us with such
a rich structure (Television, cell phones, radio, virtual particles
and all EMR).
How can information contained as all kinds of geometrical
relationships, ratios within ratios, that are evident or real only in
spacetime, be created, stored and accessed by process, at a
sub-quantum level?
The aether is what makes the magnetic, electric and gravitational
fields react to each other and other phenomena (charge, mass...) the
manner in which they do, as autopoeisis occurs.
Some of the information about the environment (about the Universe)
comes from the aether, as it rules the whole Universe, all at once,
with just a few fundamental laws (constants), but most of it is stored
in spacetime. Thanks to the wholeness of the aether this information
can be transmitted instantaneously as wave dimensions (through wave
superposition), allowing at the same time all kinds of emergent
informational systems to observe themselves in wholeness, consequently
helping them to evolve.
Particle complementarity is due to an indivisible process which
originates in a common background, but the only necessary information
being transferred (through EMR in hyperspace) from the aether to the
particles is that concerning momentum and location in relation with
that inertial frame and the rest of Universe. There is no need for
some mega information storage system which must contain the history of
the Universe, all the information needed for the evolution of the
system in spacetime is contained by the system itself - in spacetime.
I don't see all the information that comprises a material system
coming from the 'implicate order', every object exists as a solid body
coupled to a matter-wave, and its displacement through space must be
described by a wave-function, information about the object's relation
to its surroundings and the rest of the Universe is picked and
brought-in by each object's particular pilot-wave. I see Hiley's
pre-space as synonymous to the aether, but in my view the aether has
no capacity to hold any information, just qualities which are turned
into quantities by matter in spacetime.
So Quantum Mechanics' big mystery was - why do I have to observe the
cat in order to know whether it's dead or alive? And the answer is
that our brains are measuring devices, just like the rest of all
matter. We are the best measuring device that ever emerged from all
the information processing that has transcurred in our neighborhood to
this date. Interactions within the system (brain) depend on more than
the information it gets through its five senses, there is an
interaction occurring at a deeper level between the system and its
environment.
The medium in which any given self-organized system is developing is
full of information which the system needs and will use in order to
maintain itself. Matter is not different, it can be defined as a
self-organized system, and the medium in which it develops is full of
information in the form of EMR. Any given neutron will need to extract
from hyperspace only the information a neutron would need to support
its structure.
The fact that this information is gathered in hyperspace makes it a
non-local function. This function was defined by Bohm's quantum
potential as a holistic awareness function of matter, as he explained
EPR type phenomena (entanglement, non-locality, FTL communication...).
If we allow for three different scales of reality with the aether as
an eternal substrate for hyperspace and spacetime, it can be done. We
could say that the aether, hyperspace and spacetime are all different
states of the same entity, the difference between them is a matter of
scale. At the aether scale (sub-quantum) there are no reference
points, no meaningful motion, no time, no wave fronts... then at a
larger scale it becomes hyperspace and we get EM waves, strings/branes
and the quantum with it, and, finally, at an even larger scale we get
Einstein's spacetime, the objective Universe as we naturally perceive
it.
1) The Aether - (Sub-quantum level), dimensionless, eternal. Hawking's
singularities or Hiley's 'pre-space'. Previously considered as an
entity by great minds like Maxwell, Lorentz, Einstein... and more
recently as the implicate order or pre-space by Bohm, Hiley and
others.
2) Hyperspace - (Quantum level). Wheeler's pre-geometry, Kaku's
hyperspace, CBR, ZPF...
3) Spacetime - (Classical level). Gravity, spacetime... the objective
Universe.
When we rotate the plane of polarization in a beam of light the whole
beam changes at once, instantaneously, so what kind of medium is this
aether? Is it a particulated fluid, a super-elastic gel or, a
hyper-solid?
The aether is non-dimensional. Events occurring within the aether
occur without motion, but the manifestations we have in hyperspace,
and the objective reduction of matter-waves into spacetime are
ultimately ruled by laws coming from the aether's intrinsic
electromagnetic properties.
If we could conceive reality to have started with a substance made of
this non-material (because neither time nor length apply to it)
indivisible stuff (that makes the points that make the lines that make
the strings that make the quanta that makes the quarks...) from where
hyperspace emerged (sharing the properties of both - the aether's
omnipresence, and spacetime's linear time, motion and information
processing), and finally we got spacetime as reference points emerged,
which contains the properties of all three scales or realms. What else
could we ask for?
It's an indivisible (or infinitely divisible), eternal singularity
which has inflated and stretched to what the Universe is today. It has
no parts and no process within it - it is the process. Motion, time,
extension, order, size, beginning or ending are notions that do not
apply, and yet everything is made from it, even space.
If space were what Newton thought it was, non-locality would have been
a very hard thing to understand. (That's why action at a distance
seemed like an absurd to Newton, since, in his view, there was no way
an object could exist in two different places at the same time.)
To us (at spacetime scale) it seems as if it became a bunch of
unrelated separated entities, but in reality it's all connected
through the all pervading aether, even the most desolated regions of
the Universe are part of the one single process that started it all,
it's all made from the same aether that gave birth to it. Everything
that changes will experience inertial forces, simply because in
reality there is only one process (the Uni-verse) from where a myriad
of informational nodes (objects) evolved to become apparently
separated systems.
For any process to continue evolving there must be internal oversight
as a whole, which is only possible if all the parts are
interconnected, and that can be a huge problem when we are talking
about a system the size of the Universe. We knew it had to be a
non-local function, and this is only possible because of that oneness
quality which we have only at the aether scale.
Action at a distance does appear to happen at spacetime level, where
objects exist embedded in a coordinate system (metric) defined by the
continuous functions of four independent variables (4D). Extension and
separation are properties of spacetime, but at the aether level action
at a distance does not make sense because there exists no separation,
the aether is one, it has no parts and it lacks the properties of time
and extension.
Within the aether, motion/information/momentum is reported
instantaneously, distance doesn't apply, the aether has no parts, no
units, it is one. Within hyperspace, we have only EMR, where
information propagation is limited by moving mass (process) to the
speed of light. Within spacetime most things obey Newton's motion
laws, but thanks to the non-material properties and holistic nature of
the aether, everything is non-locally interconnected to everything
else in its neighborhood and the rest of the observable Universe. So
motion (or information propagation), at this level, is instantaneous.
The holographic properties and the instantaneous information
propagation properties of momentum space are what make possible
phenomena like inertia.
There is no process within the aether itself because it has no parts,
but there aren't separate processes going on within it either. The
aether is motionless therefore changeless. It can act as electrons,
atoms, planets... but it is still the aether. Everything is made from
it, from quanta to galaxies to space. The aether is the process
itself, and it is an autopoeitic process. All the parts are made from
the aether, it is one determinable but indeterministic self-creating
process... or determinism within randomness.
How could matter emerge out of nothingness? This is the reason we need
the notion of an aether, it's the physicalists' God! The aether is the
substrate to all there is, it provides the unity needed for the
information to be transferred. This information is ruled by the laws
of spacetime, laws by which the structure is going to be held intact
in spacetime only if/when the spatial relationships are maintained in
spacetime. These basic laws or qualities of the aether are the same
fundamental laws that rule EM fields.
--
Laurent
Old Physics
From a tiny displacement in it. Euclidean space is made of 10^51
gms/cc of "antimass aether". Aether decays into long wave light which
over a large enough volume, 10^15 LYs in diameter, collapses 1K
radiation into matter. All you need after that is a way to cool the
universe down, kenetic decay, and you have a stable, oscillating,
island universe (one of an infinite number).
> it, from quanta to galaxies to space. The aether is the process
> itself, and it is an autopoeitic process. All the parts are made from
> the aether, it is one determinable but indeterministic self-creating
> process... or determinism within randomness.
>
> How could matter emerge out of nothingness? This is the reason we need
> the notion of an aether, it's the physicalists' God! The aether is the
Amen Mr. Laurent. The aether IS the unified field. sk
Jeremy
news:d5a39ff6.03062...@posting.google.com...
The aether is a swirling vortex that sucks people into the bowels of Hell.
Tom Roberts
> The aether, consists of basic, changeless, motionless fixed values
> (laws), from which everything else, including meaningful information,
> is being created as spacetime.
Hmmm. If your claims were correct, don't you think it strange that no
mainstream theory of physics includes such an aether? Don't you think it
stranger still that nobody has presented a sensible theory that both
includes an aether and agrees with the experimental record? Those of us
that do physics have concluded that this latter point indicates that
there most likely is no such thing as an aether....
The primary argument against the aether, IMHO, is that nobody has ever
come up with a way it can be consistent with quantum phenomena (much
less "cause" them). For instance, EVERYTHING we have ever observed is
quantized -- no continuous substance or object has EVER been observed
(when examined closely enough). How can you reconcile this with your
notion of aether above?
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
greywolf42
Tom Roberts <tjro...@Lucent.com> wrote in message
news:3EFAEDED...@Lucent.com...
> On 6/25/2003 4:53 PM, Laurent wrote:
> > The aether, consists of basic, changeless, motionless fixed values
> > (laws), from which everything else, including meaningful information,
> > is being created as spacetime.
>
> Hmmm. If your claims were correct, don't you think it strange that no
> mainstream theory of physics includes such an aether?
It's not "strange." Fashion is enforced.
> Don't you think it
> stranger still that nobody has presented a sensible theory that both
> includes an aether and agrees with the experimental record?
The bold-faced lie, again.
> Those of us
> that do physics have concluded that this latter point indicates that
> there most likely is no such thing as an aether....
When you start by assuming a deliberate lie, your conclusions are of
necessity incorrect.
>
> The primary argument against the aether, IMHO, is that nobody has ever
> come up with a way it can be consistent with quantum phenomena (much
> less "cause" them).
Deliberate lie, again.
> For instance, EVERYTHING we have ever observed is
> quantized -- no continuous substance or object has EVER been observed
This, from a die-hard relativist. SR and GR are pure continuum theories!
> (when examined closely enough). How can you reconcile this with your
> notion of aether above?
His notion of "aether" is a space-time continuum. And here I claimed only
a day or two ago that only relativists believed in a continuous aether. :(
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Dwhig265
Hi'
You've used a lot of wind to describe the dark energy we all know exists buy
can't be observed. I myself have been calling it the copyrighted "quantum
aspect" which is everywhere in the background of our material/spatial aspect,
dominated by quantum weirdness, having instantaneousness as a common thread,
and no dimensions, since 1990. So what?
The big deal was figuring out what else is going on, which I have done!
Regards, Dwain W. Higginbotham
Laurent
We are effectively just talking about the vacuum state of any quantum
field theory. Our concept of an "aether" has been integrated into
physics for a very long time.
You can call it the long winded vacuum state of quantum field theory.
I'd prefer to use the shorter word Aether though. The term aether
isn't used since it harkens back to the idea of a fluid medium, which
is very misleading. A vacuum state is exactly what it sounds like, the
quantum mechanical state of the vacuum.
But is that vacuum considered a thing? Is it real? I suppose it is,
since how could it be in any given state if it wasn't real? Is it real
even though it isn't material?
It is real and it's called the Aether. Spacetime is, in a way, a
product of the aether, this is why we say the aether is the substrate
to all matter and space.
--
Laurent
------------------------------------------------
From - ETHER AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY
http://www.blavatsky.net/confirm/ev/ether/etherEinstein.htm
<< 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 upon the 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. 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)
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.edge.org/documents/day/day_guth.html
<< The inflationary universe theory is an add-on to the standard Big
Bang theory, and basically what it adds on is a description of what
drove the universe into expansion in the first place. In the classic
version of the Big Bang theory, that expansion was put in as part of
the initial assumptions, so there's no explanation for it whatever.
The classical Big Bang theory was never really a theory of a bang; it
was really a theory about the aftermath of a bang. Inflation provides
a possible answer to the question of what made the universe bang, and
now it looks like it's almost certainly the right answer.
Inflationary theory takes advantage of results from modern particle
physics, which predicts that at very high energies there should exist
peculiar kinds of substances which actually turn gravity on its head
and produce repulsive gravitational forces. The inflationary
explanation is the idea that the early universe contains at least a
patch of this peculiar substance. It turns out that all you need is a
patch; it can actually be more than a billion times smaller than a
proton. But once such a patch exists, its own gravitational repulsion
causes it to grow, rapidly becoming large enough to encompass the
entire observed universe.
The inflationary theory gives a simple explanation for the uniformity
of the observed universe, because in the inflationary model the
universe starts out incredibly tiny. There was plenty of time for such
a tiny region to reach a uniform temperature and uniform density, by
the same mechanisms through which the air in a room reaches a uniform
density throughout the room. And if you isolated a room and let it sit
long enough, it will reach a uniform temperature as well. For the tiny
universe with which the inflationary model begins, there is enough
time in the early history of the universe for these mechanisms to
work, causing the universe to become almost perfectly uniform. Then
inflation takes over and magnifies this tiny region to become large
enough to encompass the entire universe, maintaining this uniformity
as the expansion takes place. >>
------ Alan Guth
-----------------------------------------------------------------
www.newscientist.com/hottopics/quantum/quantum.jsp?id=23154400
<< And there is a curious pointer to something deeper. Quantum physics
is famed for its "non-locality": the fact that it is not possible to
characterise the physical situation at a point in space without
reference to the state of the system in the wider surroundings. The
quantum vacuum is no exception, since its state is defined across all
of space. This enables it to "feel" the structure of the entire
Universe, and thereby to link the global and the local in precisely
the manner that Mach had in mind. This nonlocality hints at a possible
connection between local physics and distant matter in the Universe -
a connection that could be mediated by the quantum ether. Among other
things, it could explain why we share an absolute frame of
acceleration with the distant stars. >>
------- Paul Davies
Paul Cardinale
[snip]
> For instance, EVERYTHING we have ever observed is
> quantized -- no continuous substance or object has EVER been observed
> (when examined closely enough).
I think you misused the word 'everything'. There are 'things' that
are neither substances nor objects (forces, spectra, distances,
gravity, ...).
Paul Cardinale
wchogg
That's all fine and dandy to hypothesize this, but you really need to
provide a way to make predictions. If I call the medium in which light
propagates a dynamic vaccuum state of a QFT, then I have an entire
formalism to calculate propagation, creation & annhilation, and scattering
of particles. I can calculate lifetimes, crossections, interaction rates.
In my formalism I can analyze changes to my Lagrangian, I can examine how
different assumptions create different physics, I can build
phenomenological models with effective field theories. I can see if my
formalism fits new data or is falsified by it.
What can you do?
--
William C. Hogg
Jeremy
news:3EFAEDED...@Lucent.com...
> Hmmm. If your claims were correct, don't you think it strange that no
> mainstream theory of physics includes such an aether? Don't you think it
> stranger still that nobody has presented a sensible theory that both
> includes an aether and agrees with the experimental record? Those of us
> that do physics have concluded that this latter point indicates that
> there most likely is no such thing as an aether....
Well obviously it's all part of the conspiracy!
FrediFizzx
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.030626...@ups.physics.wisc.edu...
"dynamic vaccuum state of a QFT"? Why not just call all of that the ether?
FrediFizzx
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vfm4oes...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@Lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:3EFAEDED...@Lucent.com...
[snip]
> > The primary argument against the aether, IMHO, is that
> > nobody has ever come up with a way it can be consistent
> > with quantum phenomena (much less "cause" them).
>
> Deliberate lie, again.
Hehe...
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Deliberate.html
Nice, again.
Dirk Vdm
wchogg
Because one has a precise meaning, and the other does not. QFT is a
specific framework for particle physics, the vacuum state is the state
annihilated by all annihilation operators, this is the mathematical
description of vaccuum in any QFT. Can you give me a mathematical
definition of "ether" which is viable for any possible particle content or
interactions of the theory?
--
William C. Hogg
Bilge
>| provide a way to make predictions. If I call the medium in which light
>| propagates a dynamic vaccuum state of a QFT, then I have an entire
>| formalism to calculate propagation, creation & annhilation, and scattering
>| of particles. I can calculate lifetimes, crossections, interaction rates.
>| In my formalism I can analyze changes to my Lagrangian, I can examine how
>| different assumptions create different physics, I can build
>| phenomenological models with effective field theories. I can see if my
>| formalism fits new data or is falsified by it.
>
>"dynamic vaccuum state of a QFT"? Why not just call all of that the ether?
Primarily because it isn't anything like the ether and doesn't serve
any of the functionality for which the ether was conceived. There is no
frame that represents the "vacuum frame". It's rather hard to imagine
how two particles could pass each other rather closely at some arbitrary
relative velocity and still see the vacuum the same way if the vacuum
were any kind of medium. Referring to the vacuum as the ether would be
somewhat less accurate than giving H.G. Wells credit for describing
general relativity and wormholes in "The Time Machine".
greywolf42
Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:3efc...@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
These non-response insults are so pathetically cowardly.
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vfor3a9...@corp.supernews.com...
Insults?
How can fun be insulting?
Don't you think that everyone deserves the right to be mocked?
Aren't you proud to shine amongst Usenet's funniest?
Where is your sense of humour?
Don't *you* find someone who calls an opinion a lie funny?
Dirk - careful, this is no lie - Vdm
greywolf42
I notice you didn't dispute that your responses are cowardly.
Humour requires wit. Logically, then, you cannot be funny.
FrediFizzx
ether?
|
| Because one has a precise meaning, and the other does not. QFT is a
| specific framework for particle physics, the vacuum state is the state
| annihilated by all annihilation operators, this is the mathematical
| description of vaccuum in any QFT. Can you give me a mathematical
| definition of "ether" which is viable for any possible particle content or
| interactions of the theory?
I think you missed my point. I am saying maybe the mathematical
descriptions of the ether are contained in the same mathematical
descriptions for QFT as a "dynamic" vacuum state. Sure, QFT has all "real"
particles annihilated in the vacuum, but it sure should have a near infinite
number of "non-real" pairs of all sorts. And these pairs should be
fluctuating all the time ala HUP. The properties for spacetime have to come
from something. Why not these pairs? Maybe these vacuum "non-real" pairs
carry the geometry for spacetime.
FrediFizzx
FrediFizzx
news:slrnbforap....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Does there need to be a frame that represents the "vacuum frame"? I don't
see how that would be possible if it is to be truely "dynamic". See my
reply to wchogg. There is no way that we can tag a particle to see if it is
the same particle that started at point A and ended up at point B. The
medium would be the "non-real" pairs of the vacuum state. I really don't
see why an electron couldn't swap with the electron of a "non-real" pair.
FrediFizzx
Bill Hobba
> The aether, consists of basic, changeless, motionless fixed values
> (laws), from which everything else, including meaningful information,
> is being created as spacetime.
>
And the peer reviewed paper detailing the detection of this marvelous thing
is located at? BTW please let me know at least the name of the person that
has detected it so I can be on the lookout for them when they get their
Nobel prize.
Laurent wrote:
> When you think about the infinite capacity of EM waves to store and
> propagate information,
Ever hear of a guy called Shannon?
Thanks
Bill
Laurent
(laws), from which everything else, including meaningful
information, is being created as spacetime.
When you think about the infinite capacity of EM waves to store and
propagate information, you have to ask yourself, why should we go
sub-quantum when the quantum level and spacetime provide us with
such a rich structure (Television, cell phones, radio, virtual
particles and all EMR).
How can information contained as all kinds of geometrical
relationships, ratios within ratios, that are evident or real only
in spacetime, be created, stored and accessed by process, at a
sub-quantum level?
The aether is what makes the magnetic, electric and gravitational
fields react to each other and other phenomena (charge, mass...) the
manner in which they do, as autopoeisis occurs.
Some of the information about the environment (about the Universe)
comes from the aether, as it rules the whole Universe, all at once,
with just a few fundamental laws (constants), but most of it is
stored in spacetime. Thanks to the wholeness of the aether this
information can be transmitted instantaneously as wave dimensions
(through wave superposition), allowing at the same time all kinds of
emergent informational systems to observe themselves in wholeness,
consequently helping them to evolve.
If we allow for three different scales of reality with the aether as
is made from it, from quanta to galaxies to space. The aether is the
process itself, and it is an autopoeitic process. All the parts are
made from the aether, it is one determinable but indeterministic
self-creating process... or determinism within randomness.
How could matter emerge out of nothingness? This is the reason we
need the notion of an aether, it's the physicalists' God! The aether
is the substrate to all there is, it provides the unity needed for
the information to be transferred. This information is ruled by the
laws of spacetime, laws by which the structure is going to be held
intact in spacetime only if/when the spatial relationships are
maintained in spacetime. These basic laws or qualities of the aether
are the same fundamental laws that rule EM fields.
--
Laurent
Dharma Fog
Laurent wrote:
[snip]
> How could matter emerge out of nothingness? This is the reason we
> need the notion of an aether, it's the physicalists' God! The aether
> is the substrate to all there is, it provides the unity needed for
> the information to be transferred. This information is ruled by the
> laws of spacetime, laws by which the structure is going to be held
> intact in spacetime only if/when the spatial relationships are
> maintained in spacetime. These basic laws or qualities of the aether
> are the same fundamental laws that rule EM fields.
But we don't need the ether or your god.
Ronald Stepp
news:_L6dnSn2q_S...@comcast.com...
> The aether, consists of basic, changeless, motionless fixed values
It's always pathetic to see people stuck in the dark ages....
Laurent
"Dharma Fog" <Dhar...@VirtualMachines.COM> wrote in message
news:3F0198FF...@VirtualMachines.COM...
What do you need to fully understand reality, a Bible?
--
Laurent
Laurent
"Ronald Stepp" <rst...@sw.rr.com> wrote in message
news:KEiMa.40723$xg5...@twister.austin.rr.com...
I know, specially when you see people stuck with Newton's space and
time concepts.
--
Laurent
Robert J. Kolker
Laurent wrote:
> The aether, consists of basic, changeless, motionless fixed values
> (laws), from which everything else, including meaningful
> information, is being created as spacetime.
A law only exists in the mind(brain?) of a sentient. Nature is what it
is. Laws describe what we think nature is.
You confuse the map with the territory.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Most of us have graduated to Minkowsky space-time.
You still have not told us what aether is, what it consists of or how
to observe it. What are its measureable properties. And if it exists how
come it does not slow planets down as they move about?
Bob Kolker
> --
> Laurent
>
>
Laurent
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3F01BAD6...@comcast.net...
Yes I did, in multiple occasions. I said it is immaterial, hence not
observable, not measurable. The aether is not in spacetime, but
spacetime depends on it.
The aether helps determine things like the ratio of the electric
displacement in free space, to the intensity of the electric field
producing it (e0), or the ratio of the magnetic flux density, in
free space, to the external field strength, (m0). But it itself is
not observable, you can't say - here, lets take a look at this
aether! - because it is immaterial, real but not in spacetime, real
but not perceptible. This is why MMX failed so miserably.
We are effectively just talking about the vacuum state of any
quantum field theory. Our concept of an "aether" has been integrated
into physics for a very long time.
You can call it the long winded vacuum state of quantum field
theory. I'd prefer to use the shorter word Aether though. The term
aether isn't used since it harkens back to the idea of a fluid
medium, which is very misleading. A vacuum state is exactly what it
sounds like, the quantum mechanical state of the vacuum.
But is that vacuum considered a thing? Is it real? I suppose it is,
since how could it be in any given state if it wasn't real? Is it
real even though it isn't material?
It is real and it's called the Aether. Spacetime is, in a way, a
product of the aether, this is why we say the aether is the
substrate to all matter and space.
--
Laurent
>
> Bob Kolker
>
>
> > --
> > Laurent
> >
> >
>
Jamieson Christie
> Yes I did, in multiple occasions. I said it is immaterial, hence not
> observable, not measurable. The aether is not in spacetime, but
> spacetime depends on it.
>
> The aether helps determine things like the ratio of the electric
> displacement in free space, to the intensity of the electric field
> producing it (e0), or the ratio of the magnetic flux density, in
> free space, to the external field strength, (m0). But it itself is
> not observable, you can't say - here, lets take a look at this
> aether! - because it is immaterial, real but not in spacetime, real
> but not perceptible. This is why MMX failed so miserably.
First you say that the aether is not observable or measurable, then you say
it affects quantities like e0 and m0, which are measured and observed.
Which is it?
Also, if the aether *does* affect e0 and m0, exactly how does it do so?
What would the values of e0 and m0 be if the aether did not exist? Show us
the maths.
Jamieson Christie
Dharma Fog
Laurent wrote:
[snip]
>
> What do you need to fully understand reality, a Bible?
>
Reproducible physical measurements.
Laurent
"Jamieson Christie" <jk...@NOSPAM.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:bdsg9n$6ks$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
We are effectively just talking about the vacuum state of any
quantum field theory. Our concept of an "aether" has been integrated
into physics for a very long time.
You can call it the long winded vacuum state of quantum field
theory. I'd prefer to use the shorter word Aether though. The term
aether isn't used since it harkens back to the idea of a fluid
medium, which is very misleading. A vacuum state is exactly what it
sounds like, the quantum mechanical state of the vacuum.
But is that vacuum considered a thing? Is it real? I suppose it is,
since how could it be in any given state if it wasn't real? Is it
real even though it isn't material?
It is real and it's called the Aether. Spacetime is, in a way, a
product of the aether, this is why we say the aether is the
substrate to all matter and space.
--
Laurent
-----------------------------------------------------------
<< Free space can be characterised by the fact that the velocity of
light through it is always = to c. It also has the electrical
properties of capacitive and inductive capacity. That is space can
store or transmit energy. The velocity of light in free space can be
calculated using these two electrical properties.
c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep).....Uo is the permeability and Ep is the
permittivity.
An additional characteristic of space which is also a definite
physical constant is that of impedance. The impedance, has the
dimensions of resistance as given by Zr = sqr(Uo/Ep). >>
----- M. Wales
http://www.fervor.demon.co.uk/
----------------------------------------------------
relativation. >> ---- A.E.
<< ...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
<< ...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
-----------------------------------------------------
Excerpts from - "The Classical Vacuum" - by Timothy H. Boyer,
Scientific American, August 1985, pp. 70-78.
<< It is not empty. Even when all matter and heat radiation have
been removed from a region of space, the vacuum of classical physics
remains filled with a distinctive pattern of electromagnetic fields
>>
<<Wien's calculation of the change in the spectrum as a result of a
change in volume indicates that the thermal radiation resists such
compression; it increases in temperature and exerts a greater
pressure against the piston. When the same analysis is made for the
zero-point radiation, however, the result is different: the
zero-point spectrum does not change at all in response to
compression. Indeed, a spectrum described by a cubic curve is the
only one that has this remarkable property. >> --- T. Boyer
<< One way of understanding the effect of acceleration on the
harmonic oscillator is to ask what additional electromagnetic
spectrum could be added to the zero-point radiation to cause the
extra motion. To answer this question one can turn to the
equivalence principle on which Einstein founded his theory of
gravitation. The principle states that an observer in a small
laboratory supported in a gravitational field makes exactly the same
measurements as an observer in a small accelerating rocket. The laws
of thermodynamics are found to hold in a gravitational field. From
the equivalence principle one therefore expects the laws of
thermodynamics to hold in an accelerating rocket. There is then only
one possible equilibrium spectrum that can be added to the
zero-point radiation: the additional radiation must have a thermal
spectrum. With any other spectrum the oscillator would not be in
thermal equilibrium with its surroundings, and so it could serve as
the basis of a perpetual-motion machine. By this route one is led to
a remarkable conclusion: a physical system accelerated through the
vacuum has the same equilibrium properties as an unaccelerated
system immersed in thermal radiation at a temperature above absolute
zero.
The mathematical relation connecting acceleration and temperature
was found in about 1976 by William G. Unruh of the University of
British Columbia and P.C.W. Davies of the University of Newcastle
upon Tyne. The effective spectrum seen by an observer accelerated
through the vacuum is the sum of two parts. One part is the
zero-point radiation; the other is the spectrum of thermal radiation
deduced by Planck in 1900. Planck was able to explain the form of
that curve only by introducing quantum-mechanical ideas, which he
did with some reluctance; it now turns out the curve can be derived
from an entirely classical analysis of radiation in the vacuum.
At least one more intriguing result arises from this line of
inquiry. If one again invokes the equivalence principle relating an
observer in a gravitational field with an accelerating observer, one
concludes that there is a minimum attainable temperature in a
gravitational field. This limit is an absolute one, quite apart from
any practical difficulties of reaching low temperatures. At the
surface of the earth the limit is 4 x 10**(-20) degree Kelvin, far
beyond the capabilities of real refrigerators but nonetheless
greater than zero. >> ---- T. Boyer
-------------------------------------------
Gordon D. Pusch
(gnus-kill "Subject" "Information and the Aether")
<*!PLONK!*>
Robert J. Kolker
Laurent wrote:
> Yes I did, in multiple occasions. I said it is immaterial, hence not
> observable, not measurable. The aether is not in spacetime, but
> spacetime depends on it.
In other words, it does not exist.
>
> The aether helps determine things like the ratio of the electric
> displacement in free space,
How?
to the intensity of the electric field
> producing it (e0), or the ratio of the magnetic flux density,
How?
in
> free space, to the external field strength, (m0). But it itself is
> not observable, you can't say - here, lets take a look at this
> aether! - because it is immaterial, real but not in spacetime, real
> but not perceptible. This is why MMX failed so miserably.
>
> We are effectively just talking about the vacuum state of any
> quantum field theory. Our concept of an "aether" has been integrated
> into physics for a very long time.
How? Maxwell didn't do it. Planck didn't do it. Who did?
Bob Kolker
>
> You can call it the long winded vacuum state of quantum field
> theory. I'd prefer to use the shorter word Aether though.
You have rendered the term meaningless.
The term
> aether isn't used since it harkens back to the idea of a fluid
> medium, which is very misleading. A vacuum state is exactly what it
> sounds like, the quantum mechanical state of the vacuum.
Then aether is not a substance. To call it a state of something else is
to render the term meaningless.
>
> But is that vacuum considered a thing? Is it real? I suppose it is,
> since how could it be in any given state if it wasn't real? Is it
> real even though it isn't material?
Could it be a mathematical abstraction that has its uses? You have not
given a single mathematical characterization of your mysterious aether
which has no discernable properties that anyone can observe, use or
calculate with. In short you have produce noise and no useful concepts.
>
> It is real and it's called the Aether. Spacetime is, in a way, a
> product of the aether, this is why we say the aether is the
> substrate to all matter and space.
How is spacetime derived from aether. You assert but you do not
demonstrate. Where's the Beef, buddy. Much assertion, no proof, no
calculation, much hot air.
Bob Kolker
Laurent
>
>
> Laurent wrote:
> > Yes I did, in multiple occasions. I said it is immaterial, hence
not
> > observable, not measurable. The aether is not in spacetime, but
> > spacetime depends on it.
>
> In other words, it does not exist.
That's just what I said, it does not exist but it is.
> >
> > The aether helps determine things like the ratio of the electric
> > displacement in free space,
>
> How?
> to the intensity of the electric field
> > producing it (e0), or the ratio of the magnetic flux density,
>
> How?
I don't know how, but I can mention some well accepted relations and
characteristics of free space as given by M. Wales.
c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep).....Uo is the permeability and Ep is the
permittivity.
and
Impedance, as given by Zr = sqr(Uo/Ep).
> in
> > free space, to the external field strength, (m0). But it itself
is
> > not observable, you can't say - here, lets take a look at this
> > aether! - because it is immaterial, real but not in spacetime,
real
> > but not perceptible. This is why MMX failed so miserably.
> >
> > We are effectively just talking about the vacuum state of any
> > quantum field theory. Our concept of an "aether" has been
integrated
> > into physics for a very long time.
>
> How? Maxwell didn't do it. Planck didn't do it. Who did?
Newton did. The notion of an aether is what Newton had in mind when
he came up with his absolute space. It was how he explained rotation
and acceleration as real.
" 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 upon the 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. " ----A. Einstein
I don't know, but there are people like A. Guth and P. Steinhardt
who are presently working on those questions.
Look up 'Inflationary Theory'.
http://www.edge.org/documents/day/day_guth.html
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/13/11/8
http://pupgg.princeton.edu/www/jh/research/steinhardt_paul.htmlx
>
> Bob Kolker
>
How many times do I need to answer those questions?
--
Laurent
Robert J. Kolker
Laurent wrote:
> I know, specially when you see people stuck with Newton's space and
> time concepts.
Most of us have graduated to Minkowsky space-time.
You still have not told us what aether is, what it consists of or how
to observe it. What are its measureable properties. And if it exists how
come it does not slow planets down as they move about?
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Laurent wrote:
> I know, specially when you see people stuck with Newton's space and
> time concepts.
Most of us have graduated to Minkowsky space-time.
Old Physics
If space is made of a euclidean aether, with a density capable of
carrying energy in the form of matter (a billion billion times the
antimass of the earth in the volume of a grain of sand) then the BB is
an explosion into space. In a two unit energy action reaction, the
matter accelerated away from the center will contract and time (mass)
dilate by three units to its opposites loss of one unit. No time
dilation, no aether.
This is the territory, we need to experiment find if our map is
correct.
stephen kearney
Simatar
the Quantum Point (ciaos point, singularity) of the BB fame..
It exist as a bound quantum state between all "physical Particles"
We are still in the Quantum Point of the BB and it is still
within us....
Because of this view I predict that someday it will be found that the
value of c is a variable... But the mechanism of variability is
the total separation distance of all matter in the universe so as
to viewed as a constant on our tiny scale... But varying locally
in a medium due to local close separation distance of bound
Physical Particles... Only because of the bias that c is constant
leads to the abortion / retransmitting explanation.. The model
remains intact of modeled with a variable c and the local variation
through a medium is due to separation distance of particles in the
medium...
But I could be wrong ;)
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3F01BA33...@comcast.net...
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Simatar
"Old Physics" <skea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13fd3446.03070...@posting.google.com...
Problem is that most wish to experiment only on a 1mm spot in the
lower right hand corner of the map to tell us all the topography of
the entire map... Basically most wish to draw a map of the world
by surveying their own front yard only....
Old Physics
Your reply is much appreciated, Simatar. I couldn't have said it
better myself. Thank you. sk
Simatar
Laurent
As a matter of fact it does slow planets down, because the aether is
physically finite there is friction if and only when an object is
accelerated, we call it inertia.
>
> Bob Kolker
>
Inertia, as conceived by Galileo, meant a resistance to change; and
process is synonymous to change. Reality is process and gravity and
inertia are products of this process. Inertia is the result of
'aether drag', a resistance to change in space flow rate, into and
from the particle, as the particle moves through space/medium.
Inertia comes from the tension or 'informational lag' created by a
system as it changes its rate of space/information flow, or... as it
accelerates within the chaotic medium, not from particles colliding
against accelerating objects. It is a momentum/information exchange,
through EMR, between a particle and space, as they continuously need
to reset their spatial relationships in order for thermodynamic laws
to hold as required by Einstein's Equivalency Principle.
(Unruh-Davies, Hawking, Cherenkov radiation)
While a particle is moving at a constant speed and all the
geometrical parameters are set, it won't experience any inertial
forces, but as it accelerates and the relationships change, it needs
to keep adjusting to its new energy/space consumption settings.
That's why relativistic effects are so real. When accelerated in
relation to other particles, space shrinks, time slows down and mass
(process) grows within the particle to balance energy usage in
momentum space and maintain its dependence and relation to spacetime
in accordance to energy conservation laws.
Information about a material system must be contained within the
system, it doesn't come from anywhere else in space. The only
external information being brought to the system by EM waves is the
momentum and hence location of the particle in relation to the
world. And this system must be comprised by a particle and its
particular inwardly flowing concentric, spherical matter-waves. Thus
gravitational non-linearities may be viewed as radial
space/information flow. Information which is picked and organized by
concentric waves as space is condensed into the particle/system. But
the parts (not the information) to construct and maintain the system
intact, as it moves through the medium, come from the chaotic
hyperspace. CBR is in charge of communications and ZPF is the prime
matter with which volumes are created. From where new geometrical
information is created and incorporated into the system as it moves
through spacetime.
Gravitational non-linearities are caused by radial space/information
flow. As space from hyperspace is converted to spacetime and matter
by an autopoeitic process which is driven by Logic (Syntax and
Topology) and the laws of thermodynamics. Gravity is caused by the
continuos internal process occurring within matter as
space/information radially flows towards the center of all matter as
it precipitates from hyperspace into spacetime. Gravity and inertia
are by-products of a semi-classical, quantum mechanical process
where a drag force is created by the continuos inwardly flow of
space/information into matter. Mass is equivalent to process. This
is why we only have mass in spacetime... after particles are fully
formed.
Mass is the result of matter interactions with space. Matter is a
continuos - time dependent - self-organizing process. Particles, as
they move through the CBR/ZPE, need to continuously re-ordinate the
space that constitutes them. Particles are in constant motion,
continuously processing space/information. Matter is process and all
process depends on continuity, this is where time and causality come
from. This continuity can only be supported by the aether from where
the CBR and ZPF emerge. Matter arises from this process, and mass
increases directly proportional to the amount of process. This is
why the denser a particle is, the more massive it becomes.
Mass refers to the amount of information processing of all the
energetic relationships that exist between matter and space. When a
particle is moving at a constant rate there is no informational lag
created by space/information flow within the particle, its spatial
energetic relationships remain constant, but as the particle is
accelerated the energetic relations between the particle and space
will be in a constant state of change causing this space/information
flow tension we call inertia.
Right now there is EMR and matter waves between you and everything
around you, flowing towards you and every object around you. EMR
'bounces' off, picking and transmitting information regarding each
object's objective state, while matter waves flow inwardly, towards
each object, also bringing information about the environment, as the
object continuously crystallizes into spacetime.
There is a delay as matter reaches thermal equilibrium with its
surroundings. We experience it as inertia. This is the nature of
Timothy Boyer's 'equilibrium spectrum'. It takes time for any moving
object to reach thermal equilibrium with its surroundings, as it
jumps from frame to frame in spacetime. Each frame being in reality
marked by the collapse of each matter wave-front, like a quantum
clock, as inwardly flowing matter-waves bring within them some of
the information necessary for each quantization, for each objective
state. Each object having its own rate, its own wavelength, or, its
own pulse, so to speak.
Each object, according to its own material properties, will
consequently exhibit its own inertial properties, like its own
weight and momentum.
The objective state of an object is instantaneously and holistically
transferred to the whole object, including its matter-wave, through
space, as a non-local, non-linear function, by a mechanism of wave
superpositions. This non-locality is possible thanks to the aether's
oneness.
--
Laurent
Laurent
>
>
> Laurent wrote:
> > I know, specially when you see people stuck with Newton's space
and
> > time concepts.
>
> Most of us have graduated to Minkowsky space-time.
It may be easier to deal with since you have a smoother metric but
3D geometry is not as physically relevant as a 4D geometry.
--
Laurent
greywolf42
>
>
> Laurent wrote:
> > I know, specially when you see people stuck with Newton's space and
> > time concepts.
>
> Most of us have graduated to Minkowsky space-time.
>
> You still have not told us what aether is,
Aether is a superfluid of material corpuscles, in constant Maxwellian
motion.
> what it consists of
Aether is a superfluid of material corpuscles, in constant Maxwellian
motion.
> or how to observe it.
Look at your computer screen; E&M are motions within the aether. Feel the
weight on your (chair); that is the result of momentum shadowing of aether
corpuscles by matter.
> What are its measureable properties.
Wave speed, equivalent density, equivalent pressure, Action....
> And if it exists how
> come it does not slow planets down as they move about?
It does. It's called Pioneer drag (used to be called Feynman drag).
However, since the aether is a real substance it has OTHER properties as
well as drag. One of them is a finite speed of propagation. This finite
speed of propagation leads to aberration, which tends to "speed up" orbiting
bodies. The aberrative tendency to speed up AN ORBIT counteracts the
dynamic viscosity tendency to slow down anything moving through the aether.
And the forces balance at positions that increase in a regular, geometric
progression. (Which we call the Titius/Bode series.)
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Robert J. Kolker
greywolf42 wrote:
> Aether is a superfluid of material corpuscles, in constant Maxwellian
> motion.
Unobservable and unmeasurable. Therefore not a useful construct in any
theory. You will notice that non-aetheric theories do an excellent job
predicting outcomes. Particularly quantum electrodynamics. So who needs
aether? Even if it exists, it is so elusive as to be useless as a
theoretical construct. And there is no evidence whatsoever that it exists.
In fact the MMX prove the Maxwellian version of aether is a bojum, a
snark, a will of the wisp. Totally useless for doing physics which is
why no one uses it.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Laurent wrote:
> As a matter of fact it does slow planets down, because the aether is
> physically finite there is friction if and only when an object is
> accelerated, we call it inertia.
As a matter of fact, you have no evidence that planetary orbits are
decaying. Write back when you have evidence.
Bob Kolker
Mark Palenik
>
> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3F01B95A...@comcast.net...
> >
> >
> > Laurent wrote:
> > > I know, specially when you see people stuck with Newton's space
> and
> > > time concepts.
> >
> > Most of us have graduated to Minkowsky space-time.
>
> It may be easier to deal with since you have a smoother metric but
> 3D geometry is not as physically relevant as a 4D geometry.
>
> --
> Laurent
You don't know what Minkowsky space-time is, do you?
Laurent
No, but circular motion requires constant acceleration as planets
are
constantly changing direction. Angular momentum, inertia... it's all
basically the same.
--
Laurent
Paul Cardinale
> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<3F01B878...@comcast.net>...
> > Laurent wrote:
> > > The aether, consists of basic, changeless, motionless fixed values
> > > (laws), from which everything else, including meaningful
> > > information, is being created as spacetime.
> >
> > A law only exists in the mind(brain?) of a sentient. Nature is what it
> > is. Laws describe what we think nature is.
> >
> > You confuse the map with the territory.
> >
> > Bob Kolker
>
> If space is made of a euclidean aether,
The Euclideans stopped selling aether centuries ago. You can't get it anymore.
And even if you could, you can't make space out of it.
Paul Cardinale
Dharma Fog
>
> "Dharma Fog" <Dhar...@VirtualMachines.COM> wrote in message
> news:3F01AA4B...@VirtualMachines.COM...
Then it's not physics.
> as are some theories. If Laurent had a theory the universe was mad by a genie
> no one can prove that wrong at present.
Then it wouldn't be physics.
>
> Keep an open mind think of them as a recipe some good some bad, everyone
> with their own favourite. And some ingredients match well
I'm not interested in mental masturbations.
--
'How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
'You must be' said the Cat, 'or you wouldn't have come here.'
Laurent
"Dharma Fog" <Dhar...@VirtualMachines.COM> wrote in message
> Spud wrote:
> >
> > "Dharma Fog" <Dhar...@VirtualMachines.COM> wrote in message
> > news:3F01AA4B...@VirtualMachines.COM...
> > >
> > >
> > > Laurent wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > What do you need to fully understand reality, a Bible?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Reproducible physical measurements.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > To dismiss theory you cant see or prove from observation is
illogical,
>
> Then it's not physics.
>
> > as are some theories. If Laurent had a theory the universe was
mad by a genie
> > no one can prove that wrong at present.
>
> Then it wouldn't be physics.
>
> >
> > Keep an open mind think of them as a recipe some good some bad,
everyone
> > with their own favourite. And some ingredients match well
>
> I'm not interested in mental masturbations.
18th century Positivism is what is holding back today's Physics and
Philosophy. Look at the Copenhagen interpretation and judge for
yourselves. Instead of - " to be is to be perceived " - (mind
precedes matter), it should have been - " to be is to perceive " -
(matter precedes mind).
Contemporary Quantum Field Theory supports the idea that the
ontology is in the process which matter undergoes as it fluctuates
in and out of 'nothingness'. Classical relativistic physics is a
description of what the world appears to be, while Quantum Field
Theory is a description of what the world is.
--
Laurent
Robert J. Kolker
Laurent wrote:
> No, but circular motion requires constant acceleration as planets
> are
> constantly changing direction. Angular momentum, inertia... it's all
> basically the same.
If there were any kind of physical interaction between your hypothetical
aether and a planet, its oribit would decay. The planet would push
against the aether and the aether would push back by the third law.
Conclusion either aether does not exist or it does not have mechanical
interactions with normal matter.
Bob Kolker
greywolf42
>
> greywolf42 wrote:
AH! The classic relativist response. Bob once again posted what he thinks
of as rhetorical questions. Then I answered them. Robert immediately
snipped all but one sentence of the post -- along with the evidence of all
those requested observations, and replied with a vapid "unobservable and
unmeasureable."
Putting back the question that I was responding to:
===================================
Robert:
You still have not told us what aether is, what it consists of
===================================
> > Aether is a superfluid of material corpuscles, in constant Maxwellian
> > motion.
===================================
Robert:
> or how to observe it.
greywolf42:
Look at your computer screen; E&M are motions within the aether. Feel the
weight on your (chair); that is the result of momentum shadowing of aether
corpuscles by matter.
Robert:
> What are its measureable properties.
greywolf42:
Wave speed, equivalent density, equivalent pressure, Action....
Robert:
> And if it exists how
> come it does not slow planets down as they move about?
greywolf42:
It does. It's called Pioneer drag (used to be called Feynman drag).
However, since the aether is a real substance it has OTHER properties as
well as drag. One of them is a finite speed of propagation. This finite
speed of propagation leads to aberration, which tends to "speed up" orbiting
bodies. The aberrative tendency to speed up AN ORBIT counteracts the
dynamic viscosity tendency to slow down anything moving through the aether.
And the forces balance at positions that increase in a regular, geometric
progression. (Which we call the Titius/Bode series.)
===================================
Now that Robert has safely removed all those embarrasing observations and
measurements, he feels safe in posting this piece of fluff:
> Unobservable and unmeasurable.
We can see by the material that Robert snipped that aether is both observed
and measured.
> Therefore not a useful construct in any theory.
Of course, since Robert's starting assumption is incorrect, his conclusion
is also.
> You will notice that non-aetheric theories do an excellent job
> predicting outcomes.
But science is more than just predicting outcomes. The Ptolemaic system was
far superior to the Copernical system for simply predicting "outcomes."
> Particularly quantum electrodynamics.
QED contradicts GM by 50 orders of magnitude. I don't consider this
particularly satisfying. If you pick the "right" value to put in when you
do your "renormalization", then you get the "right" answer out. I'm not
terribly impressed. Sure, it's useful. But no one knows why it works.
> So who needs aether?
Anyone who prefers a cause-and-effect relationship.
> Even if it exists, it is so elusive as to be useless as a
> theoretical construct.
As a theoretical construct, it gave us Maxwell's equations. It gave us a
prediction of the Sagnac experiment results. It gave us a prediction of the
Pioneer effect .. the list is quite long. Therefore it is QUITE useful.
> And there is no evidence whatsoever that it exists.
Sure there is. Sagnac, Maxwell's equations, Pioneer drag, ... the list is
quite long. What you mean is there's no evidence available that you are
not capable of ignoring.
> In fact the MMX prove the Maxwellian version of aether is a bojum, a
> snark, a will of the wisp. Totally useless for doing physics which is
> why no one uses it.
The MMX proves only that Michelson didn't understand Maxwell's model.
Lorentz demonstrated that there is no problem at all. All you need is a
realistic matter model -- and not infinitely rigid matter. And since no
"modern" scientist thinks matter is infinitely rigid, there is no argument
available out the MMX being "unexplained" by a Lorentzian aether.
Jeff Krimmel
> Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3F031327...@comcast.net...
>>
>> greywolf42 wrote:
[...]
> Robert:
>> What are its measureable properties.
>
> greywolf42:
> Wave speed, equivalent density, equivalent pressure, Action....
That's interesting. If these are _measurable_ properties of the ether,
then what did those measurements conclude?
> Robert:
>> And if it exists how
>> come it does not slow planets down as they move about?
>
> greywolf42:
> It does. It's called Pioneer drag (used to be called Feynman drag).
>
> However, since the aether is a real substance it has OTHER properties as
> well as drag. One of them is a finite speed of propagation. This
> finite speed of propagation leads to aberration, which tends to "speed
> up" orbiting bodies. The aberrative tendency to speed up AN ORBIT
> counteracts the dynamic viscosity tendency to slow down anything moving
> through the aether. And the forces balance at positions that increase in
> a regular, geometric progression. (Which we call the Titius/Bode
> series.)
Oh, that's right. It does slow orbits down, but then it also speeds orbits
back up just to the degree that the effect is unmeasurable. Again, as
Robert said, unobservable and unmeasurable.
[...]
>> You will notice that non-aetheric theories do an excellent job
>> predicting outcomes.
>
> But science is more than just predicting outcomes. The Ptolemaic system
> was far superior to the Copernical system for simply predicting
> "outcomes."
In the end, the only objective definition of science involves its
prediction of outcomes. The rest may make science easier for _you_, but
your fluff isn't science itself.
[...]
>> Even if it exists, it is so elusive as to be useless as a theoretical
>> construct.
>
> As a theoretical construct, it gave us Maxwell's equations. It gave us
> a prediction of the Sagnac experiment results. It gave us a prediction
> of the Pioneer effect .. the list is quite long. Therefore it is QUITE
> useful.
>
>> And there is no evidence whatsoever that it exists.
>
> Sure there is. Sagnac, Maxwell's equations, Pioneer drag, ... the list
> is quite long. What you mean is there's no evidence available that you
> are not capable of ignoring.
Great. Now, explain how each of these undeniably point to the existence of
an ether. It seems like since we have removed the concept of an ether as
part of these descriptions, the theories themselves still work rather
remarkably. So, tell me again how they point to the undeniable existence
of an ether.
[...]
Jeff
Laurent
I am not claiming planetary orbit decay due to aether drag, orbits
will not decay as long as there is an equilibrium between
centrifugal and centripetal forces and their angular speed remains
constant. What I said was that any object under acceleration will
experience an aether drag in the form of inertial forces. Circular
motion requires a constant change of direction and any change of
direction can be interpreted as an acceleration. If there were no
inertial forces acting upon orbiting planets then there would be no
centripetal or centrifugal forces to begin with.
--
Laurent
Robert J. Kolker
greywolf42 wrote:
> greywolf42:
> Look at your computer screen; E&M are motions within the aether. Feel the
> weight on your (chair); that is the result of momentum shadowing of aether
> corpuscles by matter.
So you say. Now prove experimentally than any of the above has anything
to do with your aether. You have made assertions ex ano and provided no
acceptable experimental evidence to support them.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Old Physics wrote:
> If space is made of a euclidean aether,
If indeed. If my Grandmother had balls, my Grandfather would be a queer.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Laurent wrote:
> No, but circular motion requires constant acceleration as planets
> are
> constantly changing direction. Angular momentum, inertia... it's all
> basically the same.
If the earth were exchanging energy of motion with the aether to heat it
up or push it out of its way, then the orbit would decay. Do the
following thought experiment. Mount rockets on Earth capable of creating
a delta-v of 66,000 miles per hour. The earth would spiral into the sun.
There is no mechanical interaction or electromagnetic interaction with
this strange aether of yours. In short, no fraction. If outer space were
filled with a gas (a real gas, not your non exstant aether) it would
slow down because of collisions with the gas molecules. Think of what
happened to the Space Ship Columbia to get the general idea.
Bob Kolker
Laurent
The aether is non-material, so talking about pushing it or rubbing
against it makes no sense.
--
Laurent
Laurent
"Jeff Krimmel" <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.07.02....@hotmail.com...
Einstein's non-material aether of 1926 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 - out of the Cambridge press]
" ...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
Robert J. Kolker
Laurent wrote:
> The aether is non-material, so talking about pushing it or rubbing
> against it makes no sense.
It also does not exist. That makes sense.
Bob Kolker
Bilge
>We are effectively just talking about the vacuum state of any
>quantum field theory.
No, we aren't. You are.
>Our concept of an "aether" has been integrated into physics for a
>very long time.
Your concept of the vacuum. I'm willing to bet you can't even
describe your concept of the vacuum.
>
>You can call it the long winded vacuum state of quantum field
>theory.
Thank you. I will.
>I'd prefer to use the shorter word Aether though.
Use whatever you like. Before anyone believes you, you'll have
to be able to use your concept to derive physical predictions.
>The term aether isn't used since it harkens back to the idea of a fluid
>medium, which is very misleading. A vacuum state is exactly what it
>sounds like, the quantum mechanical state of the vacuum.
Please descibe in detail what you consider to be the "quantum mechanical
state of the vacuum".
>
>But is that vacuum considered a thing?
No. It's not a "thing".
[...]
Bilge
>
>The aether helps determine things like the ratio of the electric
>displacement in free space, to the intensity of the electric field
>producing it (e0), or the ratio of the magnetic flux density, in
>free space, to the external field strength, (m0). But it itself is
>not observable, you can't say - here, lets take a look at this
>aether! - because it is immaterial, real but not in spacetime, real
>but not perceptible. This is why MMX failed so miserably.
OK. Please write down the maxwell equations for the strong
interaction and give me the equivalent constants that correspond
to \epsilon_{0} and \mu_{0].
greywolf42
LOL! The true relativist to the end! (ano?)
If one uses the scientific method, one understands that one can NEVER "prove
experimentally" anything.
Hence your boorish demand is also beyond the scope of this N.G. I suggest
you start posting to relativity.as.religion, or some such if you demand
positive proof any competing dogma. (While you clutch any relativist
pronouncement to your bosom.)
Since you've already snipped the post up twice, I'll decline your
solopsistic demand. You can look to my reply to Jeff, if you're interested
in doing more than flaming.
greywolf42
>
>
> > Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:3F031327...@comcast.net...
> >>
> >> greywolf42 wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Robert:
> >> What are its measureable properties.
> >
> > greywolf42:
> > Wave speed, equivalent density, equivalent pressure, Action....
>
> That's interesting. If these are _measurable_ properties of the ether,
> then what did those measurements conclude?
Transverse wave speed: 310,740,000,000 mm/sec ("On Physical Lines of Force,"
Maxwell, 1861), derived from first principles, plus the measurement of esu
by Kohlrausch and Weber (1857).
The following based on PLF 132: v = sqrt(m/rho), where "rho is the density
of the luminiferous medium in the body, which is also unknown", and m is the
coefficient of transverse elasticity (proportional to pressure). Hence, the
ratio of Pressure to density is set at c^2. There is insufficient
information in Maxwell's equations to separate these variables in such a way
as to solve for each, unique from the other (which is why Maxwell states
that the value of rho is unknown). The genesis of our mu is: ? is the
"coefficient of magnetic induction," where mu = pi rho. {PLF 133} Hence,
mu is an indicator of aether mass density and therefore the inverse of
epsilon is a measure of aether internal pressure.
To separate the density and the pressure, one must go beyond EM (and
Maxwell's equations) and make the (Occam's razor) assumption that there is
only ONE aether -- and it gives rise to both EM and gravity. Hence, we can
use some dynamical evaluations of gravity to get further information. Using
a LeSagian gravitational model with exponential shielding, and the observed
excess heat of the gas giant planets gives [See Paul Stowe's posts in the
thread "Evidence and the Aether, May 2002 for details]
(Keep in mind that those arbitrary charge units "Coulombs" have been
dispensed with, as no longer needed. Simply use the "natural" units of
kg/sec.)
density: 8.85E-12 kg/m^3
pressure: 4.60E+5 kg/m sec^2 or N/m^2
(c^2 = sqrt(3) P/rho, c at 3.0E+8 m/sec)
Mean spacing [L] = 6.48E-08 meters
Monentum Quanta [p] = 5.15E-27 kg-m/sec
Action=Planck's constant= 2pL
Elemental charge, simply = 2p/L
Boltzmann's constant, simply L^2/c
> > Robert:
> >> And if it exists how
> >> come it does not slow planets down as they move about?
> >
> > greywolf42:
> > It does. It's called Pioneer drag (used to be called Feynman drag).
> >
> > However, since the aether is a real substance it has OTHER properties as
> > well as drag. One of them is a finite speed of propagation. This
> > finite speed of propagation leads to aberration, which tends to "speed
> > up" orbiting bodies. The aberrative tendency to speed up AN ORBIT
> > counteracts the dynamic viscosity tendency to slow down anything moving
> > through the aether. And the forces balance at positions that increase in
> > a regular, geometric progression. (Which we call the Titius/Bode
> > series.)
>
> Oh, that's right. It does slow orbits down, but then it also speeds orbits
> back up just to the degree that the effect is unmeasurable. Again, as
> Robert said, unobservable and unmeasurable.
LOL!
1) Pioneer drag is observed. This is a non-orbital situation. Hence there
is no aberative component. Hence the dynamic viscosity slows down the
spacecraft. This demonstrates one part.
2) The orbital systems that we can measure (Solar, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus,
Neptune) all follow the Titius/Bode geometric progression to 1 part in 100.
This is demanded by a balance of the 2 opposing forces, but is not predicted
by Newtonian or GR models.
3) The NNPA of Mercury prooves that the speed of gravity is on the close
order of "c" -- which requires aberration. (See Steve Carlip's paper for
confirmation of the existence of that at aberrative force.)
Easily observable and well measured.
>
> [...]
>
> >> You will notice that non-aetheric theories do an excellent job
> >> predicting outcomes.
> >
> > But science is more than just predicting outcomes. The Ptolemaic system
> > was far superior to the Copernical system for simply predicting
> > "outcomes."
>
> In the end, the only objective definition of science involves its
> prediction of outcomes. The rest may make science easier for _you_, but
> your fluff isn't science itself.
Sorry, that is not the scientific method. You are merely repeating
positivist philosophy.
> [...]
>
> >> Even if it exists, it is so elusive as to be useless as a theoretical
> >> construct.
> >
> > As a theoretical construct, it gave us Maxwell's equations. It gave us
> > a prediction of the Sagnac experiment results. It gave us a prediction
> > of the Pioneer effect .. the list is quite long. Therefore it is QUITE
> > useful.
> >
> >> And there is no evidence whatsoever that it exists.
> >
> > Sure there is. Sagnac, Maxwell's equations, Pioneer drag, ... the list
> > is quite long. What you mean is there's no evidence available that you
> > are not capable of ignoring.
>
> Great. Now, explain how each of these undeniably point to the existence of
> an ether.
Well, they were predicted (before the fact) by aether theories. This
constitutes evidence. There is no evidence in the universe that can prove
or "undeniably point" to any physical cause -- as you well know.
> It seems like since we have removed the concept of an ether as
> part of these descriptions, the theories themselves still work rather
> remarkably. So, tell me again how they point to the undeniable existence
> of an ether.
>
> [...]
Of course there is no way to "undeniably point" to Relativity or any other
part of the "standard model" either. So your claim is hypocritical. And
was so the first time.
Of course, the question was -- is there evidence? And the answer to that is
undeniably "yes." Plus, because all these phenomena were predicted by
aether theories, that they "count" more for aether theories than for the
standard model.
And I can point to the many different "fundamental" constants that are
determined by more fundamental aether constants that remain lab measurements
in the "standard" theory.
Thomas Clarke
> ..... one must go beyond EM (and
> Maxwell's equations) and make the (Occam's razor) assumption that there is
> only ONE aether -- and it gives rise to both EM and gravity.
Why is this to be preferred to the (Occam's razor) assumption
that there is NO aether?
Tom Clarke
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Laurent
Exactly, it does not exist in spacetime.
The question now is - can it be without existing in spacetime?
The difference between being and existing, is that - to be - you
don't need to be somewhere, while - to exist - you do. To exist your
location must be certain, you must exist above the Planck scale, but
to be you don't even need to be physical, and all you need to be
physical is to be able to act as a force.
Any physical material substance will occupy space. This physical but
nonmaterial substance (aether) does not occupy any space. It doesn't
exist in spacetime, because it is spacetime, therefore it doesn't
exist but it is.
Things move, but not in respect to the aether, things move in
respect to other things at the classical level, but that loses
meaning at the sub-quantum level, the level at which the aether
exists and manifests itself as one entity.
--
Laurent
Robert J. Kolker
greywolf42 wrote:
> Transverse wave speed: 310,740,000,000 mm/sec ("On Physical Lines of Force,"
> Maxwell, 1861), derived from first principles, plus the measurement of esu
> by Kohlrausch and Weber (1857).
That is nice. The Maxwell Field Equations have been used without the
assumption of aether quite successfuly, but they do not correctly
describe electromagnetic phenomena at the quantum level. For that you
need quantum electro dynamics, based in part of special theory of
relativity which simply ignores aether.
We don't need no steeeenking aether to make correct preductions.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Laurent wrote:
> Exactly, it does not exist in spacetime.
In short it does not exist anywhere at anytime. Like I said it does not
exist.
> Things move, but not in respect to the aether, things move in
> respect to other things at the classical level, but that loses
> meaning at the sub-quantum level, the level at which the aether
> exists and manifests itself as one entity.
Blovating blather totally devoid of scientific content.
Can you for once make a quantitative theory from your nonsense, complete
with mathemtical rigor and make quantitative predictions verified or
verifiable by experiment? Why don't you do some science, instead of
pumping hot air?
Bob Kolker
wchogg
This is most certainly not true of QFT, or else the field "phenomenology"
wouldn't exist, nor would effective field theories.
Read Peskin & Schroeder.
--
William C. Hogg
wchogg
He can't, because he's actually quoting my attempts to explain why aether
isn't necessary.
--
William C. Hogg
Lincoln Anderson
> How could matter emerge out of nothingness? This is the reason we
> need the notion of an aether, it's the physicalists' God! The aether
> is the substrate to all there is, it provides the unity needed for
> the information to be transferred. This information is ruled by the
> laws of spacetime, laws by which the structure is going to be held
> intact in spacetime only if/when the spatial relationships are
> maintained in spacetime. These basic laws or qualities of the aether
> are the same fundamental laws that rule EM fields.
</snip>
So you are of the persuasion that in order for any of these trans-body
phenomena (magnetic attraction, light-gravity interactions, speed of
light, etc) to take place, you must have this 'ether'? Have you by
chance looked at any of the research done by any of the physicists at
the turn of the 20th century? The proof that the speed of light in
vacuum is a constant is a disproof of the existence of ether.
Electric, magnetic and gravitational fields work even in near vacuum,
and show no signs of perturbations because this so called 'ether' is
being pumped out. If ether controls the actions of EM and
gravitational fields, it stands to reason that as the content of ether
decreases in a controlled environment, there should be *some* effect
on the fields, be it in magnitude, direction, or whatever. Since you
see none, it must be concluded that these fields don't give a damn
about whether there's any sort of physical medium. A similar logic
was used after the michelson-morley (sp?) experiment, which discovered
that c (speed of light in a vacuum) is the same no matter which
direction ("with" or "against") in the 'ether' it is oriented,
therefore, no ether. Sorry, you're reinventing the wheel, and got the
shape wrong.
FrediFizzx
news:72a8af468a8c7c4ad5b...@mygate.mailgate.org...
| "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
|
| > ..... one must go beyond EM (and
| > Maxwell's equations) and make the (Occam's razor) assumption that there
is
| > only ONE aether -- and it gives rise to both EM and gravity.
|
| Why is this to be preferred to the (Occam's razor) assumption
| that there is NO aether?
Wave theory in general. All other waves other than EM and gravity require a
medium. Why shouldn't they also? Is it perhaps the result of describing
energy flow as a particle? Take away the point particle aspect of photons
and gravitons (and all force carriers), then you have to have a medium. Is
there any reason why a photon can't be just a chunk of energy flowing thru a
medium?
FrediFizzx
http://www.flashrock.com/upload/photong/photong.html
Thomas Clarke
news:be1tjl$dtc5$1...@ID-185976.news.dfncis.de
> "Thomas Clarke" <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
> news:72a8af468a8c7c4ad5b...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> | "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
> | > ..... one must go beyond EM (and
> | > Maxwell's equations) and make the (Occam's razor) assumption that there
> is
> | > only ONE aether -- and it gives rise to both EM and gravity.
> | Why is this to be preferred to the (Occam's razor) assumption
> | that there is NO aether?
> Wave theory in general. All other waves other than EM and gravity require a
> medium. Why shouldn't they also?
It was tried and found to not work. EM and gravity waves travel
many, many orders of magnitude faster than any other wave. This
means the medium would have to much, much more rigid than any
medium like air or even steel. Since EM waves are transverse, it
must be rigidity and not just pressure of the medium that supports
the waves.
Further, any EM and gravity wave medium has to permit mass-ive
bodies to move without friction.
All this adds up to very strange properties for the medium.
And since post Michaelson-Morely and Lorentz it is known that the
medium does not even have a definite state of motion, it is
best to just Occamize it. Or so it seems to me.
> Is it perhaps the result of describing
> energy flow as a particle? Take away the point particle aspect of photons
> and gravitons (and all force carriers), then you have to have a medium.
But since 1900 we know that you cannot take away the particle
aspect of force carriers. Taking it away causes ultraviolet
catastropher of black body radiation etc.
> Is
> there any reason why a photon can't be just a chunk of energy flowing thru a
> medium?
Well the mathematics is given by quantum field theory.
If you don't make too big a deal of the words, those words might
describe what happens in quantum field theory. After all, English
is inadequate to the task of describing accurately what happens
in physics, so to some extent verbal descriptions of physical
phenomena are always a bit fuzzy.
Laurent
"Lincoln Anderson" <and...@auburn.edu> wrote in message
news:309f54cf.03070...@posting.google.com...
Why is this true then?
c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep)
--
Laurent
wchogg
> Why is this true then?
>
> c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep)
Because \epsilon_0 and \mu_0 were invented to fit into the SI system of
units. In appropriate units only c shows up as a fundamental quantity, to
be determined via experiment. It just happens to be the speed of light in
vaccuum.
--
William C. Hogg
greywolf42
>
{snip}
> density: 8.85E-12 kg/m^3
> pressure: 4.60E+5 kg/m sec^2 or N/m^2
> (c^2 = sqrt(3) P/rho, c at 3.0E+8 m/sec)
>
> Mean spacing [L] = 6.48E-08 meters
> Monentum Quanta [p] = 5.15E-27 kg-m/sec
> Action=Planck's constant= 2pL
> Elemental charge, simply = 2p/L
> Boltzmann's constant, simply L^2/c
>
{snip}
I should also have added the following to the list:
Assuming that c_long = sqrt(3) c_transverse (as for perfect mono gas), we
can estimate the rms speed of the aether corpuscles as sqrt(3) c, or 1.73 c.
From the Maxwellian distribution, we see that
3 k T/m = [sqrt(3) c_trans.]^2
m / T = k / c^2
Now, if we assume for the moment that T_aether = 2.7 deg. K (which is not
required, but would be a logical choice for an upper bound),
m = k T / c^2 = (1.38 E-23 J/degK) (2.73 degK) / (3.00 E+8 m/sec)^2
m = 4.19 E-40 kg (average)
FrediFizzx
Well, the quantum vacuum definitely has some strange properties. QFT has
particles being created out of "nothingness" basicallly. Just apply enough
energy of the right type. Plus photons briefly changing into virtual pairs,
etc. Seems to me that the uncertainty principle would require that there is
a certain amount of fluctuations going on all the time so why wouldn't there
be partially separated pairs all the time as an average? It all nulls out
to zero macroscopically but a quantum object should be able to "see" this
Heisenberg foam easily. As a chunk of energy flows thru this, the pairs get
more "excited" and separate further. The transverse wave motion just comes
from how the energy lines up this action. The big mystery for this is why
no dipole moment? Where did the charges go? It has to be that they are
effectively cancelled out by an opposite charge being right next to them.
| > Is it perhaps the result of describing
| > energy flow as a particle? Take away the point particle aspect of
photons
| > and gravitons (and all force carriers), then you have to have a medium.
|
| But since 1900 we know that you cannot take away the particle
| aspect of force carriers. Taking it away causes ultraviolet
| catastropher of black body radiation etc.
Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. Just the "point" particle aspect. Not the
particle aspect. One could consider a chunk of energy to still have
particle-like properties.
| > Is
| > there any reason why a photon can't be just a chunk of energy flowing
thru a
| > medium?
|
| Well the mathematics is given by quantum field theory.
| If you don't make too big a deal of the words, those words might
| describe what happens in quantum field theory. After all, English
| is inadequate to the task of describing accurately what happens
| in physics, so to some extent verbal descriptions of physical
| phenomena are always a bit fuzzy.
Yes, math does make the descriptions less arbitrary. I am betting that the
solution for what the ether is is already contained in the math and ideas of
QFT somehow. And it might be the solution for uniting QM and gravity.
FrediFizzx
greywolf42
Thomas Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
news:72a8af468a8c7c4ad5b...@mygate.mailgate.org...
>
> > ..... one must go beyond EM (and
> > Maxwell's equations) and make the (Occam's razor) assumption that there
is
> > only ONE aether -- and it gives rise to both EM and gravity.
>
> Why is this to be preferred to the (Occam's razor) assumption
> that there is NO aether?
>
Occam's razor applies to natural philosophy (science). Not religion or
magic. Occam described the simpler "cause" or "explanation". Simply saying
"we don't know how, but here's an equation" does not come under the auspices
of Occam's razor.
Plus, your snip changed the meaning of my use of Occam's razor (as if you
didn't know). I was asked to give the results and predictions of the
properties of the aether. (Which I did. And which you immediately
snipped.) The derivation was to make clear that -- though I started with
Maxwell's luminiferous aether, I applied Occam's razor when examining
LeSage's gravific aether, I assumed they were one and the same. (And they
do mesh quite nicely.)
greywolf42
>
>
> greywolf42 wrote:
> > Transverse wave speed: 310,740,000,000 mm/sec ("On Physical Lines of
Force,"
> > Maxwell, 1861), derived from first principles, plus the measurement of
esu
> > by Kohlrausch and Weber (1857).
I see Bob just couldn't BEAR that these specific values -- which HE
requested -- remain to be discussed. True die-hard relativist.
> That is nice. The Maxwell Field Equations have been used without the
> assumption of aether quite successfuly, but they do not correctly
> describe electromagnetic phenomena at the quantum level. For that you
> need quantum electro dynamics,
But I'm not using the "Maxwell Field Equations." I'm using Maxwell's model.
You may have noticed a few minor terms that were DERIVED from Maxwell's
model. Like Plank's constant. Like Boltzmann's constant. Where do you
think QM comes from? QM occurs in the regions where Green's identities (and
Maxwell's approximations) break down. And SR is an approximation that
Maxwell made in 1861.
> based in part of special theory of relativity which simply ignores aether.
One can therefore appreciate the root origin of "ignore" and "ignorance."
> We don't need no steeeenking aether to make correct preductions.
Neither did Ptolemy. But science is more than just mathematical
masturbation.
greywolf42
> "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:be1tjl$dtc5$1...@ID-185976.news.dfncis.de
>
> > "Thomas Clarke" <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
> > news:72a8af468a8c7c4ad5b...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> > | "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
>
> > | > ..... one must go beyond EM (and
> > | > Maxwell's equations) and make the (Occam's razor) assumption that
there
> > is
> > | > only ONE aether -- and it gives rise to both EM and gravity.
>
> > | Why is this to be preferred to the (Occam's razor) assumption
> > | that there is NO aether?
>
> > Wave theory in general. All other waves other than EM and gravity
require a
> > medium. Why shouldn't they also?
>
> It was tried and found to not work.
By whom? Reference please.
> EM and gravity waves travel
> many, many orders of magnitude faster than any other wave. This
> means the medium would have to much, much more rigid than any
> medium like air or even steel.
Rigidity is not the only parameter in the wave speed equations. Particle
speed is a prime factor. "Rigidity" (in the wave speed calc) is a measure
of the speed of transmission between molecules.
> Since EM waves are transverse, it
> must be rigidity and not just pressure of the medium that supports
> the waves.
I'll be kind and assume you are merely ignorant of the hundreds of posts in
this N.G that correct that hoary old lie. I'll try again. Maxwell's
equations were derived from a (super)fluid aether. They are not "rigid" in
any respect. This has been known since 1861 -- to those who care to look.
> Further, any EM and gravity wave medium has to permit mass-ive
> bodies to move without friction.
Yes. Superfluids do that. Experimentally in the lab.
> All this adds up to very strange properties for the medium.
Well, superfluids are not all that common with matter as a basis. But they
aren't unknown.
> And since post Michaelson-Morely and Lorentz it is known that the
> medium does not even have a definite state of motion,
Excuse me? Didn't you read all those nice properties above? The CMBR
identifies the local rest frame of the aether just fine. Now we Einstein
make it difficult to detect -- because his e-synch ritual artificially
eliminates any evidence before an experiment can be run.
> it is best to just Occamize it. Or so it seems to me.
Ignore it and it will all go away. Great scientific approach. :(
> > Is it perhaps the result of describing
> > energy flow as a particle? Take away the point particle aspect of
photons
> > and gravitons (and all force carriers), then you have to have a medium.
>
> But since 1900 we know that you cannot take away the particle
> aspect of force carriers. Taking it away causes ultraviolet
> catastropher of black body radiation etc.
LOL! The "ultraviolet catastrophe" was a simple and inevitable result of
using "Maxwell's equations" blindly -- without looking at Maxwell's model.
The medium is particulate. Which means the continuum approximations used by
Maxwell break down at short wavelengths. It was the blind application of
mathemeticians of a horrendously misguided "equipartion theorem" that
resulted in the "ultraviolet catastrophe." Plank's constant is derivable
from first principles, using Maxwell's aether.
The "particles" that are force carriers are called aether corpuscles. All
four "forces."
> > Is
> > there any reason why a photon can't be just a chunk of energy flowing
thru a
> > medium?
>
> Well the mathematics is given by quantum field theory.
> If you don't make too big a deal of the words, those words might
> describe what happens in quantum field theory. After all, English
> is inadequate to the task of describing accurately what happens
> in physics, so to some extent verbal descriptions of physical
> phenomena are always a bit fuzzy.
Actually, its just QM and it's concepts that are "fuzzy." If all you can do
is say "we have these equations and this cookbook", then you don't have a
theory at all.
wchogg
> "Thomas Clarke" <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
> news:5c95a51b0a61812de46...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> | Well the mathematics is given by quantum field theory.
> | If you don't make too big a deal of the words, those words might
> | describe what happens in quantum field theory. After all, English
> | is inadequate to the task of describing accurately what happens
> | in physics, so to some extent verbal descriptions of physical
> | phenomena are always a bit fuzzy.
>
> Yes, math does make the descriptions less arbitrary. I am betting that the
> solution for what the ether is is already contained in the math and ideas of
> QFT somehow. And it might be the solution for uniting QM and gravity.
Uniting gravity and QM in a QFT has been tried and tried. So far, it
hasn't ever worked.
--
William C. Hogg
Laurent
"wchogg" <grif...@ups.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.030703...@ups.physics.wisc.edu...
Invented!?
--
Laurent
wchogg
>
> "wchogg" <grif...@ups.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.44.030703...@ups.physics.wisc.edu...
> > On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Laurent wrote:
> >
> > > Why is this true then?
> > >
> > > c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep)
> >
> > Because \epsilon_0 and \mu_0 were invented to fit into the SI
> system of
> > units. In appropriate units only c shows up as a fundamental
> quantity, to
> > be determined via experiment. It just happens to be the speed of
> light in
> > vaccuum.
> >
> >
> > --
> > William C. Hogg
> >
> >
>
> Invented!?
Yes, in cgs, or Gaussian, units those factors don't exist. I believe cgs
units for E&M predate the SI ones by a good bit.
Look in a 3rd edition copy of Jackson for more about this. I'd reference
you the pages, but someone seems to have "borrowed" my copy without
telling me...
--
William C. Hogg
Old Physics
You make some excellent points, Mr. Clarke,
Gravity unifies with the electrostatic force at 4.2*10^42 electron
masses per electron volume or 3.795 billion tons. For an aether to
carry both, it would have to have this effective density. By Youngs
formula E=rho*v^2 with c substituted as the speed of sound, the aether
would have an elastic modulus some 10^63 times that of steel.
If matter were made of energy then motion through the aether would
doppler shift it. Inertia would be matter's tendency to maintain its
same energy state. If there were a second density mode equal to that
of the neutron, then gravity (displacement), the unit charge
(displacement waves) and the non local aspects of the quantum could
propagate at 300 billion LYs/sec.
The null result of the MMX could be explained as the contraction
of the matter that the instrument was made of.
Motion added to our direction away from the center of the BB would
result in a contraction, time-mass dilation of three units to its
reaction opposites loss of one unit. This gives a theoretically
simple, but extremely difficult in practice, way to test the concept.
This antimass of a galaxy in the volume of a grain of sand concept
meets Occam's criterion for simplicity, but at a very high cost.
Thank you for your insight,
stephen kearney
pst...@ix.netcom.com
wchogg <grif...@ups.physics.wisc.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Laurent wrote:
>
>>
>> "wchogg" <grif...@ups.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.LNX.4.44.030703...@ups.physics.wisc.edu...
>>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Laurent wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why is this true then?
>>>>
>>>> c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep)
>>>
>>> Because \epsilon_0 and \mu_0 were invented to fit into the SI
>>> system of units. In appropriate units only c shows up as a
>>> fundamental quantity, to be determined via experiment. It just
>>> happens to be the speed of light in vaccuum.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> William C. Hogg
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Invented!?
>
> Yes, in cgs, or Gaussian, units those factors don't exist. I believe cgs
> units for E&M predate the SI ones by a good bit.
In cgs/gaussian they 'do exist', they're just buried in the ESU definition.
You can play that shell game but, it's just that, a shell game...
As for definitions, the wave relation
c^2 = k/z
k = modulus (inverse coefficient of compressibility)
z = medium bulk density
Was known in Maxwell's time, he uses it.
FYI,
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_equation
http://www.optimal-systems.demon.co.uk/sonic-velocity.htm
http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/HelmholtzDifferentialEquation.html
http://www.phy.davidson.edu/StuHome/cabell_f/diffractionfinal/pages/history.htm
http://asa.aip.org/pierce.html
> Look in a 3rd edition copy of Jackson for more about this. I'd reference
> you the pages, but someone seems to have "borrowed" my copy without
> telling me...
One doesn't need to know what Jackson says, one needs to know the actual
history of the development of the equation of state,
c = Sqrt(k/z)
which Maxwell used to determine c...
Paul Stowe
pst...@ix.netcom.com
wchogg <grif...@ups.physics.wisc.edu> wrote:
Ah, and that's be~cau~se ... yup, they refuse to consider the critical
elemental 'glue'.
Paul Stowe
Robert J. Kolker
greywolf42 wrote:
>
> But I'm not using the "Maxwell Field Equations." I'm using Maxwell's model.
> You may have noticed a few minor terms that were DERIVED from Maxwell's
> model.
I concur with Hertz who said Maxwell's equations -are- Maxwell's theory.
Aether has no essential role to play in the theory of electromagnetic
fields. The solutions to the field equations can be gotten very nicely
without a mention or a whiff of aether.
Read the major compendium on electromagnetic theory, Jackson's book. See
how much aether he uses to develop the theory and the applications. None.
Bob Kolker
Thomas Clarke
> > > | Why is this to be preferred to the (Occam's razor) assumption
> > > | that there is NO aether?
> > > Wave theory in general. All other waves other than EM and gravity
> require a
> > > medium. Why shouldn't they also?
> > It was tried and found to not work.
> By whom? Reference please.
Well by Lorentz for one. He wound up with an ad hoc
transform that was there just to make the ether work,
and worse the transform was such that the ether could
not be given a definite state of motion.
> > EM and gravity waves travel
> > many, many orders of magnitude faster than any other wave. This
> > means the medium would have to much, much more rigid than any
> > medium like air or even steel.
> Rigidity is not the only parameter in the wave speed equations. Particle
> speed is a prime factor. "Rigidity" (in the wave speed calc) is a measure
> of the speed of transmission between molecules.
I had in mind shear modulus.
> > Since EM waves are transverse, it
> > must be rigidity and not just pressure of the medium that supports
> > the waves.
> I'll be kind and assume you are merely ignorant of the hundreds of posts in
> this N.G that correct that hoary old lie.
I've seen them and they I don't think they work.
> I'll try again. Maxwell's
> equations were derived from a (super)fluid aether. They are not "rigid" in
> any respect. This has been known since 1861 -- to those who care to look.
Is it readable on the web somewhere?
In any case 1861 seems a bit early for superfluid.
> > Further, any EM and gravity wave medium has to permit mass-ive
> > bodies to move without friction.
> Yes. Superfluids do that. Experimentally in the lab.
So your the particles in your theory are quantum?
So what distinguishes it from quantum field theory after
all the math is reduced?
> > All this adds up to very strange properties for the medium.
> Well, superfluids are not all that common with matter as a basis. But they
> aren't unknown.
Since the supefluid ether stuff is not needed, why keep it?
> > And since post Michaelson-Morely and Lorentz it is known that the
> > medium does not even have a definite state of motion,
> Excuse me? Didn't you read all those nice properties above?
I missed the one about state of motion.
> The CMBR
> identifies the local rest frame of the aether just fine.
It identifies A rest frame. The ether could be moving at any
velocity with respect to that frame or any other frame.
That is a result of the Lorentz transforms.
> Now we Einstein
> make it difficult to detect -- because his e-synch ritual artificially
> eliminates any evidence before an experiment can be run.
How do you synchronize your clocks?
> > it is best to just Occamize it. Or so it seems to me.
> Ignore it and it will all go away. Great scientific approach. :(
It works. Why compound entities when they are unneccessary.
> > > Is it perhaps the result of describing
> > > energy flow as a particle? Take away the point particle aspect of
> photons
> > > and gravitons (and all force carriers), then you have to have a medium.
> > But since 1900 we know that you cannot take away the particle
> > aspect of force carriers. Taking it away causes ultraviolet
> > catastropher of black body radiation etc.
> LOL! The "ultraviolet catastrophe" was a simple and inevitable result of
> using "Maxwell's equations" blindly -- without looking at Maxwell's model.
> The medium is particulate. Which means the continuum approximations used by
> Maxwell break down at short wavelengths. It was the blind application of
> mathemeticians of a horrendously misguided "equipartion theorem" that
> resulted in the "ultraviolet catastrophe." Plank's constant is derivable
> from first principles, using Maxwell's aether.
Do you have this derivation written down?
Perhaps as a web page?
> The "particles" that are force carriers are called aether corpuscles. All
> four "forces."
Is that another name for boson?
> > > Is
> > > there any reason why a photon can't be just a chunk of energy flowing
> thru a
> > > medium?
> > Well the mathematics is given by quantum field theory.
> > If you don't make too big a deal of the words, those words might
> > describe what happens in quantum field theory. After all, English
> > is inadequate to the task of describing accurately what happens
> > in physics, so to some extent verbal descriptions of physical
> > phenomena are always a bit fuzzy.
> Actually, its just QM and it's concepts that are "fuzzy." If all you can do
> is say "we have these equations and this cookbook", then you don't have a
> theory at all.
You seem to need superluidity for your theory. I'm not sure
how you can get that without QM.
Thomas Clarke
> > > ..... one must go beyond EM (and
> > > Maxwell's equations) and make the (Occam's razor) assumption that there
> is
> > > only ONE aether -- and it gives rise to both EM and gravity.
> > Why is this to be preferred to the (Occam's razor) assumption
> > that there is NO aether?
> Occam's razor applies to natural philosophy (science). Not religion or
> magic. Occam described the simpler "cause" or "explanation".
And what is not causal about an explanation without ether?
> Simply saying
> "we don't know how, but here's an equation" does not come under the auspices
> of Occam's razor.
I'm not much comforted by just saying it is all a result of
particles that cannot be observed that have unknown masses etc.
> Plus, your snip changed the meaning of my use of Occam's razor (as if you
> didn't know). I was asked to give the results and predictions of the
> properties of the aether. (Which I did. And which you immediately
> snipped.)
You used Occam's razor to unify gravity and electromagnetism by fiat.
> The derivation was to make clear that -- though I started with
> Maxwell's luminiferous aether, I applied Occam's razor when examining
> LeSage's gravific aether, I assumed they were one and the same. (And they
> do mesh quite nicely.)
Not all agree with this assessment.
pst...@ix.netcom.com
"Thomas Clarke" <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
>"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
>> Thomas Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
>>> "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>>>> | Why is this to be preferred to the (Occam's razor) assumption
>>>> | that there is NO aether?
>
>>>> Wave theory in general. All other waves other than EM and gravity
>>>> require a medium. Why shouldn't they also?
>
>> > It was tried and found to not work.
>
>> By whom? Reference please.
>
> Well by Lorentz for one. He wound up with an ad hoc transform that
> was there just to make the ether work, and worse the transform was
> such that the ether could not be given a definite state of motion.
Lorentz did not work with Maxwell's model. In fact I've seen nothing
in his writing to suggest he even was familiar with it. Lorentz was
an early advocate of the electron concept which Maxwell did not know
or use.
>>> EM and gravity waves travel many, many orders of magnitude faster
>>> than any other wave. This means the medium would have to much,
>>> much more rigid than any medium like air or even steel.
>
>> Rigidity is not the only parameter in the wave speed equations.
>> Particle speed is a prime factor. "Rigidity" (in the wave speed calc)
>> is a measure of the speed of transmission between molecules.
>
> I had in mind shear modulus.
Shear modulus in an invicid (perfect) fluid???
>>> Since EM waves are transverse, it must be rigidity and not just
>>> pressure of the medium that supports the waves.
>
>> I'll be kind and assume you are merely ignorant of the hundreds of posts in
>> this N.G that correct that hoary old lie.
>
> I've seen them and they I don't think they work.
>> I'll try again. Maxwell's equations were derived from a (super)fluid aether.
>> They are not "rigid" in any respect. This has been known since 1861 -- to
>> those who care to look.
>
> Is it readable on the web somewhere? In any case 1861 seems a bit early for
> superfluid.
The term used by Maxwell was "perfect fluid" (defined to be one with zero
viscosity). While I doubt that there exists a truly 'perfect' anything
in nature I think Maxwell's fluid is very close.
"A perfect fluid is defined as a fluid with zero viscosity (i.e. inviscid)."
Per, http://www.efunda.com/formulae/fluids/glossary.cfm
Then,
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid
>>> Further, any EM and gravity wave medium has to permit massive bodies to
>>> move without friction.
>>
>> Yes. Superfluids do that. Experimentally in the lab.
>
> So your the particles in your theory are quantum? ...
Maxwell's ring vortices are, by definition and their nature, quantized!
> So what distinguishes it from quantum field theory after all the math is
> reduced?
Probably nothing, except that the fluid give rise to same...
>>> All this adds up to very strange properties for the medium.
>
>> Well, superfluids are not all that common with matter as a basis. But
>> they aren't unknown.
>
> Since the supefluid ether stuff is not needed, why keep it?
Because IT IS needed if one is ever to make any 'sense' of the math.
>>> And since post Michaelson-Morely and Lorentz it is known that the
>>> medium does not even have a definite state of motion,
>
>> Excuse me? Didn't you read all those nice properties above?
>
> I missed the one about state of motion.
>
>> The CMBR identifies the local rest frame of the aether just fine.
>
> It identifies A rest frame. The ether could be moving at any
> velocity with respect to that frame or any other frame.
> That is a result of the Lorentz transforms.
Please explain, remember that in aether theory light IS carried by, and
sustained in, the medium.
>> Now we Einstein make it difficult to detect -- because his e-synch
>> ritual artificially eliminates any evidence before an experiment
>> can be run.
>
> How do you synchronize your clocks?
>
>>> it is best to just Occamize it. Or so it seems to me.
>
>> Ignore it and it will all go away. Great scientific approach. :(
Ignore what?
> It works. Why compound entities when they are unneccessary.
A cookbook works but it doesn't begin to 'really' explain the processes
of cooking...
>>>> Is it perhaps the result of describing energy flow as a particle? Take
>>>> away the point particle aspect of photons and gravitons (and all force
>>>> carriers), then you have to have a medium.
>
>>> But since 1900 we know that you cannot take away the particle
>>> aspect of force carriers. Taking it away causes ultraviolet
>>> catastropher of black body radiation etc.
>
>> LOL! The "ultraviolet catastrophe" was a simple and inevitable result of
>> using "Maxwell's equations" blindly -- without looking at Maxwell's model.
>> The medium is particulate. Which means the continuum approximations used
>> by Maxwell break down at short wavelengths. It was the blind application
>> of mathemeticians of a horrendously misguided "equipartion theorem" that
>> resulted in the "ultraviolet catastrophe." Plank's constant is derivable
>> from first principles, using Maxwell's aether.
>
> Do you have this derivation written down? Perhaps as a web page?
Do you want a reference to show you that there cannot be a 'sonic casttrophe'?
>> The "particles" that are force carriers are called aether corpuscles. All
>> four "forces."
>
> Is that another name for boson?
>
>>>> Is
>>>> there any reason why a photon can't be just a chunk of energy flowing
>>>> thru a medium?
>
>>> Well the mathematics is given by quantum field theory.
>>> If you don't make too big a deal of the words, those words might
>>> describe what happens in quantum field theory. After all, English
>>> is inadequate to the task of describing accurately what happens
>>> in physics, so to some extent verbal descriptions of physical
>>> phenomena are always a bit fuzzy.
>
>> Actually, its just QM and it's concepts that are "fuzzy." If all you can do
>> is say "we have these equations and this cookbook", then you don't have a
>> theory at all.
>
> You seem to need superluidity for your theory. I'm not sure how you can get
> that without QM.
Superfluid vorticity LEADS INEVITABLY TO quantum behavior. That is the nature
of Maxwell's model.
Paul Stowe
FrediFizzx
news:<_L6dnSn2q_S...@comcast.com>...
|
| > How could matter emerge out of nothingness? This is the reason we
| > need the notion of an aether, it's the physicalists' God! The aether
| > is the substrate to all there is, it provides the unity needed for
| > the information to be transferred. This information is ruled by the
| > laws of spacetime, laws by which the structure is going to be held
| > intact in spacetime only if/when the spatial relationships are
| > maintained in spacetime. These basic laws or qualities of the aether
| > are the same fundamental laws that rule EM fields.
| </snip>
|
| So you are of the persuasion that in order for any of these trans-body
| phenomena (magnetic attraction, light-gravity interactions, speed of
| light, etc) to take place, you must have this 'ether'? Have you by
| chance looked at any of the research done by any of the physicists at
| the turn of the 20th century? The proof that the speed of light in
| vacuum is a constant is a disproof of the existence of ether.
| Electric, magnetic and gravitational fields work even in near vacuum,
| and show no signs of perturbations because this so called 'ether' is
| being pumped out.
Excuse me? How do you pump the ether out? That would be impossible. You
might be able to alter the ether between Casimir plates but you could never
get rid of it completely. It was only shown that there would be no medium
that we could call at absolute rest.
| If ether controls the actions of EM and
| gravitational fields, it stands to reason that as the content of ether
| decreases in a controlled environment, there should be *some* effect
| on the fields, be it in magnitude, direction, or whatever. Since you
| see none, it must be concluded that these fields don't give a damn
| about whether there's any sort of physical medium. A similar logic
| was used after the michelson-morley (sp?) experiment, which discovered
| that c (speed of light in a vacuum) is the same no matter which
| direction ("with" or "against") in the 'ether' it is oriented,
| therefore, no ether. Sorry, you're reinventing the wheel, and got the
| shape wrong.
Sorry, your logic is terribly flawed.
FrediFizzx
FrediFizzx
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.030703...@ups.physics.wisc.edu...
| On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Laurent wrote:
|
| >
| > "wchogg" <grif...@ups.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message
| > news:Pine.LNX.4.44.030703...@ups.physics.wisc.edu...
| > > On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Laurent wrote:
| > >
| > > > Why is this true then?
| > > >
| > > > c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep)
| > >
| > > Because \epsilon_0 and \mu_0 were invented to fit into the SI
| > system of
| > > units. In appropriate units only c shows up as a fundamental
| > quantity, to
| > > be determined via experiment. It just happens to be the speed of
| > light in
| > > vaccuum.
| > >
| > >
| > > --
| > > William C. Hogg
| > >
| > >
| >
| > Invented!?
|
| Yes, in cgs, or Gaussian, units those factors don't exist. I believe cgs
| units for E&M predate the SI ones by a good bit.
They weren't invented. The electric and magnetic proportionality constants
of SI are a natural result of using the ampere as a fundamental dimension.
I think they also showed up in the MKS system of units that had charge as a
fundamental dimension. You can get a good feel for this by looking at
vacuum inductance and capacitance in the different systems of units.
Lvac = mu0*c/w Cvac = eps0*c/w in SI with w being omega
Lvac = 1/w*c Cvac = c/w in Gaussian
Lvac = 1/w Cvac = 1/w in hbar = c = 1 natural units
or Cvac = Lvac = lambda/2pi in natural units. The actual physical length of
the E and H vectors?
| Look in a 3rd edition copy of Jackson for more about this. I'd reference
| you the pages, but someone seems to have "borrowed" my copy without
| telling me...
They are in the Appendix on Units in the 3rd ed.
FrediFizzx
FrediFizzx
news:be2iph$f4j$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
| In article
<Pine.LNX.4.44.030703...@ups.physics.wisc.edu>,
| wchogg <grif...@ups.physics.wisc.edu> wrote:
|
| >On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Laurent wrote:
| >
| >>
| >> "wchogg" <grif...@ups.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message
| >> news:Pine.LNX.4.44.030703...@ups.physics.wisc.edu...
| >>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Laurent wrote:
| >>>
| >>>> Why is this true then?
| >>>>
| >>>> c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep)
| >>>
| >>> Because \epsilon_0 and \mu_0 were invented to fit into the SI
| >>> system of units. In appropriate units only c shows up as a
| >>> fundamental quantity, to be determined via experiment. It just
| >>> happens to be the speed of light in vaccuum.
| >>>
| >>>
| >>> --
| >>> William C. Hogg
| >>>
| >>>
| >>
| >> Invented!?
| >
| > Yes, in cgs, or Gaussian, units those factors don't exist. I believe
cgs
| > units for E&M predate the SI ones by a good bit.
|
| In cgs/gaussian they 'do exist', they're just buried in the ESU
definition.
| You can play that shell game but, it's just that, a shell game...
Yes, in cgs/gaussian we end up with charge having units of
(mass)^{0.5}*(length)^{1.5}/time. How lovely is that?
| As for definitions, the wave relation
|
| c^2 = k/z
|
| k = modulus (inverse coefficient of compressibility)
| z = medium bulk density
|
| Was known in Maxwell's time, he uses it.
|
| FYI,
|
| http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_equation
| http://www.optimal-systems.demon.co.uk/sonic-velocity.htm
| http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/HelmholtzDifferentialEquation.html
|
http://www.phy.davidson.edu/StuHome/cabell_f/diffractionfinal/pages/history.
htm
|
| http://asa.aip.org/pierce.html
|
|
| > Look in a 3rd edition copy of Jackson for more about this. I'd
reference
| > you the pages, but someone seems to have "borrowed" my copy without
| > telling me...
|
| One doesn't need to know what Jackson says, one needs to know the actual
| history of the development of the equation of state,
|
| c = Sqrt(k/z)
|
| which Maxwell used to determine c...
True, but Jackson does put the different systems of units in good context.
After reading it, one should realize there really isn't a decent system.
They all have their pluses and minuses. I kind of like your system but I
thought of one possible draw back but forgot what it was now. I will let
you know if I think of it again. I think maybe it had to do with your
quantum of time.
FrediFizzx
FrediFizzx
Tell us exactly what a *field* is. Inquiring minds would like to know. We
know how to use them and figure out problems with them, but we don't know
what they are. I would like to know what they are some day. Soon.
FrediFizzx
Bilge
> wchogg <grif...@ups.physics.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Laurent wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "wchogg" <grif...@ups.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:Pine.LNX.4.44.030703...@ups.physics.wisc.edu...
>>>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Laurent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why is this true then?
>>>>>
>>>>> c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep)
>>>>
>>>> Because \epsilon_0 and \mu_0 were invented to fit into the SI
>>>> system of units. In appropriate units only c shows up as a
>>>> fundamental quantity, to be determined via experiment. It just
>>>> happens to be the speed of light in vaccuum.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> William C. Hogg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Invented!?
>>
>> Yes, in cgs, or Gaussian, units those factors don't exist. I believe cgs
>> units for E&M predate the SI ones by a good bit.
>
> In cgs/gaussian they 'do exist', they're just buried in the ESU definition.
> You can play that shell game but, it's just that, a shell game...
the strong nuclear force? Here are the analog of maxwell's equations
for the strong interaction:
curl B^{a} = g (j^{a} - f^{abc} A^{b} x B^{c}) + dE^{a}/dt
curl E^{a} = (d/dt)B^{a}_{0}
The index, a,b,c represents 3 different analogous "E" and "B" fields,
so there are 4 more equations just like the above obtained by switching
a->b, b->, c->a and then doing it again. The B^{a}_{0} term is given
by curl A^{a}, and the (three) A^{a} are the equivalent to the vector
potential. The f^{abc} are structure constants, the exact form of which
is not important, but I'll give them to you if you wish. Insert the
analogies to \epsilon_{0} and \mu_{0} and explain how to determine
each individually, just as you think can be done for maxwell's equations
such that the values are not artefacts from the choice of units.
[The result for the product should 1/c^2 just as with maxwell's equations,
but they certainly will not be anything like the electromagnetic case.
The \epsilon here has to be negative].
> As for definitions, the wave relation
>
> c^2 = k/z
>
> k = modulus (inverse coefficient of compressibility)
> z = medium bulk density
>
> Was known in Maxwell's time, he uses it.
That gives you a longitudinal wave, not a transverse wave. By
the definition of "compressibility" the coeficient of compressibility
gives you a compression wave. That's why the vector wave equation in
acoustics is quite different from the one obtained from maxwell's
equations. Your compression wave cannot be polarized.
Bilge
>"wchogg" <grif...@ups.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message
>news:Pine.LNX.4.44.030703...@ups.physics.wisc.edu...
>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Laurent wrote:
>>
>> > Why is this true then?
>> >
>> > c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep)
>>
>> Because \epsilon_0 and \mu_0 were invented to fit into the SI
>system of
>> units. In appropriate units only c shows up as a fundamental
>quantity, to
>> be determined via experiment. It just happens to be the speed of
>light in
>> vaccuum.
>Invented!?
Yes. In the old days, people charged up things like metallic spheres
by rubbing them with wool or somesuch material or else charged up leyden
jars. So, someone decided to call some arbitrary amount of charge produced
in this way, q and invented units for charge, coulombs. Then they placed
two such spheres a distance of 1 meter apart and measured the force (which
had already defined in terms of a mass as F = mg). Then they got the
equation:
F = k q^2/r^2
and solved it for k. Therefore, k has units of kg-m^3/C^2 sec^2, for no
other reason that someone chose to call charge "coulombs" and designated
some arbitrary amount of charge to be some fraction of a coulomb and
then further required the force to have the units of kg-m/sec^2. (Hence
the name "Coulomb's law").
Had they known all about E&M instead of having to invent it, they
would have recognized that charge could be written directly in terms
of SI units as sqrt(angular momentum x velocity), i.e., the correct
charge on the electron is e = sqrt(4\pi\alpha hbar c).
Back in the real olden days, people used to measure vertical and
horizontal distances in different units, too. That doesn't imply
anything mysterious about the conversion constant d_vert = k d_horiz,
other than why anyone would choose to use those units in the first
place.
Bilge
> The term used by Maxwell was "perfect fluid" (defined to be one with zero
> viscosity). While I doubt that there exists a truly 'perfect' anything
> in nature I think Maxwell's fluid is very close.
>
> "A perfect fluid is defined as a fluid with zero viscosity (i.e.
> inviscid)."
A fluid with zero viscosity cannot support a transverse oscillation nor
can it support a vortex. Without viscosity, there can be no force tangential
to the direction of the fluid motion. That part should be obvious. In a
superfluid, vortices are the result of the frictional force of the normal
component in a two component superfluid.
[...]
>
> Superfluid vorticity LEADS INEVITABLY TO quantum behavior.
Unfortunately, a superfluid cannot support a vortex without having
a normal component and the normal component is responsible for the
vortex. How do you think the velocity would end up having a circular
direction if there was not any frictional force present? Without
viscosity, adjacent components of the fluid moving in different
directions, would slide right by each other without exerting any
force.
Bilge
>On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Bilge wrote:
>
>> Laurent:
>> >We are effectively just talking about the vacuum state of any
>> >quantum field theory.
>>
>> No, we aren't. You are.
>>
>> >Our concept of an "aether" has been integrated into physics for a
>> >very long time.
>>
>> Your concept of the vacuum. I'm willing to bet you can't even
>> describe your concept of the vacuum.
>>
>> >
>> >You can call it the long winded vacuum state of quantum field
>> >theory.
>>
>> Thank you. I will.
>>
>> >I'd prefer to use the shorter word Aether though.
>>
>> Use whatever you like. Before anyone believes you, you'll have
>> to be able to use your concept to derive physical predictions.
>>
>> >The term aether isn't used since it harkens back to the idea of a fluid
>> >medium, which is very misleading. A vacuum state is exactly what it
>> >sounds like, the quantum mechanical state of the vacuum.
>>
>> Please descibe in detail what you consider to be the "quantum mechanical
>> state of the vacuum".
>
>He can't, because he's actually quoting my attempts to explain why aether
>isn't necessary.
Precisely. I figure that when he starts asserting the two are
the same, he should explain what he thinks are the same about them.
He seems to have repeated the same claim in about a half-dozen posts.