The propagation of light and the aether

mpc755 · 14-02-2013 3:25pm

Morbert wrote: »

You wouldn't, by any chance, have reputable scientific papers to back up your assertions about the aether? The paper by Huan et al in your previous post certainly doesn't support what you are saying, as evidenced by the follow-up research.

Also, I should mention that due to the tiresome nature of crank aether theories, I will only entertain this discussion for as long as it involves conclusions in genuine scientific research, and not "Billy's page on why Relativity sux ass".

The incompressible fluid described in the following article is the gravitational aether which "the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."

'Empty Black Holes, Firewalls, and the Origin of Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4176

"But why an incompressible fluid? The reason comes from an attempt to solve the (old) cosmological constant problem, which is arguably the most puzzling aspect of coupling gravity to relativistic quantum mechanics [13]. Given that the natural expectation value for the vacuum of the standard model of particle physics is ∼ 60 orders of magnitude heavier than the gravitational measurements of vacuum density, it is reasonable to entertain an alternative theory of gravity where the standard model vacuum decouples from gravity. Such a theory could be realized by coupling gravity to the traceless part of the quantum mechanical energy-momentum tensor. However, the consistency/covariance of gravitational field equations then requires introducing an auxiliary fluid, the so-called gravitational aether [14]. The simplest model for gravitational aether is an incompressible fluid (with vanishing energy density, but non-vanishing pressure), which is currently consistent with all cosmological, astrophysical, and precision tests of gravity [15, 16]:

__3__
32πGN Gμν = Tμν − Tα gμν + Tμν ,
Tμν = p (uμ uν + gμν ), T μν;ν = 0,

where GN is Newton’s constant, Tμν is the matter energy momentum tensor and Tμν is the incompressible gravitational aether fluid. In vacuum, the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."

The following article describes a 'back reaction' associated with the "fluidic" nature of space itself. This is the displaced aether 'displacing back'.

'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3458

"We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide further evidence of the “fluidic” nature of space itself."

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a superfluid with properties of a solid, a supersolid, which is described in the article as the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. The 'back-reaction' described in the article is the displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the matter.

The following article describes the aether as that which produces resistance to acceleration and is responsible for the increase in mass of an object with velocity and describes the "space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."

'Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and fluidic inertia'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4611

"It is shown that the force exerted on a particle by an ideal fluid produces two effects: i) resistance to acceleration and, ii) an increase of mass with velocity. ... The interaction between the particle and the entrained space flow gives rise to the observed properties of inertia and the relativistic increase of mass. ... Accordingly, in this framework the non resistance of a particle in uniform motion through an ideal fluid (D’Alembert’s paradox) corresponds to Newton’s first law. The law of inertia suggests that the physical vacuum can be modeled as an ideal fluid, agreeing with the space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."

The relativistic mass of an object is the mass of the object and the mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the object which is displaced by the object. The faster an object moves with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists the greater the displacement of the aether by the object the greater the relativistic mass of the object.

The following article describes the aether as an incompressible fluid resulting in what the article refers to as gravitational aether caused by pressure (or vorticity).

'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old Cosmological Constant Problem'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3955

"One proposal to address this puzzle at the semi-classical level is to decouple quantum vacuum from space-time geometry via a modification of gravity that includes an incompressible fluid, known as Gravitational Aether. In this paper, we discuss classical predictions of this theory along with its compatibility with cosmological and experimental tests of gravity. We argue that deviations from General Relativity (GR) in this theory are sourced by pressure or vorticity."

The following article describes gravity as a pressure exerted by aether toward matter.

'The aether-modified gravity and the G ̈del metric'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.5654v2

"As for the pressure, it is equal to p = 53−αg,6a2 so, it is positive if αg < 3 which is the weaker condition than the previous one. One notes that the results corresponding to the usual gravity are easily recovered. Also, it is easy to see that the interval αg < 15 corresponds to the usual matter."

The following article describes a gravitating vacuum where aether is the quantum vacuum of the 21-st century.

'From Analogue Models to Gravitating Vacuum'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.1155

"The aether of the 21-st century is the quantum vacuum, which is a new form of matter. This is the real substance"

The following articles describe what is presently postulated as dark matter is aether.

'Quantum aether and an invariant Planck scale'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3753

"this version of aether may have some bearing on the abundance of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in our universe."

"mass of the aether"

'Scalars, Vectors and Tensors from Metric-Affine Gravity'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.5168

"the model obtained here gets closer to the aether theory of , which is shown therein to be an alternative to the cold dark matter."

'Unified model for dark matter and quintessence'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0610135

"Superfluid dark matter is reminiscent of the aether and modeling the universe using superfluid aether is compatible."

'Vainshtein mechanism in Gauss-Bonnet gravity and Galileon aether'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.1892

"the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of ”aether” because of the presence of the background field"

'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum medium and the inertial motion of particles'
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0701155

"In this paper we shall show that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as a ubiquitous back ground field is a super fluid medium."

Morbert · 14-02-2013 7:18pm

First, I should make it clear to the OP (roosh) that the aethers discussed in these papers are categorically distinct from the luminiferous aether. Physicists will often posit a transmission field or, much more controversially, a lorentz-violating incompressible fluid in conjunction with spacetime. The first paper, for example, discusses a 2+1 fluid around black holes (I.e. A fluid that extends across 2 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time). They don't replace spacetime. They exist alongside it.

mpc755: I have no major problem with positing gravitational aether as an exploration of possible quantum theories of gravity/black holes. Though I do have a problem if you describe them as anything more than tentative controversies, as Lorentz invariance has still never been demonstrated, which none of the above papers dispute.

Furthermore, I specifically asked you for examples of the mechanical explanation of gravity (which is distinct from gravitational aether pertaining to the vacuum field). While gravitational aether is entertained, the Le Sage style kinetic gravity you are supposing was thoroughly abandoned except in the exploration of forms of solutions in classical mechanics.

mpc755 · 15-02-2013 12:00am

"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

"matter pervading the universe" has mass.

"'stuff'" has mass.

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense." - Albert Einstein

The relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin is the ether which propagates light referred to by Einstein.

Morbert · 15-02-2013 12:46am

mpc755 wrote: »

"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

"matter pervading the universe" has mass.

"'stuff'" has mass.

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense." - Albert Einstein

The relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin is the ether which propagates light referred to by Einstein.

No it isn't.

"Einstein sometimes used the word aether for the gravitational field within general relativity, but this terminology never gained widespread support."

mpc755 · 15-02-2013 12:53am

Morbert wrote: »

No it isn't.

"Einstein sometimes used the word aether for the gravitational field within general relativity, but this terminology never gained widespread support."

What part of, "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light" are you unable to understand?

Morbert · 15-02-2013 1:28am

mpc755 wrote: »

What part of, "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light" are you unable to understand?

Your question makes no sense. The aether Einstein was referring to was the Lorentz invariant gravitational field. He is simply saying spacetime is dynamical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_views_on_the_aether#Einstein.27s_views_on_the_aether

"In 1916, after Einstein completed his foundational work on general relativity, Lorentz wrote a letter to him in which he speculated that within general relativity the aether was re-introduced. In his response Einstein wrote that one can actually speak about a "new aether", but one may not speak of motion in relation to that aether."

"However, the difference from the electromagnetic aether of Maxwell and Lorentz lies in the fact, that "because it was no longer possible to speak, in any absolute sense, of simultaneous states at different locations in the aether, the aether became, as it were, four dimensional, since there was no objective way of ordering its states by time alone.". Now the "aether of special relativity" is still "absolute", because matter is affected by the properties of the aether, but the aether is not affected by the presence of matter. This asymmetry was solved within general relativity. Einstein explained that the "aether of general relativity" is not absolute, because matter is influenced by the aether, just as matter influences the structure of the aether."

That is entirely uncontroversial, and different to the gravitational aether theories the papers allude to, and the luminiferous aether of Lorentz.

mpc755 · 15-02-2013 1:44am

Morbert wrote: »

Your question makes no sense. The aether Einstein was referring to was the Lorentz invariant gravitational field. He is simply saying spacetime is dynamical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_views_on_the_aether#Einstein.27s_views_on_the_aether

"In 1916, after Einstein completed his foundational work on general relativity, Lorentz wrote a letter to him in which he speculated that within general relativity the aether was re-introduced. In his response Einstein wrote that one can actually speak about a "new aether", but one may not speak of motion in relation to that aether."

"However, the difference from the electromagnetic aether of Maxwell and Lorentz lies in the fact, that "because it was no longer possible to speak, in any absolute sense, of simultaneous states at different locations in the aether, the aether became, as it were, four dimensional, since there was no objective way of ordering its states by time alone.". Now the "aether of special relativity" is still "absolute", because matter is affected by the properties of the aether, but the aether is not affected by the presence of matter. This asymmetry was solved within general relativity. Einstein explained that the "aether of general relativity" is not absolute, because matter is influenced by the aether, just as matter influences the structure of the aether."

That is entirely uncontroversial, and different to the gravitational aether theories the papers allude to, and the luminiferous aether of Lorentz.

Laughlin is saying there is a relativistic ether. This is the ether of general relativity.

Einstein says according to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable for there would be no propagation of light.

I am saying the relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin is the ether which propagates light referred to by Einstein.

Your response of, "No it isn't" makes no sense.

The following quote is from Albert Einstein.

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light"

Einstein is saying if there isn't an ether there is no propagation of light.

Laughlin is saying a relativistic ether, the ether of general relativity, is confirmed everyday by experiment.

Therefore, the relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin is the ether which propagates light referred to by Einstein.

Morbert · 15-02-2013 2:12am

mpc755 wrote: »

Laughlin is saying there is a relativistic ether. This is the ether of general relativity.

Einstein says according to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable for there would be no propagation of light.

I am saying the relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin is the ether which propagates light referred to by Einstein.

Your response of, "No it isn't" makes no sense.

The following quote is from Albert Einstein.

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light"

Einstein is saying if there isn't an ether there is no propagation of light.

Laughlin is saying a relativistic ether, the ether of general relativity, is confirmed everyday by experiment.

Therefore, the relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin is the ether which propagates light referred to by Einstein.

Again, Einstein is merely referring to dynamical spacetime. Laughlin is referring to quantized fields on spacetime. If what you were saying were true, the following statements would be contradictory.

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light" --Einstein on General Relativity

Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. -- Laughlin on General Relativity

Most importantly, neither are referring to Lorentz invariance violating, absolute, luminiferous aethers of Lorentz or Maxwell.

mpc755 · 15-02-2013 2:34am

Einstein's 'First Paper'
http://www.efiko.org/material/Albert%20Einstein%5c%27s%20First%20Paper%20by%20Anonymous.pdf

"The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces."

What Einstein failed to realize is what he was describing was the state of displacement of the aether.

The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause its propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether displaced by these forces.

roosh · 15-02-2013 2:37am

Morbert wrote: »

Water in a fish tank would be an aether. Spacetime, if it were thought of as very fine matter, would be an aether. Spacetime is not an aether. It is a field. The difference between a field and an aether is an important one, and it is Lorentz invariance. Since an aether is made of stuff, there is a coordinate system associated with that stuff being at rest. A field is an object that does not have a medium or "stuff" associated with it, and hence does not offer a state of rest associated with it. Instead, it is a differential manifold with no predefined geometry or coordinate system.

Apologies, I'm thinking very basically on this; hopefully the questions make sense.

I had a look at some of the stuff on the concept of a manifold, but don't fully grasp it. I'm no doubt wide of the mark here, but my understanding of a manifold is as a "thing" in, or on, which other things can lie. The surface of a table would be a 2D manifold, the universe would be a 3D or 4D manifold. Is that, apart form being incredibly basic, anywhere near the mark?

Just going from that understanding, which could be inaccurate, I would think that there must be associated "stuff" with the manifold; the surface of the table is made of matter. I would think that the universe must be filled with "stuff" at every location.

My lack of understanding of the concept of a "field" is also an issue, I'd say. I can only think in terms of a very basic understanding of a magnetic field - think of the sheet of paper with iron filings "experiment" you'd do in secondary school. Is there "stuff" associated with a magnetic field; I mean like, matter or energy?

Thinking in terms of that basic understanding of a magnetic field, I would say that there must be "stuff" at every point where the magnetic field extends to; I'm not saying that a magnetic field is made up of any particular "stuff", but rather that wherever there is a magnetic field, there must be "stuff" there.

When I say "stuff" I am again thinking in very basic terms of something vs nothing.

roosh · 15-02-2013 2:53am

This is incredibly basic, but it might be helpful, in clarifying what I'm trying to get at, to say that light cannot propagate through something which doesn't exist, and whatever exists must be made of some sort of "stuff"; whatever that "stuff" is; be it energy, matter, or something else.

mpc755 · 15-02-2013 3:31am

roosh wrote: »

This is incredibly basic, but it might be helpful, in clarifying what I'm trying to get at, to say that light cannot propagate through something which doesn't exist, and whatever exists must be made of some sort of "stuff"; whatever that "stuff" is; be it energy, matter, or something else.

The "stuff" has mass. Mass is that which physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether has mass.

As far as we know aether exists everywhere particles of matter do not.

As far as we know there is no space, nor any part of three dimensional space, devoid of mass.

There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter anchored to matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

mpc755 · 15-02-2013 1:28pm

roosh wrote: »

My lack of understanding of the concept of a "field" is also an issue, I'd say. I can only think in terms of a very basic understanding of a magnetic field - think of the sheet of paper with iron filings "experiment" you'd do in secondary school. Is there "stuff" associated with a magnetic field; I mean like, matter or energy?

"In several parts of this treatise an attempt has been made to explain electromagnetic phenomena by means of mechanical action transmitted from one body to another by means of a medium occupying the space between them. The undulatory theory of light also assumes the existence of a medium. We have now to shew that the properties of the electromagnetic medium are identical with those of the luminiferous medium." - Maxwell

Maxwell's displacement current is a physical displacement of the aether.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect#Vacuum_energy

"a "field" in physics may be envisioned as if space were filled with interconnected vibrating balls and springs, and the strength of the field can be visualized as the displacement of a ball from its rest position"

A 'field' in physics is space filled with aether and the strength of the field is the displacement of the aether from its rest position.

Each of the plates in the Casimir effect displace the aether. The displaced aether which exists between the plates is pushing back toward each of the plates which causes the force associated with the aether displaced by each of the plates which exists between the plates to offset. This aether is more at rest than the aether which is displaced by the plates which encompasses the plates. The reduced force associated with the aether which exists between the plates along with the displaced aether which encompasses the plates which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the plates causes the plates to be forced together.

What occurs physically in nature in the Casimir effect is the same phenomenon as gravity.

There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter. Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

The aether which exists between the Earth and the Moon is displaced by both the Earth and the Moon and is pushing back toward the Earth and toward the Moon. This displaced aether offsets and cancels each other out to some degree. This aether is more at rest than the aether which encompasses the Earth and the Moon.

The aether which encompasses the Earth and the Moon is able to exert more pressure on the solid matter Earth than it can the liquid oceans. This causes the solid matter Earth to be pushed closer to the Moon than the ocean water opposite the Moon. This causes the ocean to 'rise' opposite the Moon. The aether displaced between the Earth and Moon is more at rest. This aether exerts less pressure on the ocean water between the Earth and the Moon than it can the solid matter Earth. This causes the ocean to 'rise' between the Earth and Moon.

Morbert · 15-02-2013 4:20pm

roosh wrote: »

Apologies, I'm thinking very basically on this; hopefully the questions make sense.

I had a look at some of the stuff on the concept of a manifold, but don't fully grasp it. I'm no doubt wide of the mark here, but my understanding of a manifold is as a "thing" in, or on, which other things can lie. The surface of a table would be a 2D manifold, the universe would be a 3D or 4D manifold. Is that, apart form being incredibly basic, anywhere near the mark?

Just going from that understanding, which could be inaccurate, I would think that there must be associated "stuff" with the manifold; the surface of the table is made of matter. I would think that the universe must be filled with "stuff" at every location.

My lack of understanding of the concept of a "field" is also an issue, I'd say. I can only think in terms of a very basic understanding of a magnetic field - think of the sheet of paper with iron filings "experiment" you'd do in secondary school. Is there "stuff" associated with a magnetic field; I mean like, matter or energy?

Thinking in terms of that basic understanding of a magnetic field, I would say that there must be "stuff" at every point where the magnetic field extends to; I'm not saying that a magnetic field is made up of any particular "stuff", but rather that wherever there is a magnetic field, there must be "stuff" there

When I say "stuff" I am again thinking in very basic terms of something vs nothing.

A field definitely something rather than nothing. That much is true. Fields are the fundamental physical objects of the universe, and particles are quantised excitations of these fields. Unlike, say, a table, which is an aggregate collection of more fundamental stuff (E.g. Wood, or molecules, or particles), a field is not an aggregate collection of stuff. Instead, they are the things which express the stuff we are familiar with (E.g. Electrons are excitations of the Dirac field. Photons are excitations of the electromagnetic field.).

So if you take an "empty" region of space, you are correct when you say it is not "nothing" in the fundamental sense of the word nothing. It is something.

The important difference between the spacetime field and an aether (in the traditional Lorentzian sense of the word), is Lorentz invariance (Or, more correctly, general covariance). Spacetime has no associated state of rest with respect to it, unlike a table. If spacetimes was like a giant table, and we were moving with respect to each other, then I could point out that you (or I) are moving with respect to the "grain" of wood/space, or that you experience friction, or some observation which would define you as moving with respect to the aggregate "stuff" of spacetime and violate Lorentz invariance. This is why picturing spacetime as a table, or some other intuitive surface, will always break down. We can always identify a unique coordinate system or "background dependence" with respect to such a surface. General relativity is background independent.

mpc755 · 15-02-2013 4:35pm

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable"

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"

The physical state of the aether at every place determined by its physical connections with the matter and the physical state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.

What is referred to geometrically as the curvature of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

Everything is with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists, including the rate at which atomic clocks tick. That is the 'time' portion of spacetime.

In terms of general relativity, the greater the mass per volume of the matter the greater the displacement of the aether, the greater the force exerted toward and throughout the atomic clock by the displaced aether the slower the atomic clock ticks. In terms of special relativity, the faster a clock moves with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists the more aether the clock displaces the more force the displaced aether exerts toward and throughout the atomic clock the slower the clock ticks.

Morbert · 15-02-2013 4:53pm

mpc755 wrote: »

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable"

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"

The physical state of the aether at every place determined by its physical connections with the matter and the physical state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.

What is referred to geometrically as the curvature of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

Everything is with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists, including the rate at which atomic clocks tick. That is the 'time' portion of spacetime.

In terms of general relativity, the greater the mass per volume of the matter the greater the displacement of the aether, the greater the force exerted toward and throughout the atomic clock by the displaced aether the slower the atomic clock ticks. In terms of special relativity, the faster a clock moves with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists the more aether the clock displaces the more force the displaced aether exerts toward and throughout the atomic clock the slower the clock ticks.

You have said this before, and the response has not changed. Aether, in the sense that Einstein used it, is entirely uncontroversial. I.e. He says it is a non-absolute covariant, dynamical field coupled to energy and momentum via the field equations. It is categorically unrelated to your funky mechanical aether. Further repetition will be summarily ignored.

mpc755 · 15-02-2013 5:18pm

Morbert wrote: »

You have said this before, and the response has not changed. Aether, in the sense that Einstein used it, is entirely uncontroversial. I.e. He says it is a non-absolute covariant, dynamical field coupled to energy and momentum via the field equations. It is categorically unrelated to your funky mechanical aether. Further repetition will be summarily ignored.

The connections between the aether and matter as referred to by Einstein are physical. The state of the 'water' in the analogy is referring to the physical state of displacement of the aether.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."

if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in and move through it.

Einstein as a teenager understood the aether to have mass.

Einstein's 'First Paper'
http://www.efiko.org/material/Albert%20Einstein%5c%27s%20First%20Paper%20by%20Anonymous.pdf

"The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces."

What Einstein failed to realize is what he was describing was the state of displacement of the aether.

The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause its propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether displaced by these forces.

Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by particles of matter. Displaced aether pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward matter.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

mpc755 · 16-02-2013 4:55pm

Watch the following video starting at 1:50.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8

There are no such things as virtual particles. Aether has mass. What is referred to in the video as the mass of the virtual particles is the mass of the aether which exists where the quarks do not.

Morbert · 17-02-2013 3:51pm

mpc755 wrote: »

Watch the following video starting at 1:50.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8

There are no such things as virtual particles. Aether has mass. What is referred to in the video as the mass of the virtual particles is the mass of the aether which exists where the quarks do not.

Actually I recommend people watch the video from the beginning. I also recommend people watch his entire talk, and read his book. It is a good pop-science introduction to ideas in quantum field theory, and entirely contrary to your idea of an aether.

mpc755 · 17-02-2013 3:55pm

The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moves through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. Aether is displaced by particles of matter. The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is a physical process determined by the state of the aether in which it exists. You have an atomic clock at sea level. You take it to the top of a mountain. The atomic clock ticks at a different rate at the top of the mountain because the state of the aether in which it exists has change.

Watch the following video starting at 0:45 to see a visual representation of the state of the aether. What is referred to as a twist in spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether. What is referred to as frame-dragging is the state of displacement of the aether.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE

The analogy is putting a mesh bag full of marbles into a supersolid and spinning the bag of marbles. If you were unable to determine if the superfluid consists of particles you would still be able to detect the state of displacement of the supersolid.

The supersolid connected to and neighboring the mesh bag of marbles is in the same state throughout the rotation of the bag in the supersolid.

The aether connected to and neighboring the Earth is in the same state, or almost the same state, throughout the Earth's rotation about its axis and orbit of the Sun.

The state of which as determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.

Morbert · 17-02-2013 4:20pm

mpc755 wrote: »

The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moves through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. Aether is displaced by particles of matter. The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is a physical process determined by the state of the aether in which it exists. You have an atomic clock at sea level. You take it to the top of a mountain. The atomic clock ticks at a different rate at the top of the mountain because the state of the aether in which it exists has change.

Watch the following video starting at 0:45 to see a visual representation of the state of the aether. What is referred to as a twist in spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether. What is referred to as frame-dragging is the state of displacement of the aether.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE

The analogy is putting a mesh bag full of marbles into a supersolid and spinning the bag of marbles. If you were unable to determine if the superfluid consists of particles you would still be able to detect the state of displacement of the supersolid.

The supersolid connected to and neighboring the mesh bag of marbles is in the same state throughout the rotation of the bag in the supersolid.

The aether connected to and neighboring the Earth is in the same state, or almost the same state, throughout the Earth's rotation about its axis and orbit of the Sun.

The state of which as determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.

Now you're just being a spambot.

mpc755 · 17-02-2013 4:22pm

'Quantum mechanics rule 'bent' in classic experiment'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13626587

'For his part, Professor Steinberg believes that the result reduces a limitation not on quantum physics but on physicists themselves. "I feel like we're starting to pull back a veil on what nature really is," he said. "The trouble with quantum mechanics is that while we've learned to calculate the outcomes of all sorts of experiments, we've lost much of our ability to describe what is really happening in any natural language. I think that this has really hampered our ability to make progress, to come up with new ideas and see intuitively how new systems ought to behave."'

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-experiment-skirts-uncertainty-principle

"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through both slits."

A particle physically displaces the aether. A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Strongly detecting the particle turns the associated aether wave into chop. The particle gets knocked around by the chop and continues on the path it is traveling.

What waves in a double slit experiment is the aether.

Morbert · 17-02-2013 4:48pm

mpc755 wrote: »

'Quantum mechanics rule 'bent' in classic experiment'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13626587

'For his part, Professor Steinberg believes that the result reduces a limitation not on quantum physics but on physicists themselves. "I feel like we're starting to pull back a veil on what nature really is," he said. "The trouble with quantum mechanics is that while we've learned to calculate the outcomes of all sorts of experiments, we've lost much of our ability to describe what is really happening in any natural language. I think that this has really hampered our ability to make progress, to come up with new ideas and see intuitively how new systems ought to behave."'

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-experiment-skirts-uncertainty-principle

"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through both slits."

A particle physically displaces the aether. A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Strongly detecting the particle turns the associated aether wave into chop. The particle gets knocked around by the chop and continues on the path it is traveling.

What waves in a double slit experiment is the aether.

Actually, that is an example of weak measurement.

From the article you posted:

"David Deutsch of the University of Oxford, UK, is not convinced that the experiment has told us anything new about how the universe works. He says that although "it's quite cool to see strange predictions verified", the results could have been obtained simply by "calculating them using a computer and the equations of quantum mechanics".

"Experiments are only relevant in science when they are crucial tests between at least two good explanatory theories," Deutsch says. "Here, there was only one, namely that the equations of quantum mechanics really do describe reality."

mpc755 · 17-02-2013 5:09pm

'An Off-center Density Peak in the Milky Way's Dark Matter Halo?'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.4844

"We show that the position of the central dark matter density peak may be expected to differ from the dynamical center of the Galaxy by several hundred parsec."

The offset is caused by the Milky Way moving through and displacing the aether.

There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter. Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by the particles of matter which move through and displace it.

This is what is occurring physically in nature as the Milky Way moves through and displaces the aether. This is what causes the offset.

Morbert · 17-02-2013 5:42pm

mpc755 wrote: »

'An Off-center Density Peak in the Milky Way's Dark Matter Halo?'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.4844

"We show that the position of the central dark matter density peak may be expected to differ from the dynamical center of the Galaxy by several hundred parsec."

The offset is caused by the Milky Way moving through and displacing the aether.

There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter. Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by the particles of matter which move through and displace it.

This is what is occurring physically in nature as the Milky Way moves through and displaces the aether. This is what causes the offset.

"We show that the position of the central dark matter density peak may be expected to differ from the dynamical center of the Galaxy by several hundred parsec."

A dark matter density offset of several hundred parsec greatly affects expectations of the dark matter annihilation signals from the Galactic Center. It may also support a dark matter annihilation interpretation of recent reports by Weniger (2012) and Su & Finkbeiner (2012) of highly signicant 130 GeV gamma-ray line emission from a region 1:5 (200 parsec projected) away from Sgr A* in the Galactic plane"

The paper explores the predictions of a dark matter simulation, and argues for a dark matter annihilation interpretation of recent interesting gamma-ray line emissions detected near the galactic core.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.7060.pdf

"If the double-line emission from these objects is conﬁrmed with future data, it will provide compelling support for the hypothesis that the Galactic center line signal is indeed from dark matter annihilation"

Other explorations of these results are here.

So not only is the paper you posted entirely unrelated to the existence of an aether, but it actually supports possible signatures of dark matter previously reported.

mpc755 · 17-02-2013 5:49pm

Morbert wrote: »

"calculating them using a computer and the equations of quantum mechanics".

"the equations of quantum mechanics really do describe reality."

You're making my point. You are unable to understand calculations and equations are not a physical explanation.

A correct explanation of what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment is understanding space itself has mass and a particle moving through it has an associated wave in space.

'Quantum mechanics rule 'bent' in classic experiment'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13626587

'For his part, Professor Steinberg believes that the result reduces a limitation not on quantum physics but on physicists themselves. "I feel like we're starting to pull back a veil on what nature really is," he said. "The trouble with quantum mechanics is that while we've learned to calculate the outcomes of all sorts of experiments, we've lost much of our ability to describe what is really happening in any natural language. I think that this has really hampered our ability to make progress, to come up with new ideas and see intuitively how new systems ought to behave."'

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...inty-principle

"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through both slits."

A particle physically displaces the aether. A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Strongly detecting the particle turns the associated aether wave into chop. The particle gets knocked around by the chop and continues on the path it is traveling.

What waves in a double slit experiment is the aether.

Morbert · 17-02-2013 9:19pm

mpc755 wrote: »

You're making my point. You are unable to understand calculations and equations are not a physical explanation.

A correct explanation of what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment is understanding space itself has mass and a particle moving through it has an associated wave in space.

'Quantum mechanics rule 'bent' in classic experiment'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13626587

'For his part, Professor Steinberg believes that the result reduces a limitation not on quantum physics but on physicists themselves. "I feel like we're starting to pull back a veil on what nature really is," he said. "The trouble with quantum mechanics is that while we've learned to calculate the outcomes of all sorts of experiments, we've lost much of our ability to describe what is really happening in any natural language. I think that this has really hampered our ability to make progress, to come up with new ideas and see intuitively how new systems ought to behave."'

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...inty-principle

"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through both slits."

A particle physically displaces the aether. A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Strongly detecting the particle turns the associated aether wave into chop. The particle gets knocked around by the chop and continues on the path it is traveling.

What waves in a double slit experiment is the aether.

I find your comment that I am "unable" to differentiate between physical explanations and calculations very interesting. You are claiming that, not only do I not understand the difference, I am unable to understand it. But more interestingly, you make the claim and then go on to completely misunderstand quantum mechanical calculations and their interpretations.

Firstly, and most obviously, you have simply tendered an interpretation of quantum mechanics. This experiment does not differentiate between one interpretation or the other. It is predicted by all interpretations, not simply pilot-wave.

Secondly, you do not understand what a pilot wave is. A displacement in the aether is defined on the real space

, as are physical fields and particles. The pilot wave is defined on a configuration space

(I.e. A space of all possible configurations of all the fields and particles in the universe). This is categorically distinct from a pervasive medium throughout the three dimensional space. The pilot wave also guides the evolution of the particles in a non-local manner, which again is wholly contrary to a pervasive medium. Furthermore, the interpretation only describes the evolution of particles and fields determined by the pilot way and does not involve any sort of reaction or "displacement" induced by the presence of the particles, specifically contradicting your assertions about how the wave behaves.

All of this info is only a few clicks away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory

That you weren't aware if the basics of this particular interpretation tells me you don't really care about a proper understanding physics and instead have bizarre agenda to push. As long as this is true, you definitely will be "unable" to understand the implications of any physical calculations.

mpc755 · 17-02-2013 9:30pm

Morbert wrote: »

I find your comment that I am "unable" to differentiate between physical explanations and calculations very interesting. You are claiming that, not only do I not understand the difference, I am unable to understand it. But more interestingly, you make the claim and then go on to completely misunderstand quantum mechanical calculations and their interpretations.

Firstly, and most obviously, you have simply tendered an interpretation of quantum mechanics. This experiment does not differentiate between one interpretation or the other. It is predicted by all interpretations, not simply pilot-wave.

Secondly, you do not understand what a pilot wave is. A displacement in the aether is defined on the real space , as are physical fields and particles. The pilot wave is defined on a configuration space (I.e. A space of all possible configurations of all the fields and particles in the universe). This is categorically distinct from a pervasive medium throughout the three dimensional space. The pilot wave also guides the evolution of the particles in a non-local manner, which again is wholly contrary to a pervasive medium. Furthermore, the interpretation only describes the evolution of particles and fields determined by the pilot way and does not involve any sort of reaction or "displacement" induced by the presence of the particles, specifically contradicting your assertions about how the wave behaves.

All of this info is only a few clicks away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory

That you weren't aware if the basics of this particular interpretation tells me you don't really care about a proper understanding physics and instead have bizarre agenda to push. As long as this is true, you definitely will be "unable" to understand the implications of any physical calculations.

I understand you went to great lengths in order to not explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf

“When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles.”

“any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium”

The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether. The “energetic contact” is the state of displacement of the aether.

"For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant, forms on the v wave a small region of high energy concentration, which may be likened in a first approximation, to a moving singularity."

A particle may be likened in a first approximation to a moving singularity which has an associated aether displacement wave.

"the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave"

In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path which takes it through one slit. The associated wave in the aether passes through both. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Detecting the particle strongly exiting a single slit turns the associated aether wave into chop. The aether waves exiting the slits interact with the detectors and become many short waves with irregular motion. The waves are disorganized. There is no wave interference. The particle pitches and rolls through the chop. The particle gets knocked around by the chop and it no longer creates an interference pattern.

Morbert · 17-02-2013 11:20pm

mpc755 wrote: »

I understand you went to great lengths in order to not explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf

“When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles.”

“any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium”

The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether. The “energetic contact” is the state of displacement of the aether.

"For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant, forms on the v wave a small region of high energy concentration, which may be likened in a first approximation, to a moving singularity."

A particle may be likened in a first approximation to a moving singularity which has an associated aether displacement wave.

"the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave"

In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path which takes it through one slit. The associated wave in the aether passes through both. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Detecting the particle strongly exiting a single slit turns the associated aether wave into chop. The aether waves exiting the slits interact with the detectors and become many short waves with irregular motion. The waves are disorganized. There is no wave interference. The particle pitches and rolls through the chop. The particle gets knocked around by the chop and it no longer creates an interference pattern.

You simply ignored everything I said and you linked to a paper containing the following:

"If a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its nature would seem desirable. It certainly is of quite complex character. It could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be contrary to relativity theory. Moreover, it does not behave as a unique thermostat, but rather as an ensemble of thermostats"

Also, regarding what occurs physically: All that is relevant to this thread is an ontology for quantum mechanics is not obliged to fit our intuitive notions of dynamical variables.

mpc755 · 17-02-2013 11:42pm

Morbert wrote: »

You simply ignored everything I said and you linked to a paper containing the following:

"If a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its nature would seem desirable. It certainly is of quite complex character. It could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be contrary to relativity theory. Moreover, it does not behave as a unique thermostat, but rather as an ensemble of thermostats"

Also, regarding what occurs physically: All that is relevant to this thread is an ontology for quantum mechanics is not obliged to fit our intuitive notions of dynamical variables.

I understand you, once again, have done everything possible in order to not explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.

"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense." - Albert Einstein

The hidden-medium referred to by de Broglie is the relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin is the ether which propagates light referred to by Einstein.

The propagation of light and the aether

Comments