Re: A new test for the ether
Gordon Stangler
> Please accept the following for submission.
>
> A new test for the ether
> �
> It is often forgotten, or the fact is ignored. that Einstein�s 1905 paper on Special Relativity did not disprove the existence of the ether but rather showed that it could not be detected by the methods designed to do so, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment and others like it . At the time Einstein used the word �superfluous� to describe his feelings towards the ether, but stated that SR �does not compel us to deny the ether�. And after around 1920 he had come to the conclusion that the ether was necessary. In a letter to Lorentz he stated, �I agree with you that the General Relativity paper admits of an ether hypothesis�, and later made even stronger statement to that effect.
> �
[cite please]
> Even so in the literature and textbooks the ether is generally treated with the same regard as �phlogiston�.
> �
As in, neither exist in real life.
> I believe I have a test for the ether which is not beset with the problems of the Michelson-Morley experiment and others like it.
> �
Let me guess... measure the speed of light from source to receiver
directly, then rotate the apparatus. It's been done before, and the
results agree with the MM experiment.
> What is involved is the measurement of the time taken for light to travel a set distance in opposing directions. Such a test does not involve the two way speed of light (for example from a source, to a mirror and back again, as in the Michelson-Morley experiment) which turns out to be constant.
> �
> An objection to the one way speed of light is how the clocks at the source and receiver are to be synchronized. Unfortunately in the case of the ether this cannot be done by simply measuring the time for the return trip and dividing by two, because with the ether times will be different for the different directions. So with stations A and B and measuring the time A to B and the time B to A it is not possible to separate any potential differences in clock times from differences in times for the forward and reverse trip.
> �
> However if, as I am suggesting, instead of comparing the times A to B and B to A at the same time, you measure only A to B, but with the 12 hr time separations (so that the measurements are into and against the ether). In this case the potential lack of synchronization of the clocks cancels and you would get a true indication of time difference � with a sine wave over a 24 hr period.
> �
> At the period the ether was under investigation and even to recent times such a test was not possible as clocks were simply not accurate enough, and this was why Michelson and others (in fact I think it was Maxwell originally) came up with the idea of measuring interference fringes � which as is well known gave a null result because the Lorentz contraction counteracted any potential time differences in the arms of the interferometer.
> �
Boy, when I'm right, I'm right.
> Measuring the time differences in a single direction does not suffer from this difficulty as the two stations are in the same frame of reference and direction so the Lorentz contraction does not interfere.
> �
Methinks you need to learn, and understand the Lorentz contractions.
Remember, there is both a time and spacial component to it. However,
the spacial compononts are only in the direction of the frame. See
the problem yet?
> Today in principle I believe the potential time differences, should the ether exist, for light travelling in the direction of the ether and against the ether are possible.
> �
> Taking the distance between the two stations as �l�, the assumed velocity of the ether wind �v�� and the velocity of light �c� we have the outward time t(o) and return time t(r) as follows:
> �
> t(o) =� l / c + v ����������������������� and t(r) = l / c � v
> �
> With a distance �l� between stations = 1000m (which seems reasonable)
> A clock time resolution of 50 ps (quoted in the literature)
> The speed of the earth, �v� round the sun = 30 km/s
> And the speed of light = 300,000,000 m/s
> �
> Then t(r) =� l / c + v = 1,000 / 299970000 = 3.3336667 x 10(-6) s
> And t(o) =� l / c � v = 1,000 / 300,030,000 = 3.333000033 x10(-6)s
> So t(r) � t(o) = 6.666 x 10 (-10)s
> �
> With a difference of the times in the forward and reverse directions = 6.666 x 10(-10)s, and with a clock resolution of 5 x 10(-11) s the measurement seems to be in principle achievable (though there are of course other technical issues affecting accuracy than just the resolution of the clocks). Clearly increasing the distance between stations and improved clock resolution will allow proportional improvements in measurement accuracy.
> �
And where do you propose to get a clock that fast?
> N.B. Another potential test for the ether is with regard to the eclipses of the moons of Jupiter. Such a test was actually suggested by Maxwell, in I think 1879 (and it was from Maxwell�s discussion with D. P Todd, a colleague of Michelson, that the Michelson-Morley experiment came about). Jupiter has a period of around 12 terrestrial years and if the eclipses are measured over a period of 6 years any apparent time differences will give a measure of the movement of the solar system through the ether. If we take that speed as around 30km/s then it would mean a time difference of 0.2 seconds over 6 years. At that time such time differences over such a period of time were not measurable. I don�t know if such time differences are measurable with today�s equipment, and / or whether the information is available. It is certainly worth consideration.
> �
> Of course should the ether take it upon itself to follow the earth or the sun around non of the above would apply.
> �
What if the ether flowed perpendicular to the surface of the earth?
How would your experiment detect that? When you can answer that
question, I think you will understand the Lorentz contractions.
> Interested in your comments.
> �
> Best regards,
> John.
Detecting something that does note exist will prove to be an exercise
in futility. Good luck with that.
Ilja Schmelzer
> Please accept the following for submission.
>
> A new test for the ether
There is not "the ether". There are only different ether theories. An
experiment may refute one or another ether theory, but cannot refute
"the ether".
One of such ether theories is the classical Lorentz ether. The
predictions
of this theory coinside with those of special relativity, thus, no
test exists,
even in principle, to refute this ether theory without refuting
special relativity.
There exists also another ether theory which gives predictions very
close
to those of general relativity: It has two very small parameters, and
if you
set them equal to zero, you obtain the Einstein equations of GR
(see ilja-schmelzer.de/glet).
Ilja Schmelzer
> > Even so in the literature and textbooks the ether is generally treated with the same regard as �phlogiston�.
>
I wouldn't be that sure.
I have published in Foundations of Phyiscs an ether model for the
standard model of particle physics.
It allows, starting from a simple model and a few physical principles,
to compute the number of fermions
of the SM (all three generations), the gauge group (almost exactly)
and its action on the fermions.
Gravity also fits into the model.
To reach something comparable would be the wet dream of every string
theorist.
Tom Roberts
> It is often forgotten, or the fact is ignored. that Einstein’s 1905
> ether but rather showed that it could not be detected by the methods
> designed to do so, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment and others
> like it.
Hmmm. Today we would say that Einstein presented a MODEL that did not
include any ether.
> Even so in the literature and textbooks the ether is generally
> treated with the same regard as ‘phlogiston’.
Yes. For the same reason -- nobody has ever produced reproducible
measurements that detect either phlogiston or ether; and there are
excellent models of the related phenomena that include neither.
> [1-way measurement using two clocks fixed on the surface of earth
> over a 24-hour period]
You assumed "50 ps resolution". No currently-available atomic clocks
have anywhere close to that accuracy over a 24 hour period. The current
state-of-the-art for a COLLECTION of 10 (or so) atomic clocks is about 1
ns per day. With a single clock at each end, you could not do better
than something like 50 ns per day -- 1000 times worse than your estimate
of the "signal". Hopeless.
(Do not deceive yourself into thinking that averaging could
bridge that gap -- averaging cannot reduce systematic
errors such as clock drift.)
Note also that such 1-way isotropy experiments have been done before, in
ways that are far better than you propose (Krisher et al is closest to
your approach, and has the worst resolution):
* Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), pg 821.
Uses two multi-mode lasers mounted on a rotating table to look for
variations in their interference pattern as the table is rotated.
Places an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 0.9 m/s.
* Krisher et al., Phys. Rev. D, 42, No. 2, pg 731–734, (1990).
Uses two hydrogen masers fixed to the Earth and separated by a
21-km fiber-optic link to look for variations in the phase between
them. They put an upper limit on the one-way linear anisotropy of
100 m/s.
* Champeny et al., Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), pg 241. Champeney, Isaak
and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, pg 583 (1965). Isaak et al.,
Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), pg 255.
Uses a rotating Mössbauer absorber and fixed detector to place
an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s.
* Turner and Hill, Phys. Rev. 134 (1964), B252.
Uses a rotating source and fixed Mössbauer detector to place an
upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 10 m/s.
* Gagnon, Torr, Kolen, and Chang, Phys. Rev. A38 no. 4 (1988), pg 1767.
A guided-wave test of isotropy. Their null result is consistent
with SR.
* T.W. Cole, “Astronomical Tests for the Presence of an Ether”, Mon.
Not. R. Astr. Soc. (1976), 175 93P-96P.
Several VLBI tests sensitive to first-order effects of an æther
are described. No æther is detected, with a sensitivity of 70 m/s.
* Ragulsky, “Determination of light velocity dependence on direction
of propagation”, Phys. Lett. A, 235 (1997), pg 125.
A “one-way” test that is bidirectional with the outgoing ray in
glass and the return ray in air. The interferometer is by design
particularly robust against mechanical perturbations, and
temperature controlled. The limit on the anisotropy of c is 0.13 m/s.
Tom Roberts
Gordon Stangler
wrote:
> On 16 Jul., 13:38, Gordon Stangler <gordon.stang...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Even so in the literature and textbooks the ether is generally treated with the same regard as �phlogiston�.
>
> > As in, neither exist in real life.
>
> I wouldn't be that sure.
>
> I have published in Foundations of Phyiscs an ether model for the
> standard model of particle physics.
>
[cite]
> It allows, starting from a simple model and a few physical principles,
> to compute the number of fermions
> of the SM (all three generations), the gauge group (almost exactly)
> and its action on the fermions.
> Gravity also fits into the model.
>
> To reach something comparable would be the wet dream of every string
> theorist.
And I am sure your theory will be published shortly, eh?
Gordon Stangler
A fixed reference frame breaks Lorentz invariance.
To see this explicitly, transform Maxwell's equations into a fixed
frame, then see what the speed of light in the frame is.
-Gordon
FrediFizzx
news:49ddbb9a-fb80-4e46...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 16, 9:01 am, Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 16 Jul., 13:38, Gordon Stangler <gordon.stang...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Even so in the literature and textbooks the ether is generally
>> > > treated with the same regard as �phlogiston�.
>>
>> > As in, neither exist in real life.
>>
>> I wouldn't be that sure.
>>
>> I have published in Foundations of Phyiscs an ether model for the
>> standard model of particle physics.
>>
>
> [cite]
I. Schmelzer, A Condensed Matter Interpretation of SM Fermions and Gauge
Fields, Foundations of Physics, vol. 39, nr. 1, p. 73 (2009)
>> It allows, starting from a simple model and a few physical
>> principles,
>> to compute the number of fermions
>> of the SM (all three generations), the gauge group (almost exactly)
>> and its action on the fermions.
>> Gravity also fits into the model.
>>
>> To reach something comparable would be the wet dream of every string
>> theorist.
>
> And I am sure your theory will be published shortly, eh?
Ilja's theory has been self-published for several years now and
published in peer reviewed journal above recently.
Best,
Fred Diether
Gordon Stangler
Ilja Schmelzer
> Could you please explain the "condensed matter = ether" connection?
The classical ether is some medium such that light waves are
explained as waves in this medium, in analogy to other waves
in other media, like sound in water or air.
So I think if one proposes a theory where the fields we observe
(including, but not restricted to, the EM field) are
explained as describing waves of some hypothetical medium, as
I do in my theory, then the theory should be classified as an
ether theory.
My medium is more complex than a gas, and more close to what is
classified today as "condensed matter".
But it is of course not usual condensed matter. Usual condensed
matter, consisting of atoms, serves only as an analogon. The critical
distance, where the microscopic structure of the ether becomes
important and the continuous field theory fails, is unknown
(in particular, it should not be the Planck length).
Sorry for having forgotten the reference in my previous post,
and thanks to Fred for correcting this.
See ilja.schmelzer.de/clm for SM fermions/gauge fields and
ilja.schmelzer.de/glet for gravity.
Robert L. Oldershaw
wrote:
>
> My medium is more complex than a gas, and more close to what is
> classified today as "condensed matter".
>
> But it is of course not usual condensed matter. �Usual condensed
> matter, consisting of atoms, serves only as an analogon. The critical
> distance, where the microscopic structure of the ether becomes
> important and the continuous field theory fails, is unknown
> (in particular, it should not be the Planck length).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would be interested in the following:
1. hearing more about the physical properties of this medium,
emphasizing its qualitative, conceptual properties.
and
2. hearing about whether there might be ways to unambiguously detect
this medium in some way.
RLO
FrediFizzx
news:f5e2cf6d-5d92-4050...@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> 2. hearing about whether there might be ways to unambiguously detect
> this medium in some way.
Detecting the ether medium is mostly purely interpretational. Open your
eyes and you have detected the medium if you choose that interpretation.
It is so perfect, that one can choose a model in which there is no
medium to explain many things. However, it is my personal opinion that
the mass of the elementary fermions cannot be explained without some
kind of medium concept. Then again, nature may have just given us those
fermions with their particular masses with no explanation possible. But
that is not very satisfying. ;-)
Best,
Fred Diether
Robert L. Oldershaw
>
> > 2. hearing about whether there might be ways to unambiguously detect
> > this medium in some way.
>
> Detecting the ether medium is mostly purely interpretational. Open your
> eyes and you have detected the medium if you choose that interpretation.
> It is so perfect, that one can choose a model in which there is no
> medium to explain many things. �However, it is my personal opinion that
> the mass of the elementary fermions cannot be explained without some
> kind of medium concept. �Then again, nature may have just given us those
> fermions with their particular masses with no explanation possible. But
> that is not very satisfying. ;-)
>
Here's my model:
J = sGM^2/c, where J = ang. momen. of proton, s = spin, M = mass of p^
+, and G = 2.18 x 10^31 cm^3/g sec^2.
The mass, radius and angular momentum of the proton form a unique set
of values that obey the Kerr-Newman solution of the coupled Einstein-
Maxwell equations.
The trick is that you have to know about the discrete self-similar
scaling of gravitation in order to find the appropriate value of the
gravitational coupling factor G, which has been assumed to be constant
since paleolithic times, but is most definitely not a universal
constant, at least not when you are using a fixed set of MLT units.
Just as Atomic Scale particles are the underlying medium from which
Stellar Scale systems are formed, so also are Atomic Scale systems
formed from the Subquantum Scale medium, which is composed of discrete
self-similar analogues of the Atomic Scale particles. One unified
physics with discrete scale invariance for all of nature.
Definitive prediction: Stellar Scale will be dominated by a "dark
matter" composed of stellar-mass Kerr-Newman ultracompacts with masses
of 8 x 10^-5, 0.145 and 0.580 solar masses, which are analogues of
e^-, p^+ and alpha particle.
I would bet my life on it; in fact I have.
Yours in science,
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw
FrediFizzx
OK, so how would you detect this?
Best,
Fred Diether
Tom Roberts
> On Jul 16, 11:32 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>
> As regards the tests you cite: I believe that non of them are pure one-
> way tests equivalent to that proposed by Harkness / myself.
Every one of them is a one-way measurement of the anisotropy in the
speed of light.
Cialdea, Krisher et al, and Torr and Kolen are DIRECT implementations of
measuring one-way phase variations with orientation using two clocks
separated by a transmission line (Cialdea: air, Krisher et al: glass
fiber, Torr and Kolen: vacuum); Cialdea's lasers are implementations of
"light clocks". Yes, they do not measure time with atomic clocks, but
what they do (compare phases) is precisely equivalent to that.
> You know it is difficult to understand how you (in the plural), the
> unwavering SR fraternity, supposedly logical guys, can continue to
> deny so tenaciously the possibility of a fixed frame of reference.
Because no evidence for such a fixed frame has ever been presented, when
using local measurements. Today we KNOW that SR is valid only locally,
and nobody in their right mind would attempt to apply it at large scales
(earth size or larger). At large scales, there quite clearly is a global
frame that is unique and could be called "fixed" with only a minor abuse
of terminology. That frame is the cosmologically-unique frame of the FRW
manifolds, and is displayed by both the CMBR and the galaxies today
(i.e. at a specified value of cosmological time).
This, of course, is not SR.
There really is no "unwavering SR fraternity". There are physicists like
myself who do understand the issues, and who know that to date no better
theory has been proposed within its domain. That is QUITE DIFFERENT from
"unwavering". The "controversy" and "debates" about the validity of SR
come only from people who do not understand SR and/or experimental
physics. There is, on the other hand, a community of physicists who are
actively testing the validity of SR (local Lorentz invariance),
developing models for LLI violations, using those models to develop more
advanced experiments, and developing theories that go beyond SR (e.g.
GR, doubly-special relativity, ...). This community doesn't doubt the
validity of SR within its domain of applicability, they just recognize
its domain is limited, and know it is not the final and complete model
of the world.
> I
> would have thought that the anisotropy in the Cosmic Microwave
> Background Radiation (CMBR) would be evidence enough
Sure, at large scales, or with non-local measurements. That's merely one
reason how we KNOW that SR's domain is limited to local regions. But
here on earth, inside a closed laboratory, the CMBR dipole=0 frame is
completely irrelevant and unobservable.
> and there is
> nothing scientifically demonstrable in pure SR which would not apply
> equally to an ether based system.
This depends on the "ether based system". In particular, for such a
system to be valid it must be experimentally indistinguishable from SR
(within their common domain), and that makes it worthless -- assuming an
inherently unobservable "ether" is inconsistent with basic notions of
simplicity and elegance in physical theories. For this to be useful,
such a theory must make predictions beyond SR, and have those
predictions verified experimentally -- a difficult task at best, and
hopeless for most ether advocates, given their manifest incompetence at
physics.
Here's a hint at the difficulties: First and foremost, such a theory
must deal with quantum issues. This is more the domain of QED than SR,
which is appropriate for ether theories of electromagnetism. After
solving that, the next issue is to explain how this putative theory of
EM also "just happens" to apply to the weak, strong, and gravitational
interactions. SR and QED, of course, have no trouble with all this.
> As John Bell said: �Lots of problems
> are solved more easily by imagining the existence of an ether.�
People can say anything. DEMONSTRATING such claims is something else,
and to date NOBODY has demonstrated the need for any sort of ether in
models of the world we inhabit.
> � And
> you don�t get tied up in debates on clock times, and which events
> occurred first, based on mythical observers on rocketships travelling
> the Universe at close to the speed of light � which have no earth
> equivalent.
Such nonsense does not happen in SR, either. But one does need to
understand SR, and not simply look at comic books and writings by people
who do not understand SR.
In SR there are no DEBATES about which event occurred
first, but it certainly happens that the order of
spacelike-separated events is observer dependent. Etc.
> how do you explain the anisotropy in the Cosmic Microwave
> Background Radiation if not via a fixed reference frame?
This depends on what you mean by "fixed". Note that SR is not applicable
to this question, GR is required.
If you mean "contributes to the dynamics" then it is easy to answer: GR
has no such "fixed frame". And no need (note that the usual ether
theories are all in this class).
If you mean "unique", then it is also easy to answer: In GR the relevant
FRW manifolds all have a unique set of cosmological coordinates in which
it is natural that the CMBR dipole=0 frame is at rest. The existence of
such a frame at a given value of cosmological time is due to certain
symmetries of the manifold, not any aspect of the dynamics.
If you mean "the same as the frame in which the distant galaxies (aka
'fixed stars') are on average at rest", then it is also easy: the CMBR
and galaxies naturally occupy the same frame of the FRW manifolds.
Tom Roberts
Robert L. Oldershaw
>
> > Definitive prediction: Stellar Scale will be dominated by a "dark
> > matter" composed of stellar-mass Kerr-Newman ultracompacts with masses
> > of 8 x 10^-5, 0.145 and 0.580 solar masses, which are analogues of
> > e^-, p^+ and alpha particle.
>
> OK, so how would you detect this?
>
If you are referring to the dark matter, I believe that the
microlensing groups have already detected large quantities of unknown
dark objects in this mass range. Note also the amazing ARCADE radio
emission results indicating a large population of stellar-mass black
holes, and, just in, mysterious excess iron ions in the highest energy
cosmic rays.
If you are referring to the Subquantum Scale medium, there have been
some vague hints about seeing something going on at ~ 10^-31 cm [about
the predicted scale], Wang et al, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 23,
L59, 2006. Also FERMI observations hint that their highest E gamma-
rays are delayed, possibly due to quantum fluctutations in S-T.
We have a much better chance of detecting stellar-mass black holes
than the Subquantum medium, but both are testable in the forseeable
future.
Ilja Schmelzer
> John Hudson wrote:
> > and there is
> > nothing scientifically demonstrable in pure SR which would not apply
> > equally to an ether based system.
>
> This depends on the "ether based system". In particular, for such a
> system to be valid it must be experimentally indistinguishable from SR
> (within their common domain), and that makes it worthless -- assuming an
> inherently unobservable "ether" is inconsistent with basic notions of
> simplicity and elegance in physical theories.
What is simpler - SR or the Lorentz ether - is questionable. In SR you
need a 4D blockworld, and you have to explain why we experience
only a 3D world as actual and the flow of time. With these open
and unanswered questions, the greater symmetry of SR seems
a worthless detail.
Elegance is even more questionable.
> For this to be useful,
> such a theory must make predictions beyond SR, and have those
> predictions verified experimentally -- a difficult task at best, and
> hopeless for most ether advocates, given their manifest incompetence at
> physics.
But not for all of them ;-) See ilja-schmelzer.de/glet.
> Here's a hint at the difficulties: First and foremost, such a theory
> must deal with quantum issues.
Really? I think it would be more fair to require only that it must
deal with quantum issues at least as good as GR, that means not at
all.
> This is more the domain of QED than SR,
> which is appropriate for ether theories of electromagnetism. After
> solving that, the next issue is to explain how this putative theory of
> EM also "just happens" to apply to the weak, strong, and gravitational
> interactions. SR and QED, of course, have no trouble with all this.
They have a lot - they have to postulate all the SM out of thin air.
But, of course, an ether theory which applies to weak, strong, EM and
gravity is available and published in Foundations of Physics. See
ilja-schmelzer.de/clm.
> > As John Bell said: �Lots of problems
> > are solved more easily by imagining the existence of an ether.�
>
> People can say anything. DEMONSTRATING such claims is something else,
In his "How to teach special relativity" Bell has demonstrated it by
showing the confusion of specialists about a simple SR question.
> and to date NOBODY has demonstrated the need for any sort of ether in
> models of the world we inhabit.
There is, of course, no need for fundamental physical theories at
all.
But if you want an explanation why the SM is as it is, which
mainstream
proposal is better or comparable with the ether model of
ilja-schmelzer.de/clm?
Ilja Schmelzer
wrote:
> I would be interested in the following:
>
> 1. hearing more about the physical properties of this medium,
> emphasizing its qualitative, conceptual properties.
All what can be said in general I think I have said in
ilja-schmelzer.de/clm.
Too much more speculation about the "physical properties"
seems unjustified.
> 2. hearing about whether there might be ways to unambiguously detect
> this medium in some way.
I would think that if one observes in our world the same
number of fermions as required in this model, the same
gauge group, and the same action of the gauge group
on the fermions, this a is sufficiently unambiguous
detection.
GSS
> .......
> Thanks for this: especially the information on the clocks, of which I
> was not aware. Clearly, based on the accuracies you quote, such a test
> as I propose would be impractical for the present.
>
Not really.
I have examined this issue in some greater detail and find it quite
feasible with the currently available technology.
https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/isotropy_experiment.pdf?attredirects=0
........
> You know it is difficult to understand how you (in the plural), the
> unwavering SR fraternity, supposedly logical guys, can continue to
> would have thought that the anisotropy in the Cosmic Microwave
> nothing scientifically demonstrable in pure SR which would not apply
> are solved more easily by imagining the existence of an ether.� �� And
> you don�t get tied up in debates on clock times, and which events
> the Universe at close to the speed of light � which have no earth
> equivalent.
>
Physics.
G S Sandhu
> Best regards,
> John.
Tom Roberts
> I have examined this issue in some greater detail and find it quite
> feasible with the currently available technology.
> https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/isotropy_experiment.pdf?attredirects=0
The experiment described in section 3 is not at all a one-way
experiment. You forgot to consider the effect of EM signal propagation
on the synchronization of those GPS clocks. Do so and you'll find it
makes this a two-way experiment, and the result is pre-ordained to be
isotropically c modulo the Sagnac effect and atmospheric issues, because
of the way the GPS works. The Sagnac effect will affect the value for a
given pair of towers, but will not introduce any orientation dependence
into the measurement.
[Yes, the clock mentioned has a Rubidium module, but that
is not the primary standard, the GPS is the primary
standard and the local Rb clock is synchronized to the
GPS (it is used to smooth out the inherent jitter of the
GPS at the few-nanosecond level).]
To make such a one-way measurement INHERENTLY requires two clocks. The
GPS is only one clock, plus electromagnetic propagation throughout its
service area. So the GPS alone cannot be used to test the validity of
its internal model of EM propagation, one needs additional INDEPENDENT
clocks. Current atomic clocks will not be sufficiently accurate over 24
hours. A group of several cesium clocks at each end might be sufficient,
but I doubt it.
You could do this with a single set of atomic clocks at
a location far from the GPS ground system (Boulder, CO,
USA). You just monitor the difference between GPS time
(obtained from a local GPS receiver) and your clocks.
This tests the isotropy of one-way propagation of EM
signals with the earth's rotation. Such comparisons are
performed routinely at standards organizations around
the globe, and if they ever found significant
irregularities they would be front-page news.
Bottom line: this type of experiment has already been performed far
better than you are likely to be capable of doing. I'm sure a search of
the metrology literature would find reports on accuracy for baselines
MUCH larger than your 30 km, using clocks that are more accurate than
you are likely to obtain. If you perform such a literature search,
please post the results here, including references.
[Those "atmospheric issues" need to be understood....]
Tom Roberts
GSS
> GSS wrote:
> > I have examined this issue in some greater detail and find it quite
> > feasible with the currently available technology.
>
> The experiment described in section 3 is not at all a one-way
> experiment. You forgot to consider the effect of EM signal propagation
> on the synchronization of those GPS clocks. Do so and you'll find it
> makes this a two-way experiment, and the result is pre-ordained to be
> isotropically c modulo the Sagnac effect and atmospheric issues, because
> of the way the GPS works.
Wrong.
The proposed experiment is neither one-way nor two-way test for
measurement of light speed c. This is a unique test, the like of which
has neither been conducted by anybody nor even contemplated so far. It
is unique in following respects.
(a) We do not attempt to measure the speed of light at all.
(b) We do not even need to measure the distance between two points A
and B for conducting the test.
(c) We do not use the wave properties of light for measuring any
interference effects or fringe shifts.
(d) What we are attempting to measure is the *absolute motion* in
space, of two points A and B fixed on the surface of earth.
(e) For that we need to measure the up-link (Tu) and down-link (Td)
signal propagation times between fixed points A and B.
(f) The result depends on the *difference* between Tu and Td, due to
which the hardware delays and atmospheric signal propagation delays
get cancelled out.
> The Sagnac effect will affect the value for a
> given pair of towers, but will not introduce any orientation dependence
> into the measurement.
>
The Sagnac effect implies taking into account the *motion* of
transmitter and/or receiver during the time of propagation of the
signal. The whole experiment is based on this effect. But the crucial
point here is, *motion* with respect to which reference frame? The two
fixed points A and B can be seen to be moving with different
velocities when referred to different reference frames like GCRF or
BCRF etc. This leads to the contradiction pointed out in section 2 of
the referred article.
"In the foregoing analysis, c has been assumed to be the universal
constant representing the speed of light or signal propagation in
vacuum. It is only due to the Relativity dominated current paradigm
that we had assumed the speed of signal propagation c to be the same
constant in all four reference frames considered above. The above
mentioned contradiction due to the inequality of LHS and RHS in three
of the four equations (7A to 7D), points to a significant conclusion
that c cannot be the same isotropic universal constant in all
reference frames in relative uniform motion.That is, the speed of
signal propagation can be the isotropic value c only in one particular
reference frame which we may identify as the Universal Reference
Frame."
Would you like to discuss this issue on logical considerations?
> [Yes, the clock mentioned has a Rubidium module, but that
> is not the primary standard, the GPS is the primary
> standard and the local Rb clock is synchronized to the
> GPS (it is used to smooth out the inherent jitter of the
> GPS at the few-nanosecond level).]
>
> To make such a one-way measurement INHERENTLY requires two clocks. The
> GPS is only one clock, plus electromagnetic propagation throughout its
> service area. So the GPS alone cannot be used to test the validity of
> its internal model of EM propagation, one needs additional INDEPENDENT
> clocks. Current atomic clocks will not be sufficiently accurate over 24
> hours. A group of several cesium clocks at each end might be sufficient,
> but I doubt it.
>
> You could do this with a single set of atomic clocks at
> a location far from the GPS ground system (Boulder, CO,
> USA). You just monitor the difference between GPS time
> (obtained from a local GPS receiver) and your clocks.
> This tests the isotropy of one-way propagation of EM
> signals with the earth's rotation. Such comparisons are
> performed routinely at standards organizations around
> the globe, and if they ever found significant
> irregularities they would be front-page news.
>
You have not understood the role of GPS in the proposed experiment.
Here we are not using GPS as a timer for conducting the experiment. We
are using GPS as a primary source of UTC time and frequency standard
for synchronizing two independent Rubidium clocks with one ns
resolution. Since the two clocks at points A and B are synchronized
with the GPS time standard, they can be regarded as mutually
synchronized in absolute terms. At any instant when the UTC time is
t1, both clocks will read t1. Their instantaneous time readouts, with
nanosecond resolution, can be obtained with a trigger pulse.
> Bottom line: this type of experiment has already been performed far
> better than you are likely to be capable of doing. I'm sure a search of
> the metrology literature would find reports on accuracy for baselines
> MUCH larger than your 30 km, using clocks that are more accurate than
> you are likely to obtain. If you perform such a literature search,
> please post the results here, including references.
>
> [Those "atmospheric issues" need to be understood....]
>
> Tom Roberts
Wrong.
As explained above, this is a unique test, the like of which has
neither been conducted by anybody nor even contemplated so far.
G S Sandhu
ken...@erinet.com
> Please accept the following for submission.
>
> A new test for the ether
> It is often forgotten, or the fact is ignored. that Einstein�s 1905 paper on Special Relativity did not disprove the existence of the ether but rather showed that it could not be detected by the methods designed to do so, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment and others like it . At the time Einstein used the word �superfluous� to describe his feelings towards the ether, but stated that SR �does not compel us to deny the ether�. And after around 1920 he had come to the conclusion that the ether was necessary. In a letter to Lorentz he stated, �I agree with you that the General Relativity paper admits of an ether hypothesis�, and later made even stronger statement to that effect.
> �
> I believe I have a test for the ether which is not beset with the problems of the Michelson-Morley experiment and others like it.
> �
> What is involved is the measurement of the time taken for light to travel a set distance in opposing directions. Such a test does not involve the two way speed of light (for example from a source, to a mirror and back again, as in the Michelson-Morley experiment) which turns out to be constant.
> �
> An objection to the one way speed of light is how the clocks at the source and receiver are to be synchronized. Unfortunately in the case of the ether this cannot be done by simply measuring the time for the return trip and dividing by two, because with the ether times will be different for the different directions. So with stations A and B and measuring the time A to B and the time B to A it is not possible to separate any potential differences in clock times from differences in times for the forward and reverse trip.
> �
> However if, as I am suggesting, instead of comparing the times A to B and B to A at the same time, you measure only A to B, but with the 12 hr time separations (so that the measurements are into and against the ether). In this case the potential lack of synchronization of the clocks cancels and you would get a true indication of time difference � with a sine wave over a 24 hr period.
> �
> At the period the ether was under investigation and even to recent times such a test was not possible as clocks were simply not accurate enough, and this was why Michelson and others (in fact I think it was Maxwell originally) came up with the idea of measuring interference fringes � which as is well known gave a null result because the Lorentz contraction counteracted any potential time differences in the arms of the interferometer.
> �
> �
> �
> Taking the distance between the two stations as �l�, the assumed velocity of the ether wind �v�� and the velocity of light �c� we have the outward time t(o) and return time t(r) as follows:
> �
> t(o) =� l / c + v ����������������������� and t(r) = l / c � v
> �
> With a distance �l� between stations = 1000m (which seems reasonable)
> A clock time resolution of 50 ps (quoted in the literature)
> The speed of the earth, �v� round the sun = 30 km/s
> And the speed of light = 300,000,000 m/s
> �
> Then t(r) =� l / c + v = 1,000 / 299970000 = 3.3336667 x 10(-6) s
> And t(o) =� l / c � v = 1,000 / 300,030,000 = 3.333000033 x10(-6)s
> So t(r) � t(o) = 6.666 x 10 (-10)s
> �
> �
> N.B. Another potential test for the ether is with regard to the eclipses of the moons of Jupiter. Such a test was actually suggested by Maxwell, in I think 1879 (and it was from Maxwell�s discussion with D. P Todd, a colleague of Michelson, that the Michelson-Morley experiment came about). Jupiter has a period of around 12 terrestrial years and if the eclipses are measured over a period of 6 years any apparent time differences will give a measure of the movement of the solar system through the ether. If we take that speed as around 30km/s then it would mean a time difference of 0.2 seconds over 6 years. At that time such time differences over such a period of time were not measurable. I don�t know if such time differences are measurable with today�s equipment, and / or whether the information is available. It is certainly worth consideration.
> �
> Of course should the ether take it upon itself to follow the earth or the sun around non of the above would apply.
> �
A simpler doable experiment to detect the ether is available in the
following link:
http://www.geocitie.com/kn_seto/2008experiment.pdf
Ken Seto
> �
> Best regards,
> John.
Tom Roberts
> Here we are not using GPS as a timer for conducting the experiment.
Yes, you are. You say so in the next few sentences.
> We are using GPS as a primary source of UTC time and frequency standard
> for synchronizing two independent Rubidium clocks with one ns
> resolution. Since the two clocks at points A and B are synchronized
> with the GPS time standard, they can be regarded as mutually
> synchronized in absolute terms.
This is the essence of your mistake. The GPS is not magic, and does not
provide any sort of "absolute synchronization". In fact, what the GPS
does is equivalent to using EM signals to transfer the ground-segment
time at Boulder CO throughout its service area, in the ECI frame. When
one uses GPS clocks to measure the speed of light, one obtains c in the
ECI frame, isotropically (modulo small effects such as atmospherics). If
you transfer this ECI value to the rotating earth-surface frame, the
Sagnac effect applies (and can be large at the ~ ns level required). All
this is INHERENT in the way the GPS works, and if it weren't so the GPS
simply would not work.
The clocks you specified are GPS clocks, not independent
Rubidium clocks. They contain either a Rubidium or a
crystal oscillator, in order to average out the inherent
jitter of GPS time at the few-ns level. Rubidium clocks
are several orders of magnitude too inaccurate at the
level required (~ ns accuracy over 24 hours).
Note also that this isotropic propagation speed will be measured, even
if one uses independent clocks and assumes an anisotropic one-way speed
of light, as long as the form of that anisotropy is consistent with the
experiments that show that the round-trip speed of light is
isotropically c in every inertial fame occupied by a lab on earth.
Basically the effect on the clocks of slow clock transport (from the
earth's rotation) will cancel the anisotropic one-way propagation.
Stated differently: all theories in which a) the one-way
vacuum speed of light is anisotropic, and b) the round-trip
vacuum speed of light is isotropically c in any inertial
frame, form an equivalence class. All theories of this class
are experimentally indistinguishable from SR; so MEASUREMENTS
cannot distinguish them. This directly implies that isotropic
propagation in the ECI frame will be MEASURED, according to
any viable theory with anisotropic vacuum lightspeed.
Using GPS clocks will completely hide any effect of the sort you are
looking for. You need two INDEPENDENT clocks, and GPS clocks aren't.
Even so, two independent clocks won't see any effect either, because the
round-trip vacuum speed of light is MEASURED to be isotropic in any
inertial frame occupied by a lab on earth.
Look at the experiments I referenced, and especially the
metrology literature. This HAS been done before, far better
than you could hope to do, and no significant signal is seen.
Tom Roberts
GSS
> GSS wrote:
> > Here we are not using GPS as a timer for conducting the experiment.
>
> Yes, you are. You say so in the next few sentences.
>
> > We are using GPS as a primary source of UTC time and frequency standard
> > for synchronizing two independent Rubidium clocks with one ns
> > resolution. Since the two clocks at points A and B are synchronized
> > with the GPS time standard, they can be regarded as mutually
> > synchronized in absolute terms.
>
> This is the essence of your mistake. The GPS is not magic, and does not
> provide any sort of "absolute synchronization".
To clear your misunderstanding, let me elaborate this point.
Consider two Rubidium atomic clocks A and B, each connected through an
optical fiber link to a Master atomic clock C such that the length of
the optical fiber link from C to A is the same as that from C to B.
Let the two clocks A and B be perfectly synchronized with master clock
C with a timing resolution of about one nanosecond. Here the term
'perfectly synchronized' implies that when the clock C reads UTC time
t1, the clocks A and B will also read t1. But if there is some
unaccounted time delay say d1 in each of the optical fiber links, then
the clocks A and B may not read t1 but (t1 - d1). Further, if the
master clock C gets slowly drifted from UTC time standard by say d2,
then the clocks A and B may not read t1 but (t1 - d1 - d2). However,
since both clocks A and B read the same time (t1 -d1 - d2), they can
be considered as mutually in absolute synchronization. That is
because in the proposed experiment we need to compute the up-link and
down-link signal propagation times (Tu and Td) by subtracting the two
timing readings. As such the timing errors d1, d2 etc. get canceled
out and do not influence the result.
Therefore, it is obvious that the clocks A and B can be regarded as
mutually synchronized in absolute terms as long as they are both
perfectly synchronized with a common master clock C, even if the
master clock C does not depict the perfect UTC time. The same
arguments hold good if we replace the master clock C with the GPS
time. Once the clocks A and B get perfectly synchronized to the GPS
time, they can be regarded as mutually synchronized in absolute terms,
regardless of the inherent limitations or inaccuracies of the GPS
timing system.
> In fact, what the GPS
> does is equivalent to using EM signals to transfer the ground-segment
> time at Boulder CO throughout its service area, in the ECI frame. When
> one uses GPS clocks to measure the speed of light, one obtains c in the
> ECI frame, isotropically (modulo small effects such as atmospherics). If
> you transfer this ECI value to the rotating earth-surface frame, the
> Sagnac effect applies (and can be large at the ~ ns level required). All
> this is INHERENT in the way the GPS works, and if it weren't so the GPS
> simply would not work.
>
It is not fair to delete my explanation and keep repeating your own
misconceptions. Let me therefore, repeat what I wrote in the last
post.
The proposed experiment is neither one-way nor two-way test for
measurement of light speed c. This is a unique test, the like of which
has neither been conducted by anybody nor even contemplated so far. It
is unique in following respects.
(a) We do not attempt to measure the speed of light at all.
(b) We do not even need to measure the distance between two points A
and B for conducting the test.
(c) We do not use the wave properties of light for measuring any
interference effects or fringe shifts.
(d) What we are attempting to measure is the *absolute motion* in
space, of two points A and B fixed on the surface of earth.
(e) For that we need to measure the up-link (Tu) and down-link (Td)
signal propagation times between fixed points A and B.
(f) The result depends on the *difference* between Tu and Td, due to
which the hardware delays and atmospheric signal propagation delays
get canceled out.
......
> Using GPS clocks will completely hide any effect of the sort you are
> looking for. You need two INDEPENDENT clocks, and GPS clocks aren't.
> Even so, two independent clocks won't see any effect either, because the
> round-trip vacuum speed of light is MEASURED to be isotropic in any
> inertial frame occupied by a lab on earth.
>
In the proposed experiment, we intend to use GPSReference-2000 timing
system from SpectraTime, which is capable of synchronizing with the
GPS time to one nanosecond resolution.
http://www.spectratime.com/product_downloads/gpsref_manual.pdf
What we are looking for in the experiment is the up-link and down-link
timing difference of the order of 100ns to more than 200 ns. Hence
there is no doubt whatsoever that the Absolute Motion in space can be
detected convincingly with the proposed experiment.
Further, to clear some of your misconceptions regarding GPS time and
frequency transfer system, let me reproduce some relevant excerpts
from an interesting article "Space clocks and fundamental tests: The
ACES experiment" published in Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics 172, 57-68
(2009).
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h6881742l087jh8k/
"The best atomic fountains approach 10 picosecond error per day, i.e.
a frequency stability of 1 part in 10^16, while the most recent
optical clocks, operating in the optical domain, reach 2 picoseconds
per day and improve at a fast pace. Because time intervals and
frequencies can be measured so precisely, applications of atomic
clocks are numerous and very diverse."
"The ACES clock signal will be transferred on ground by a time and
frequency transfer link in the microwave domain (MWL). MWL compares
the ACES frequency reference to a set of ground clocks, enabling
fundamental physics tests and applications in different areas of
research."
"Then, a period of 4 months will be devoted to the performance
evaluation of the clocks. During this phase, a signal with frequency
inaccuracy in the 10^-15 range will be available to ground users."
"This clock signal will be distributed by MWL. Frequency transfer with
time deviation better than 0.3 ps at 300 s, 7 ps at 1 day, and 23 ps
at 10 days of integration time will be demonstrated. These
performances, surpassing existing techniques (TWSTFT and GPS) by one
to two orders of magnitude, will enable common view and non-common
view comparisons of ground clocks
with 10^-17 frequency resolution"
"In addition, ACES will deliver a global atomic time scale with 10-16
accuracy, it will allow clock synchronizations at an uncertainty level
of 100 ps, and contribute to international atomic time scales (TAI,
UTC)."
I sincerely hope that this will clear your remaining doubts,
misunderstandings and misconceptions if any.
G S Sandhu
glird
>
>< ... there is nothing scientifically demonstrable in pure SR which
would not
apply equally to an ether based system. As John Bell said: �Lots of
problems are
solved more easily by imagining the existence of an ether.� >
Let the ether be a continuous easily movable compressible material
that fills all spaces everywhere, including inside and between atoms,
and ALL the problems of physics are easily solved.
glird
Paul Stowe
wrote:
> On Jul 20, 9:53�am, Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > My medium is more complex than a gas, and more close to what is
> > classified today as "condensed matter".
>
> > But it is of course not usual condensed matter. �Usual condensed
> > matter, consisting of atoms, serves only as an analogon. The critical
> > distance, where the microscopic structure of the ether becomes
> > important and the continuous field theory fails, is unknown
> > (in particular, it should not be the Planck length).
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I would be interested in the following:
>
> 1. hearing more about the physical properties of this medium,
> emphasizing its qualitative, conceptual properties.
OK, look at this,
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf
(if you look closely at Maxwell's vortex lattice you show realize that
it is inherently quantum mechanical)
Then look at,
http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Droplet-International-Monographs-Physics/dp/0198507828
(Freddi might know of a free link, if not email me and I'll send you
the PDF which was offered online years ago for free which is where I
got my copy)
Then look at my musings,
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2009-01/msg00039.html
http://www.mountainman.com.au/index_ps.htm
> and
>
> 2. hearing about whether there might be ways to unambiguously detect
> this medium in some way.
Remember the old strip chart dot recorder used in high school science
labs to record the rate of fall? One could use a sophisticated
version of it to determine if there were any anisotropy in light pulse
travel times from a fixed transmitter and the recorder. If the
recorded signals are always exactly equally spaced no anisotropy would
be present however any anisotropy should result in an uneven spacing.
No clock synchronization is required since the recording device is
totally independent of the transmitter.
> RLO
Regards,
FrediFizzx
news:696b0103-757a-4dfe...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> Then look at,
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Droplet-International-Monographs-Physics/dp/0198507828
>
> (Freddi might know of a free link, if not email me and I'll send you
> the PDF which was offered online years ago for free which is where I
> got my copy)
Yes I do,
http://ltl.tkk.fi/wiki/images/b/bf/Volovik-book.pdf
Best,
Fred Diether
Ilja
> system to be valid it must be experimentally indistinguishable from SR
> (within their common domain), and that makes it worthless --
Not at all. If one has two theories which make the same experimental
predictions, above can be distinguished only metaphysically.
> assuming an
> inherently unobservable "ether" is inconsistent with basic notions of
> simplicity and elegance in physical theories.
This is often claimed but far away from being clear and obvious. Given
the many difficulties which appear in particular in quantum mechanics,
in particular Bell's theorem, it is relativity which becomes more and
more ugly.
> For this to be useful,
> such a theory must make predictions beyond SR, and have those
> predictions verified experimentally
I disagree. It is sufficient if it explains known facts better than
existing
theory. For example, if it gives the SM gauge group and it's action
on
fermions (as my model), it does not have to add predictions of new
particles.
> Here's a hint at the difficulties: First and foremost, such a theory
> must deal with quantum issues.
What is problematic here? There is a large body of research
of quantum condensed matter theory, nothing indicates that
something is particularly problematic with this.
> After
> solving that, the next issue is to explain how this putative theory of
> EM also "just happens" to apply to the weak, strong, and gravitational
> interactions.
Which is already done in my theory.
> > As John Bell said: �Lots of problems
> > are solved more easily by imagining the existence of an ether.�
>
> People can say anything. DEMONSTRATING such claims is something else,
Which is sometimes quite simple. Take for example the problems of
background-free
GR quantization, in particular the one named "problem of time". It is
what
follows from the incompatibility of the GR notion of time and that of
QT.
Now, in an ether theory the notion of absolute time is the same as
used
in QT, and GR time is only an unimportant distorted measurement
results
without fundamental importance, so no "problem of time" appears.
> and to date NOBODY has demonstrated the need for any sort of ether in
> models of the world we inhabit.
There is, of course, no "need" for fundamental physics at all, it is
just interesting,
so to demonstrate a need is an impossibility.
But that an ether is the simplest explanation for our observable world
I have already demonstrated. See ilja-schmelzer.de/clm.
mpc755
> Best regards,
> John.
The observed behaviors of the double slit experiment when performed
with C-60 molecules is evidence of aether. The C-60 molecule always
enters and exits a single slit while the displacement wave it creates
in the aether enters and exits both. Detecting the C-60 molecule
causes decoherence and there is not interference. No detectors, and
interference occurs, altering the direction the C-60 molecule travels.
Ilja
> The observed behaviors of the double slit experiment when performed
> with C-60 molecules is evidence of aether. The C-60 molecule always
> enters and exits a single slit while the displacement wave it creates
> in the aether enters and exits both. Detecting the C-60 molecule
> causes decoherence and there is not interference. No detectors, and
> interference occurs, altering the direction the C-60 molecule travels.
Aether waves have to be waves in usual space (3D).
To explain quantum effects, one needs waves in configuration space.
To identify the quantum wave function with an ether wave is therefore
impossible - it works only for a single particle (which may be,
of course, a single C60).
You have to recover, at least, some many-particle effects in your
"ether theory". Without this, your theory is dead on arrival.
mpc755
This thread is titled, "A new test for the ether".
I am pointing out there are existing tests which are misinterpreted.
A moving particle or object has an associated aether wave.
Ilja
Proposing this last thesis (which does not hold in every ether theory,
in particular, it does not hold in the Lorentz ether as well as in my
ether
theories) you propose your own, personal ether theory.
And this theory is dead, given that you have no better reply.
mpc755
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"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"
A moving particle or object has an associated aether wave. It is why
the 'state of the [aether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places'.
Ilja
LOL. You seriously want to argue that Einstein's GR implies that
"A moving particle or object has an associated aether wave."?
The gravitational field contains, of course, also gravitational waves,
but these are not associated with particular objects.
Again, you are free to propose such a theory, giving equations of
movement for this wave and so on. But this would be your theory.
mpc755
> On 17 Okt., 23:13, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 17, 9:45�am, Ilja <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > A moving particle or object has an associated aether wave.
>
> > > Proposing this last thesis (which does not hold in every ether theory,
> > > in particular, it does not hold in the Lorentz ether as well as in my
> > > ether
> > > theories) you propose your own, personal ether theory.
>
> > > And this theory is dead, given that you have no better reply.
>
> > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
>
> > "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"
>
> > A moving particle or object has an associated aether wave. It is why
> > the 'state of the [aether] is at every place determined by connections
> > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places'.
>
> LOL. You seriously want to argue that Einstein's GR implies that
> "A moving particle or object has an associated aether wave."?
Yes. The aether is connected to matter. If the matter has momentum and
the aether is connected to the matter, then the aether is being
displaced by the matter's momentum which affects the aether in
neighboring places. The C-60 molecule's matter enters and exits a
single slit in the double slit experiment while the aether
displacement wave enters and exits both.
> The gravitational field contains, of course, also gravitational waves,
> but these are not associated with particular objects.
>
Are you saying gravitational waves are not associated with objects?
> Again, you are free to propose such a theory, giving equations of
> movement for this wave and so on. But this would be your theory.
Yes. The theory is called Aether Displacement. But my intent is not to
hijack this thread. The intent was to show an example of a 'new' test
for the ether which is what the double slit experiment is.
Ilja
> On Oct 18, 2:19�pm, Ilja <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > A moving particle or object has an associated aether wave. It is why
> > > the 'state of the [aether] is at every place determined by connections
> > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places'.
>
> > LOL. You seriously want to argue that Einstein's GR implies that
> > "A moving particle or object has an associated aether wave."?
>
> Yes. The aether is connected to matter. If the matter has momentum and
> the aether is connected to the matter, then the aether is being
> displaced by the matter's momentum which affects the aether in
> neighboring places. The C-60 molecule's matter enters and exits a
> single slit in the double slit experiment while the aether
> displacement wave enters and exits both.
If you want to present Einstein's GR as your ether theory, this makes
no sense. The gravitational field exists, of course, in above slits,
but it is certainly not the interaction of the C60 molecule with
gravity
which causes the resulting interference pattern.
> > The gravitational field contains, of course, also gravitational waves,
> > but these are not associated with particular objects.
>
> Are you saying gravitational waves are not associated with objects?
There is some historical association between a gravitational wave and
an
object whose oscillation has caused the wave. But the stuff whose
oscillations define this wave is quite independent of this object.
It does not make much sense to say that the object "has an
associated aether wave".
> > Again, you are free to propose such a theory, giving equations of
> > movement for this wave and so on. But this would be your theory.
>
> Yes. The theory is called Aether Displacement.
Then why do you quote Einstein to support your theory?
> But my intent is not to
> hijack this thread. The intent was to show an example of a 'new' test
> for the ether which is what the double slit experiment is.
I don't care very much about 'hijacking threads' - once you propose
here something objectionable I object.
The double slit experiment is certainly not a test for ether theory.
It is a test of quantum theory. If you want to replace quantum theory
with your ether theory, there are lot's of quite old tests which
strongly favour the theory that the wave function lives on
configuration
space - 3N dimensional for N particles - and not as N wave functions
on 3-dimensional space.
mpc755
> On Oct 19, 5:55�am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 18, 2:19�pm, Ilja <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > A moving particle or object has an associated aether wave. It is why
> > > > the 'state of the [aether] is at every place determined by connections
> > > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places'.
>
> > > LOL. You seriously want to argue that Einstein's GR implies that
> > > "A moving particle or object has an associated aether wave."?
>
> > Yes. The aether is connected to matter. If the matter has momentum and
> > the aether is connected to the matter, then the aether is being
> > displaced by the matter's momentum which affects the aether in
> > neighboring places. The C-60 molecule's matter enters and exits a
> > single slit in the double slit experiment while the aether
> > displacement wave enters and exits both.
>
> If you want to present Einstein's GR as your ether theory, this makes
> no sense. The gravitational field exists, of course, in above slits,
> but it is certainly not the interaction of the C60 molecule with
> gravity
> which causes the resulting interference pattern.
>
Who said the C-60 molecule's interaction with the aether had anything
to do with gravity? The aether is displaced by the object which exist
in it. Yes, the displaced aether pushes back which is gravity, but I
am not referring to the concept of gravity when discussing the C-60
molecules interaction with the aether.
> > > The gravitational field contains, of course, also gravitational waves,
> > > but these are not associated with particular objects.
>
> > Are you saying gravitational waves are not associated with objects?
>
> There is some historical association between a gravitational wave and
> an
> object whose oscillation has caused the wave. But the stuff whose
> oscillations define this wave is quite independent of this object.
> It does not make much sense to say that the object "has an
> associated aether wave".
>
A gravity wave is an aether wave.
> > > Again, you are free to propose such a theory, giving equations of
> > > movement for this wave and so on. But this would be your theory.
>
> > Yes. The theory is called Aether Displacement.
>
> Then why do you quote Einstein to support your theory?
>
Because I am applying the notion of "the state of the [ether] is at
every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of
the ether in neighbouring places" to the double slit experiment when
performed with particles.
> > But my intent is not to
> > hijack this thread. The intent was to show an example of a 'new' test
> > for the ether which is what the double slit experiment is.
>
> I don't care very much about 'hijacking threads' - once you propose
> here something objectionable I object.
>
> The double slit experiment is certainly not a test for ether theory.
> It is a test of quantum theory. If you want to replace quantum theory
> with your ether theory, there are lot's of quite old tests which
> strongly favour the theory that the wave function lives on
> configuration
> space - 3N dimensional for N particles - and not as N wave functions
> on 3-dimensional space.
The double slit experiment is an experiment. It is not a test of any
specific theory, certainly not quantum theory and the nonsense which
states a C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, can enter, travel
through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without requiring
energy, releasing energy, or having a change in momentum. The first
double slit experiment was performed in the early 1800s.
The double slit experiment is evidence of aether.
FrediFizzx
news:120dc723-175f-410b...@m1g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> The double slit experiment is an experiment. It is not a test of any
> specific theory, certainly not quantum theory and the nonsense which
> states a C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, can enter, travel
> through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without requiring
> energy, releasing energy, or having a change in momentum. The first
> double slit experiment was performed in the early 1800s.
>
> The double slit experiment is evidence of aether.
Well, you are trying to say that the double slit experiment is a test of
ether theory so you seem to be contradicting yourself here. What is the
reference that "states a C-60 molecule ... exit multiple slits
simultaneously..."? I don't believe there is any evidence for that. All
we know is that an interference pattern builds up after a bunch of
molecules are detected one at a time.
IMHO, the ether is so perfect there is no way to test for it really. It
is purely interpretational. One can say that photons are evidence for an
ether if one chooses that interpretation. But I understand what you are
trying to get at here. An electron has a coulomb field always attached
(associated) with it. Of course part of the coulomb field does in fact
go through the other slit in a double slit experiment as well as part of
it goes thru the same slit as the electron.
Best,
Fred Diether
mpc755
The interference pattern building up after a bunch of molecules are
detected one at a time is not all we know. If you place detectors at
the entrances or the exits to the slits, the C-60 molecule is always
detected entering or exiting a single slit.
That is what we know. The C-60 molecule is always detected entering or
exiting a single slit because the C-60 molecule's matter always enters
and exits a single slit. To say the C-60 molecule does not enter or
exit a single slit when you do not look for it is nonsense. Saying it
is a wave function probability of where the C-60 molecule will be
located is placing a mathematical construct on a physical behavior.
You might as well just say it's magic.
If the C-60 molecule's matter always enters and exits a single slit,
which we would be nuts not to believe because that is what the
experimental evidence tells us is occurring, then a wave must be
exiting both slits and altering the direction the C-60 molecule's
matter travels in order for there to be an interference pattern.
It is simply the C-60 molecule creating a wave in the aether.
It is no different than performing the double slit experiment with a
boat. If the bow wave exits the slits ahead of the boat it will create
interference and alter the direction the boat travels. If you place
buoys at the entrances or the exits to the slits in order to detect
the boat, the bow wave is turned into chop and there is no
interference.
There is no contradiction whatsoever.
Why isn't the aether like other mediums?
The aether is the medium.
FrediFizzx
>
> The interference pattern building up after a bunch of molecules are
> detected one at a time is not all we know. If you place detectors at
> the entrances or the exits to the slits, the C-60 molecule is always
> detected entering or exiting a single slit.
And when you do that, I believe you don't get an interference pattern.
> That is what we know. The C-60 molecule is always detected entering or
> exiting a single slit because the C-60 molecule's matter always enters
> and exits a single slit. To say the C-60 molecule does not enter or
> exit a single slit when you do not look for it is nonsense. Saying it
> is a wave function probability of where the C-60 molecule will be
> located is placing a mathematical construct on a physical behavior.
> You might as well just say it's magic.
No magic.
> If the C-60 molecule's matter always enters and exits a single slit,
> which we would be nuts not to believe because that is what the
> experimental evidence tells us is occurring, then a wave must be
> exiting both slits and altering the direction the C-60 molecule's
> matter travels in order for there to be an interference pattern.
>
> It is simply the C-60 molecule creating a wave in the aether.
Why can't the C-60 molecule have real waves associated with it? Does it
have to be waves of the aether?
> It is no different than performing the double slit experiment with a
> boat. If the bow wave exits the slits ahead of the boat it will create
> interference and alter the direction the boat travels. If you place
> buoys at the entrances or the exits to the slits in order to detect
> the boat, the bow wave is turned into chop and there is no
> interference.
>
> There is no contradiction whatsoever.
Yes, there is a contradiction in your statement "The double slit
experiment is an experiment. It is not a test of any specific theory..."
and then you say "The double slit experiment is evidence of aether."
You ARE saying here that the experiment is a test of aether theory so
you are contradicting yourself. Plus... it is not a test of aether
theory exclusively if matter happens to be self-contained real wave
structures.
Best,
Fred Diether
mpc755
> "mpc755" <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1488e766-aec9-4477...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 20, 3:25 am, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> "mpc755" <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:120dc723-175f-410b...@m1g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > The double slit experiment is an experiment. It is not a test of
> >> > any
> >> > specific theory, certainly not quantum theory and the nonsense
> >> > which
> >> > states a C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, can enter, travel
> >> > through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without requiring
> >> > energy, releasing energy, or having a change in momentum. The first
> >> > double slit experiment was performed in the early 1800s.
>
> >> > The double slit experiment is evidence of aether.
>
> >> Well, you are trying to say that the double slit experiment is a test
> >> of
> >> ether theory so you seem to be contradicting yourself here. What is
> >> the
> >> reference that "states a C-60 molecule ... exit multiple slits
> >> All
> >> we know is that an interference pattern builds up after a bunch of
> >> molecules are detected one at a time.
>
> >> IMHO, the ether is so perfect there is no way to test for it really.
> >> It
> >> is purely interpretational. One can say that photons are evidence for
> >> an
> >> are
> >> trying to get at here. 嚙璀n electron has a coulomb field always
> >> attached
> >> (associated) with it. 嚙瞌f course part of the coulomb field does in
> >> fact
> >> go through the other slit in a double slit experiment as well as part
> >> of
> >> it goes thru the same slit as the electron.
>
> > The interference pattern building up after a bunch of molecules are
> > detected one at a time is not all we know. If you place detectors at
> > the entrances or the exits to the slits, the C-60 molecule is always
> > detected entering or exiting a single slit.
>
> And when you do that, I believe you don't get an interference pattern.
>
Correct. The act of detecting the C-60 molecule causes the associated
aether wave to be turned into chop (decoherence).
> > That is what we know. The C-60 molecule is always detected entering or
> > exiting a single slit because the C-60 molecule's matter always enters
> > and exits a single slit. To say the C-60 molecule does not enter or
> > exit a single slit when you do not look for it is nonsense. Saying it
> > is a wave function probability of where the C-60 molecule will be
> > located is placing a mathematical construct on a physical behavior.
> > You might as well just say it's magic.
>
> No magic.
>
A wave function probability is a mathematical construct and has
nothing to do with a physical description of observed behaviors in
nature.
> > If the C-60 molecule's matter always enters and exits a single slit,
> > which we would be nuts not to believe because that is what the
> > experimental evidence tells us is occurring, then a wave must be
> > exiting both slits and altering the direction the C-60 molecule's
> > matter travels in order for there to be an interference pattern.
>
> > It is simply the C-60 molecule creating a wave in the aether.
>
> Why can't the C-60 molecule have real waves associated with it? 嚙瘩oes it
> have to be waves of the aether?
>
If you say the C-60 molecule itself is not entering, traveling
through, and exiting multiple slit simultaneously without releasing
energy, requiring energy, or having a change in momentum, then what is
physically happening in order for an interference pattern to occur? If
you say it is a wave function probability, that is a non-physical
answer.
The wave cannot consist of the same matter as the C-60 molecule. Once
you say it is the C-60 molecule itself which is causing the
interference you get into all of the nonsense of QM. For example, the
slits are long enough that the detectors can be placed and/or removed
from the exits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). If you place
the detectors at the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in
the slit(s), then the C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a
single slit. If you remove the detectors from the exits to the slits
while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s), interference occurs. How is
this possible? This is where you get into the future determining the
past, delayed choice and quantum eraser nonsense of QM. Thing to
remember in all of these types of experiments is the particle (i.e.
particle's matter) travels a single path and the associated aether
wave travels available paths. All that is occurring whenever the paths
are recombined in order for something to be erased or to show some
type of delayed choice is the waves traveling along both paths are
creating interference.
Take a look at the image to the right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment
Where you see the red and blue lines traveling along the same path to
D1 and D2 there are physical aether waves traveling along both the red
and blue lines creating interference. The photon 'particle' is
traveling a single path and the direction it is traveling is altered
by the interference it encounters.
Now, if you mean can the waves be some other type of 'real' wave which
doesn't consist of the C-60 molecule's matter, I do not know what that
would be in a vacuum beside an aether wave.
> > It is no different than performing the double slit experiment with a
> > boat. If the bow wave exits the slits ahead of the boat it will create
> > interference and alter the direction the boat travels. If you place
> > buoys at the entrances or the exits to the slits in order to detect
> > the boat, the bow wave is turned into chop and there is no
> > interference.
>
> > There is no contradiction whatsoever.
>
> Yes, there is a contradiction in your statement "The double slit
> experiment is an experiment. It is not a test of any specific theory..."
> and then you say "The double slit experiment is evidence of aether."
> You ARE saying here that the experiment is a test of aether theory so
> you are contradicting yourself. 嚙瞑lus... 嚙箠t is not a test of aether
> theory exclusively if matter happens to be self-contained real wave
> structures.
>
The other poster seemed to be saying the double slit experiment was
specifically designed for QM and I was just trying to point out that
the double slit experiments began back in the early 1800s and it is
the interpretation, or in the case of QM the misinterpretation, of the
experiment that is occurring in QM and in AD (Aether Displacement).
If matter is self-contained real wave structures then you are required
to believe the future determines the past in order for the C-60
molecule to enter one or both slits depending upon there being or not
being detectors at the exits to the slits when it gets there. Or you
can punt on the whole thing and try and discuss the C-60 molecule as
some type of wave function probability that does not really exist
until detected or some other such non-physical nonsense.
The question really is, why is the C-60 molecule and the double slit
experiment different than a boat and a double slit experiment?
If I take it to the next step, the boat is not interacting with the
water molecules so much as it is interacting with the aether which is
contained by the water molecules.
Ilja
> On Oct 19, 11:30�am, Ilja <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > If you want to present Einstein's GR as your ether theory, this makes
> > no sense. The gravitational field exists, of course, in above slits,
> > but it is certainly not the interaction of the C60 molecule with
> > gravity
> > which causes the resulting interference pattern.
>
> Who said the C-60 molecule's interaction with the aether had anything
> to do with gravity?
Your quoting Einstein about GR iun defense of your theory.
> The aether is displaced by the object which exist
> in it. Yes, the displaced aether pushes back which is gravity, but I
> am not referring to the concept of gravity when discussing the C-60
> molecules interaction with the aether.
Fine. According to standard QM, the interference pattern is caused
by a wave function living on a high-dimensional space (all the
protons,
neutrons and electrons of the C-60). In the double slit with C-60,
one can simplify this to a single wave function on space. This seems
to be what you want to use as your ether wave. Not?
Then the problem appears how you explain QM effects which
require higher-dimensional wave functions for their QM explanation.
> > It does not make much sense to say that the object "has an
> > associated aether wave".
>
> A gravity wave is an aether wave.
Ok, sounds better.
> > The double slit experiment is certainly not a test for ether theory.
> > It is a test of quantum theory. If you want to replace quantum theory
> > with your ether theory, there are lot's of quite old tests which
> > strongly favour the theory that the wave function lives on
> > configuration
> > space - 3N dimensional for N particles - and not as N wave functions
> > on 3-dimensional space.
>
> The double slit experiment is an experiment. It is not a test of any
> specific theory, certainly not quantum theory and the nonsense which
> states a C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, can enter, travel
> through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without requiring
> energy, releasing energy, or having a change in momentum. The first
> double slit experiment was performed in the early 1800s.
>
> The double slit experiment is evidence of aether.
The other experiments about quantum theory (in particular those
which show violations of Bell's inequalities) are evidence against
your ether theory (not against "the ether", of course, because
there are only particular ether theories which may possibly
explain or not the outcome of some given experiment.)
mpc755
> On 19 Okt., 22:20, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 19, 11:30�am, Ilja <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > If you want to present Einstein's GR as your ether theory, this makes
> > > no sense. The gravitational field exists, of course, in above slits,
> > > but it is certainly not the interaction of the C60 molecule with
> > > gravity
> > > which causes the resulting interference pattern.
>
> > Who said the C-60 molecule's interaction with the aether had anything
> > to do with gravity?
>
> Your quoting Einstein about GR iun defense of your theory.
>
> > The aether is displaced by the object which exist
> > in it. Yes, the displaced aether pushes back which is gravity, but I
> > am not referring to the concept of gravity when discussing the C-60
> > molecules interaction with the aether.
>
> Fine. According to standard QM, the interference pattern is caused
> by a wave function living on a high-dimensional space (all the
> protons,
> neutrons and electrons of the C-60). In the double slit with C-60,
> one can simplify this to a single wave function on space. This seems
> to be what you want to use as your ether wave. Not?
>
So, you think nature is more physically like a wave function living on
a high-dimensional space than the C-60 molecule is creating a wave in
the aether.
I am 'using' the aether so there is a physical wave and not a non-
physical wave function on space. I believe physics should be described
by physical behaviors, properties, and characteristics. Not
mathematical functions.
> Then the problem appears how you explain QM effects which
> require higher-dimensional wave functions for their QM explanation.
>
There is no problem in AD. There is a C-60 molecule and the
displacement wave it creates in the aether.
> > > It does not make much sense to say that the object "has an
> > > associated aether wave".
>
> > A gravity wave is an aether wave.
>
> Ok, sounds better.
>
>
>
> > > The double slit experiment is certainly not a test for ether theory.
> > > It is a test of quantum theory. If you want to replace quantum theory
> > > with your ether theory, there are lot's of quite old tests which
> > > strongly favour the theory that the wave function lives on
> > > configuration
> > > space - 3N dimensional for N particles - and not as N wave functions
> > > on 3-dimensional space.
>
> > The double slit experiment is an experiment. It is not a test of any
> > specific theory, certainly not quantum theory and the nonsense which
> > states a C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, can enter, travel
> > through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without requiring
> > energy, releasing energy, or having a change in momentum. The first
> > double slit experiment was performed in the early 1800s.
>
> > The double slit experiment is evidence of aether.
>
> The other experiments about quantum theory (in particular those
> which show violations of Bell's inequalities) are evidence against
> your ether theory (not against "the ether", of course, because
> there are only particular ether theories which may possibly
> explain or not the outcome of some given experiment.)
Please do not bring Bell's Inequality over into this thread. We are
already having that conversation on the other thread. Stop hiding
behind Bell's Inequality and find one difference between an
'entangled' pair and a 'mirror-image' pair. I asked you for a
difference between an 'entangled' pair and a 'mirror-image' pair in
the other thread, so if you would like to answer that question now
please do so in the other thread.
Ilja
> On Oct 21, 10:47�am, Ilja <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Fine. According to standard QM, the interference pattern is caused
> > by a wave function living on a high-dimensional space (all the
> > protons,
> > neutrons and electrons of the C-60). In the double slit with C-60,
> > one can simplify this to a single wave function on space. This seems
> > to be what you want to use as your ether wave. Not?
>
> So, you think nature is more physically like a wave function living on
> a high-dimensional space than the C-60 molecule is creating a wave in
> the aether.
I like pilot wave theory, where we have a configuration (which is the
same as in classical theory) and a wave function. I don't think the
wave function is something like a real wave, but is some effective
way to describe something else. Imagine, for example, some
computer computing, for each configuration, a next configuration.
This computer obviously defines a function on all configurations,
without really "being" such a function. Such a computer would
be "physical".
> I am 'using' the aether so there is a physical wave and not a non-
> physical wave function on space. I believe physics should be described
> by physical behaviors, properties, and characteristics. Not
> mathematical functions.
I think a mathematical description is extremely important, but
don't deny that a physical picture is useful.
> > Then the problem appears how you explain QM effects which
> > require higher-dimensional wave functions for their QM explanation.
>
> There is no problem in AD. There is a C-60 molecule and the
> displacement wave it creates in the aether.
If you ignore the known experiments which your theory cannot
explain, you are simply an ignorant.
> Please do not bring Bell's Inequality over into this thread. We are
> already having that conversation on the other thread. Stop hiding
> behind Bell's Inequality ...
Feel free to ignore the violations of Bell's inequality. In this
case, your theory will be ignored for being unable to handle
violations of Bell's inequality and that's it. You probably know
that a single experiment is sufficient to falsify a scientific
theory. So there is no need to look for something else.
mpc755
> On 22 Okt., 07:06, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 21, 10:47�am, Ilja <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > Fine. According to standard QM, the interference pattern is caused
> > > by a wave function living on a high-dimensional space (all the
> > > protons,
> > > neutrons and electrons of the C-60). In the double slit with C-60,
> > > one can simplify this to a single wave function on space. This seems
> > > to be what you want to use as your ether wave. Not?
>
> > So, you think nature is more physically like a wave function living on
> > a high-dimensional space than the C-60 molecule is creating a wave in
> > the aether.
>
> I like pilot wave theory, where we have a configuration (which is the
> same as in classical theory) and a wave function. �I don't think the
> wave function is something like a real wave, but is some effective
> way to describe something else. Imagine, for example, some
> computer computing, for each configuration, a next configuration.
> This computer obviously defines a function on all configurations,
> without really "being" such a function. Such a computer would
> be "physical".
>
The computer is physical but the functions it is calculating are
mathematical constructs and to thing a mathematical construct
physically defines nature is nonsense.
I like pilot wave theory also, except in my version of pilot wave
theory the wave is a physical aether wave. It is not like a real wave,
it is a real wave.
> > I am 'using' the aether so there is a physical wave and not a non-
> > physical wave function on space. I believe physics should be described
> > by physical behaviors, properties, and characteristics. Not
> > mathematical functions.
>
> I think a mathematical description is extremely important, but
> don't deny that a physical picture is useful.
>
> > > Then the problem appears how you explain QM effects which
> > > require higher-dimensional wave functions for their QM explanation.
>
> > There is no problem in AD. There is a C-60 molecule and the
> > displacement wave it creates in the aether.
>
> If you ignore the known experiments which your theory cannot
> explain, you are simply an ignorant.
>
I am not ignoring any experimental evidence. If you place detectors at
the entrances to the slits, the C-60 molecule would always be detected
entering a single slit because it always enters a single slit. To say
the C-60 molecule does not enter a single slit when you do not look
for it is ignoring the experimental evidence and you are simply an
ignorant.
Again, besides Bell's Inequality, name one experiment where AD, where
the object or particle has an associated aether wave, fails.
GSS
> On Oct 19, 5:55 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > But my intent is not to
> > hijack this thread. The intent was to show an example of a 'new' test
> > for the ether which is what the double slit experiment is.
>
> I don't care very much about 'hijacking threads' - once you propose
> here something objectionable I object.
>
> The double slit experiment is certainly not a test for ether theory.
Let us retrieve the 'hijacked' thread!
Any test for ether must obviously be based on certain assumptions as
to nature or properties of the ether. But even among the supporters of
the ether hypothesis there is no unanimity regarding the properties of
ether. Many such supporters assume the ether to be an ideal fluid type
medium, which is objected by others on the ground that an ideal fluid
cannot support the propagation of transverse waves. A modern trend in
this regard is to assume the free space or vacuum with physical
properties of permittivity, permeability and intrinsic impedance, to
represent the notion of ether.
However, there is a general consensus that ether or vacuum supports
the propagation of light waves and hence the speed of light
propagation 'c' is one of its main properties. But to measure any
speed, we need the construct of a reference frame. Hence the constant
value 'c' for the speed of light propagation in ether or vacuum
implies the existence of a reference frame 'fixed' with respect to the
ether medium. Such a reference frame is often called the 'ether frame'
or an 'absolute reference frame'. Any motion with respect to such an
absolute reference frame is termed as 'absolute motion'. But the
existence of such an 'Absolute Reference Frame' is ruled out by theory
of relativity (SR) and detection of any absolute motion is declared to
be an impossibility, even in principle. So the most appropriate test
for detection of ether can be a test for detection of absolute motion
in space.
The famous Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to detect such
absolute motion of the earth through measurement of predicted
interference effects, which failed. The proposed experiment is again
designed to detect the same absolute motion of earth through
measurement of tiny differences in up-link and down-link signal
propagation times between two fixed points A and B, but without
relying on the wave properties of light.
A digital atomic clock, which is "stationary" in its local or
laboratory reference frame (say K1) on earth, can be viewed as in
"motion" in BCRF (say K2) as well as in the Galactic reference frame
(say K3). If at any instant we obtain a digital time readout of t1,
then this physical measurement will correspond to the instantaneous
reading of a "stationary" clock in reference frame K1 as well as the
instantaneous reading of a "moving" clock in reference frames K2 and
K3. Similarly, when we measure the up-link (Tu) and down-link (Td)
signal propagation times between two clocks A and B, which are
"moving" at velocity U2 along AB in reference frame K2, then it can be
easily shown that,
U2/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu + Td) ....... (1)
But the same two clocks can be simultaneously viewed as "moving" at
velocity U3 along AB in reference frame K3, and hence it can be easily
shown that,
U3/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu + Td) ...... (2)
However, equations (1) and (2) cannot both be valid simultaneously
because U2 <> U3. This contradiction brings us to the conclusion that
the speed of light propagation c cannot be an isotropic constant in
more than one inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion.
And the reference frame in which the speed of light propagation is an
isotropic constant is referred as absolute or universal reference
frame. For detailed analysis on this issue, kindly refer to sections 2
and 3 of the following article.
https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/absolute_motion.pdf?attredirects=0
Further, as already pointed out in my previous post, the clocks A and
B can be regarded as mutually synchronized in absolute terms as long
as they are both perfectly synchronized with a common master clock C
or the GPS with about one nanosecond accuracy.
G S Sandhu
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info
Ilja
> On Oct 22, 11:10�am, Ilja <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I like pilot wave theory, where we have a configuration (which is the
> > same as in classical theory) and a wave function. �I don't think the
> > wave function is something like a real wave, but is some effective
> > way to describe something else. Imagine, for example, some
> > computer computing, for each configuration, a next configuration.
> > This computer obviously defines a function on all configurations,
> > without really "being" such a function. Such a computer would
> > be "physical".
>
> The computer is physical but the functions it is calculating are
> mathematical constructs and to thing a mathematical construct
> physically defines nature is nonsense.
No problem. There is something real, itself unknown, but
described with the help of the wave function.
> I like pilot wave theory also, except in my version of pilot wave
> theory the wave is a physical aether wave. It is not like a real wave,
> it is a real wave.
I have understood this long ago. It doesn't work.
Transformed into the computer example: We know that to compute
the next position of one particle the computer has to know the
positions
of all other particles.
> > If you ignore the known experiments which your theory cannot
> > explain, you are simply an ignorant.
>
> I am not ignoring any experimental evidence.
You have repeatedly asked me to stop using the violation of
Bell's inequality. Don't do this. Bell's inequality is an extremely
simple (in comparison with other quantum computations) way
to see your error.
> If you place detectors at
> the entrances to the slits, the C-60 molecule would always be detected
> entering a single slit because it always enters a single slit. To say
> the C-60 molecule does not enter a single slit when you do not look
> for it is ignoring the experimental evidence and you are simply an
> ignorant.
Irrelevant, because I don't argue that the C-60 does not enter a
single slit.
It enters it in pilot wave theory too.
> Again, besides Bell's Inequality, name one experiment where AD, where
> the object or particle has an associated aether wave, fails.
You don't have the order right. AD is not a well-defined theory yet.
"Mirror-image" sounds nice but is not complete. You first have to
define a complete theory, one which makes predictions for multi-
particle
theory based on N 3D ether wave functions. Then we can see
what the theory predicts, and you will easily find lots of 2 particle
experiments which violate your theory.
Or not. If you introduce some nice FTL signalling mechanism, you
can in principle succeed. But this would be a mechanism which
you have not yet mentioned, because the waves have the usual
speed of light as the upper bound.
mpc755
If the C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit, what exits the
other slit in order for there to be interference?
> > Again, besides Bell's Inequality, name one experiment where AD, where
> > the object or particle has an associated aether wave, fails.
>
> You don't have the order right. AD is not a well-defined theory yet.
> "Mirror-image" sounds nice but is not complete. You first have to
> define a complete theory, one which makes predictions for multi-
> particle
> theory based on N 3D ether wave functions. Then we can see
> what the theory predicts, and you will easily find lots of 2 particle
> experiments which violate your theory.
>
> Or not. If you introduce some nice FTL signalling mechanism, you
> can in principle succeed. But this would be a mechanism which
> you have not yet mentioned, because the waves have the usual
> speed of light as the upper bound.
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Please trim (delete) uncommented quoted text. -fd
mpc755
>
> Further, as already pointed out in my previous post, the clocks A and
> B can be regarded as mutually synchronized in absolute terms as long
> as they are both perfectly synchronized with a common master clock C
> or the GPS with about one nanosecond accuracy.
>
> G S Sandhuhttp://book.fundamentalphysics.info
The aether is the base form of matter. Matter occupies three
dimensional space. Two 'matters' cannot occupy the same point in three
dimensional space simultaneously. The aether is displaced by other
forms of matter which exist where the aether is. Since light reaches
us from behind where Jupiter has been in its orbit, we know the aether
returns to the places in three dimensional space once the matter which
displaced the aether no longer exists there.
Since the aether returns to where it was, the aether is an elastic
medium which pushes back. The pushing back is not only gravity but the
cause of aether entrainment.
GSS
> On Oct 23, 3:57 pm, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Any test for ether must obviously be based on certain assumptions as
> > to nature or properties of the ether. But even among the supporters of
> > the ether hypothesis there is no unanimity regarding the properties of
> > ether. Many such supporters assume the ether to be an ideal fluid type
> > medium, which is objected by others on the ground that an ideal fluid
> > cannot support the propagation of transverse waves. A modern trend in
> > this regard is to assume the free space or vacuum with physical
> > properties of permittivity, permeability and intrinsic impedance, to
> > represent the notion of ether.
> The aether is the base form of matter. Matter occupies three
> dimensional space. Two 'matters' cannot occupy the same point in three
> dimensional space simultaneously.
I am sorry, I cannot agree with your viewpoint.
In my opinion it is absolutely essential that
(a) One must restrict the number of assumptions to the barest minimum.
(b) The assumptions must be plausible and mutually consistent.
(c) The assumptions must finally relate to physical parameters that
are quantifiable.
(d) Any physical model developed with such assumptions, must be
supported by a corresponding mathematical model
> The aether is displaced by other
> forms of matter which exist where the aether is. Since light reaches
> us from behind where Jupiter has been in its orbit, we know the aether
> returns to the places in three dimensional space once the matter which
> displaced the aether no longer exists there.
>
Here you are assuming ether to be some sort of an ideal fluid in which
matter particles exist as some sort of 'solid' entities. As I pointed
out in the beginning, a fluid model of ether is already ruled out
since it cannot support transverse waves.
> Since the aether returns to where it was, the aether is an elastic
> medium which pushes back.
It appears, you are not conversant with the theory of elasticity. You
are just assuming a fluid ether under hydrostatic pressure.
>The pushing back is not only gravity but the
> cause of aether entrainment.
This is a vague assumption which you are asserting as an obvious fact!
Kindly list out all the assumed properties of ether and quantify them
with dimensional parameters. Thereafter you must be able to develop or
derive the wave equation for the physical parameters which you think
represent your 'ether waves'.
GSS
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/Home/book_files/introduction.pdf?attredirects=0
Ilja
> On Oct 23, 3:57�pm, Ilja <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Irrelevant, because I don't argue that the C-60 does not enter a
> > single slit.
> > It enters it in pilot wave theory too.
>
> If the C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit, what exits the
> other slit in order for there to be interference?
The wave function of the C-60. Considered as a function
of the positions of the 60 Cs, it is a function on a 180-dimensional
space. It is nonzero in the region of this space where all 60
Cs are located near the other slit.
mpc755
> On Oct 24, 10:01 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The aether is the base form of matter. Matter occupies three
> > dimensional space. Two 'matters' cannot occupy the same point in three
> > dimensional space simultaneously.
>
> I am sorry, I cannot agree with your viewpoint.
>
> In my opinion it is absolutely essential that
> (a) One must restrict the number of assumptions to the barest minimum.
> (b) The assumptions must be plausible and mutually consistent.
> (c) The assumptions must finally relate to physical parameters that
> are quantifiable.
> (d) Any physical model developed with such assumptions, must be
> supported by a corresponding mathematical model
>
(a) You can't get to less assumptions than the aether is displaced by
the objects which exist in it.
(c) The physical parameter is the particle is always detected entering
and exiting a single slit. THE physical parameter ignored by QM.
> > The aether is displaced by other
> > forms of matter which exist where the aether is. Since light reaches
> > us from behind where Jupiter has been in its orbit, we know the aether
> > returns to the places in three dimensional space once the matter which
> > displaced the aether no longer exists there.
>
> Here you are assuming ether to be some sort of an ideal fluid in which
> matter particles exist as some sort of 'solid' entities. As I pointed
> out in the beginning, a fluid model of ether is already ruled out
> since it cannot support transverse waves.
>
It really comes down to what you choose to believe. Either the aether
can support transverse waves, or the C-60 molecule enters available
slits in the double slit experiment when you do not look for it.
> > Since the aether returns to where it was, the aether is an elastic
> > medium which pushes back.
>
> It appears, you are not conversant with the theory of elasticity. You
> are just assuming a fluid ether under hydrostatic pressure.
>
I'm assuming the aether is displaced by the objects which exist in it
and since light still reaches us from where the objects were, the
objects are not leaving a void in their wake.
> >The pushing back is not only gravity but the
> > cause of aether entrainment.
>
> This is a vague assumption which you are asserting as an obvious fact!
>
Does light from distant stars reach us from where Jupiter was as
Jupiter continues in its orbit?
mpc755
Which is it? Does the C-60 molecule physically enter and exit a single
slit or is it a wave function? In AD, the C-60 molecule physically
enters and exits a single slit and the displacement wave it creates in
the aether enters and exits available slits.
mpc755
A wave function does not physically exit a slit. A wave function is a
mathematical construct. In AD, a physical wave exits both slits.
I'm correctly starting to get my posts rejected because they are
repetitive and are offering no supporting evidence, so if I'm allowed
one more post before leaving this forum, I would like it to be the
following. I will not be following up. If you are interested in
continuing this discussion look for a mpc755 thread over on
sci.physics.relativity. Take care.
The MM experiment did not find the aether because it is entrained by
the Earth.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"
Most everything Maxwell did was based off of the notion of a
'displacement current'. What is displaced by the current? The aether.
If you take Einstein's concept of the state of the aether is at every
place determined by the connections with the matter and the state of
the aether in neighboring places and Maxwell's concept of a
displacement current, you have Aether Displacement.
The aether is displaced by the objects which exist in it.
And there is plenty of evidence of the aether.
Any double slit experiment is evidence of the aether.
If you perform the double slit experiment with a particle and you
place detectors at the entrances or the exits to the slits, the
particle is always detected entering or exiting a single slit. The
reason for this, in Aether Displacement, is due to the fact the
particle ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit and the displacement
wave it creates in the aether enters and exits both. To say the
particle enters and exits both slits when you do not look for it is
not supported by the experimental evidence.
The act of detecting the particle causes the aether displacement wave
to be turned into chop and there is no interference. No detectors and
the aether displacement wave exits both slits, creating interference
which alters the direction the particle travels.
In Aether Displacement, the definition of a particle is a standalone
entity which travels a single path in the double slit experiment and
the definition of a wave is a displacement in the aether which travels
available paths.
The photon 'particle' travels a single path, but the photon aether
wave travels available paths. 'Particle' is in quotes because a photon
may be a disturbance in the aether where its ability to collapse and
be detected as a particle travels a single path but the disturbance in
the aether is still a wave which travels available paths.
'Delayed choice quantum eraser'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment
If you look at the image to the right you will see both red and blue
lines together before detectors D1 and D2. Since the photon aether
displacement wave is traveling available paths, the photon aether
displacement wave is traveling both the red and blue paths creating
interference which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels.
With Aether Displacement, nothing is erased, nothing is delayed. The
aether displacement wave travels available paths and the particle
travels a single path. In Aether Displacement, when anything is ever
'erased' in these types of experiments, all that is occurring is the
available paths are being combined which allows the aether
displacement waves to physically travel the available paths creating
interference.
Double slit, quantum eraser, and delayed choice experiments are
evidence of aether.
Paul Stowe
> On Oct 24, 10:01 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 23, 3:57 pm, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >.......
> > > to nature or properties of theether. But even among the supporters of
> > > theetherhypothesis there is no unanimity regarding the properties of
> > >ether. Many such supporters assume theetherto be an ideal fluid type
> > > medium, which is objected by others on the ground that an ideal fluid
> > > cannot support the propagation of transverse waves. A modern trend in
> > > this regard is to assume the free space or vacuum with physical
> > > properties of permittivity, permeability and intrinsic impedance, to
> > > represent the notion ofether.
> > .........
> > dimensional space. Two 'matters' cannot occupy the same point in three
> > dimensional space simultaneously.
>
> I am sorry, I cannot agree with your viewpoint.
>
> In my opinion it is absolutely essential that
> (a) One must restrict the number of assumptions to the barest minimum.
> (b) The assumptions must be plausible and mutually consistent.
> (c) The assumptions must finally relate to physical parameters that
> are quantifiable.
> (d) Any physical model developed with such assumptions, must be
> supported by a corresponding mathematical model
>
> > forms of matter which exist where theaetheris. Since light reaches
> > us from behind where Jupiter has been in its orbit, we know theaether
> > returns to the places in three dimensional space once the matter which
>
> Here you are assumingetherto be some sort of an ideal fluid in which
> matter particles exist as some sort of 'solid' entities. As I pointed
> since it cannot support transverse waves.
That is incorrect. An in-viscous (zero viscosity) or superfluid or
supersolid with a vortex lattice can indeed support transverse waves.
This was Maxwell's model...
See Maxwell's work,
GSS
> On Oct 24, 9:01 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 24, 10:01 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> On Oct 23, 3:57 pm, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>.......
>>>> to nature or properties of the ether. But even among the supporters of
>>>> the ether hypothesis there is no unanimity regarding the properties of
>>>>ether. Many such supporters assume the ether to be an ideal fluid type
>>>> medium, which is objected by others on the ground that an ideal fluid
>>>> cannot support the propagation of transverse waves. A modern trend in
>>>> this regard is to assume the free space or vacuum with physical
>>>> properties of permittivity, permeability and intrinsic impedance, to
>>> .........
>>> dimensional space. Two 'matters' cannot occupy the same point in three
>>> dimensional space simultaneously.
>
>> I am sorry, I cannot agree with your viewpoint.
>
>> In my opinion it is absolutely essential that
>> (a) One must restrict the number of assumptions to the barest minimum.
>> (b) The assumptions must be plausible and mutually consistent.
>> (c) The assumptions must finally relate to physical parameters that
>> are quantifiable.
>> (d) Any physical model developed with such assumptions, must be
>> supported by a corresponding mathematical model
>
>>> forms of matter which exist where the aether is. Since light reaches
>>> us from behind where Jupiter has been in its orbit, we know the aether
>>> returns to the places in three dimensional space once the matter which
>
>> Here you are assuming ether to be some sort of an ideal fluid in which
>> matter particles exist as some sort of 'solid' entities. As I pointed
>> since it cannot support transverse waves.
>
> That is incorrect. An in-viscous (zero viscosity) or superfluid or
> supersolid with a vortex lattice can indeed support transverse waves.
No, here you are mixing up the notions of a superfluid and that of a
supersolid.
It is an elementary fact that a non-viscous fluid cannot sustain any
shear stresses and hence no transverse waves can be supported within
the body of such a fluid medium.
> This was Maxwell's model...
>
> See Maxwell's work,
>
> http://www.vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf
In my opinion, this does not represent any 'aether theory'. Maxwell
used the notion of aether as an intuitive or mental aid to develop his
mechanical model of the electromagnetic field. In this regard let me
quote from,
http://www.manhattanrarebooks-science.com/maxwell.lines.of.force.htm
[�As early as 1857 Maxwell began to develop the idea of orienting
molecular vortices along magnetic field lines, culminating in the
publication of his paper �On physical lines of force�� He posited a
honeycomb of vortices in which each vortex cell was separated from its
neighbour by a layer of spherical particles, revolving in the opposite
direction to the vortices. These �idle wheel� particles communicated
the rotatory velocity of the vortices from one part of the field to
another. In this ether model, the most famous image in nineteenth-
century physics, the analogy provides mechanical correlates for
electromagnetic quantities. The angular velocity of the vortices
corresponds to the magnetic field intensity, and the translational
flow of the idle wheel particles to the flow of an electric current;
the field equations are based on the rotation of molecular vortices in
the ether. He emphasized that while the theory was mechanically
conceivable, the model itself was provisional and temporary, even
awkward, hardly �a mode of connexion existing in nature� (Niven,
1.486), an argument that has generated much philosophical discussion
about the role of models in physics� (DNB).]
Further quoting from Maxwell's paper referred above,
[... In the Cambridge and Dublin Mathematical Journal for January
1847, Professor William Thomson has given a "Mechanical Representation
of Electric, Magnetic, and Galvanic Forces", by means of the
displacements of the particles of an elastic solid in a state of
strain. In this representation we must make the angular displacement
at every point of the solid proportional to the magnetic force at the
corresponding point of the magnetic field, the direction of the axis
of rotation of the displacement corresponding to the direction of the
magnetic force. ... The author of this method of representation does
not attempt to explain the origin of the observed forces by the
effects due to those strains in the elastic solid, but makes use of
the mathematical analogies of the two problems to assist the
imagination in the study of both. ]
Ilja
> On Oct 24, 12:05�pm, Ilja <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 24 Okt., 06:25, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If the C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit, what exits the
> > > other slit in order for there to be interference?
>
> > The wave function of the C-60. �Considered as a function
> > of the positions of the 60 Cs, it is a function on a 180-dimensional
> > space. It is nonzero in the region of this space where all 60
> > Cs are located near the other slit.
>
> Which is it? Does the C-60 molecule physically enter and exit a single
> slit or is it a wave function?
The C-60 really enters the slit. The wave function does not do such
things
as entering slits. Instead, it has nonzero or zero values for certain
configurations. In this case, it has nonzero values for the C-60 being
on above slits.
> In AD, the C-60 molecule physically
> enters and exits a single slit and the displacement wave it creates in
> the aether enters and exits available slits.
This is similar to the wave function in single-particle quantum
theory.
But shouldn't there be 60 ether waves of all the 60 C-atoms where?
If yes, how do they interact?
Paul Stowe
I'm sorry but you are wrong on all counts. First vortex latticed
superfluids can and do have transverse waves, quote:
"It is well known that quantized vortices can be formed
in superfluid 4He. Such vortices can support a transverse
and circularly polarized wave motion..."
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0306/0306191v1.pdf
Please note the phrase "It is well known". Also a quick Google
Scholar search of (Transerve waves superfluid) returns 8480 hits.
Second Maxwell did mean to represent an aether model which is very
clear if you read paragraph 2 on page 162 of his paper referenced
above. It is also very clear that Maxwell specified an inviscous
(zero viscosity) model of a quantized vortex lattice (see Figure 2
Page 349 of same document). All revisionist attempts to deny and
claim otherwise Maxwell used a superfluid aether model. As can be
clearly seen (if one takes a real look) he nadvertently stumbled upon
the Bose-Einstein condensate and the model is certainly quantum
mechanical in its basic structure and nature.
GSS
The essence of my response can be summed up in following two
sentences.
>> It is an elementary fact that a non-viscous fluid cannot sustain any
>> shear stresses and hence no transverse waves can be supported within
>> the body of such a fluid medium.
>> [...The author of this method of representation does
>> not attempt to explain the origin of the observed forces by the
>> effects due to those strains in the elastic solid, but makes use of
>> the mathematical analogies of the two problems to assist the
>> imagination in the study of both. ]
I am sorry, I could not make out that in place of non-viscous fluid in
general, you were thinking of 'quantized vortices' in a supercooled
(at about one degree kelvin) superfluid 4He.
The macroscopic behavior of any fluid in general is governed by the
vibrations and elastic collisions of a large number of electrically
neutral atoms/molecules, in accordance with Maxwell/Boltzmann's
kinetic theory. As such, individual atoms/molecules can be represented
by their point masses in the study of such fluids. Important physical
parameters which need to be specified in this case include,
'pressure', 'temperature', 'density' and 'molecular weight'. However,
in case of a supercooled superfluid at about one degree kelvin, the
vibrations/ collisions of individual atoms/molecules nearly stop. The
macroscopic behavior of such a superfluid is then governed by mutual
interactions of various charges and their motion induced magnetic
fields. Such superfluids, supersolids and superconductors are often
characterized as fourth state of matter and are dominated by the
plasma characteristics. For detailed study of such a superfluid
system, one will need to specify the physical parameters of 'pressure
distribution', 'temperature distribution', 'mass density
distribution', 'charge density distribution', and 'velocity
distribution'. Quantized vortices are just one of the many peculiar
behaviors displayed by such systems.
Therefore, if you intend to model your aether theory on the
characteristics of superfluids or supersolids, you will have to make
far too many assumptions to support it.
In my opinion, it is not feasible to model any aether theory on the
characteristics of superfluids or supersolids.
On the other hand, if you model the aether theory on the
characteristics of an elastic solid, quantized vortices could be
produced by a localized strain field whirling around an axis, with a
finite total strain energy content. Such quantized strain vortices
could then represent elementary matter particles.
I am sorry, we have again hijacked the original thread on " A new test
for the ether". To come back to the original thread, kindly let me
know your considered opinion on the new test proposed to detect
absolute motion, which if successful, will pave the way for a new
ether theory.
https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/absolute_motion.pdf?attredirects=0