Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The propagation of light and the aether
Options
Comments
-
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.
That is an incredibly strange post. I have previously told you in post #58 that the "sub quantum medium" of De Broglie and Bohm cannot be a pervasive, aether medium because it has qualities (non-local, defined on a configuration space, non-reactive) that are contrary to an aether. You later responded by linking to a paper where de Broglie himself says it cannot be an aether, backing up what I said. Then, when I point this out, you change topic and repost unrelated quotes from Einstein and Laughlin that I have already explained in post #37, #39, and #47.
Why?
Also (again) I said an ontology of quantum mechanics does not need to reduce to an intuitive classical one. I.e. Instead of a configuration Q, you have a Hilbert state [latex]\psi[/latex]. The double slit experiment then becomes perfectly understandable. Superposition, in a quantum mechanical ontology, is no more mysterious than the direction "North-East".0 -
That is an incredibly strange post. I have previously told you in post #58 that the "sub quantum medium" of De Broglie and Bohm cannot be a pervasive, aether medium because it has qualities (non-local, defined on a configuration space, non-reactive) that are contrary to an aether.
“any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium” - Louis de Broglie
An "energetic contact" means there is an interaction of particles of matter and the hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics.You later responded by linking to a paper where de Broglie himself says it cannot be an aether, backing up what I said. Then, when I point this out, you change topic and repost unrelated quotes from Einstein and Laughlin that I have already explained in post #37, #39, and #47.
Why?
What do you think the 'relativistic' part of relativistic ether means? It means the ether is not a universal reference medium. de Broglie is saying the hidden medium of wave mechanics is a relativistic ether.
In de Broglie wave mechanics there is a physical particle and a physical wave and in a double slit experiment the physical particle travels through a single slit and the associated physical wave passes through both.
Einstein said, "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 also said, "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."
Einstein is discussing a physical wave in the aether. It is a physical aether displacement wave which propagates light. It is a physical wave which passes through both slits in a double slit experiment.
In a double slit experiment the physical particle travels through a single slit and the associated physical wave in the aether passes through both.Also (again) I said an ontology of quantum mechanics does not need to reduce to an intuitive classical one. I.e. Instead of a configuration Q, you have a Hilbert state [latex]\psi[/latex]. The double slit experiment then becomes perfectly understandable. Superposition, in a quantum mechanical ontology, is no more mysterious than the direction "North-East".
The explain it. What occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment?0 -
What do you think the 'relativistic' part of relativistic ether means? It means the ether is not a universal reference medium. de Broglie is saying the hidden medium of wave mechanics is a relativistic ether.
In de Broglie wave mechanics there is a physical particle and a physical wave and in a double slit experiment the physical particle travels through a single slit and the associated physical wave passes through both.
Einstein said, "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 also said, "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."
Einstein is discussing a physical wave in the aether. It is a physical aether displacement wave which propagates light. It is a physical wave which passes through both slits in a double slit experiment.
In a double slit experiment the physical particle travels through a single slit and the associated physical wave in the aether passes through both.
No matter how many times you repeat yourself, what you say will remain untrue.
There are three different concepts brought up here that are all trying to be smuggled in as the same thing (an aether).
(1) The pilot wave medium of the De Broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics.
(2) The dynamical spacetime manifold of general relativity.
(3) Quantised fields of quantum field theory.
(1) and (2) are not the same as explained earlier. For example: (2) is influenced by matter. (3) is not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_views_on_the_aether#Einstein.27s_views_on_the_aether
"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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory#The_ontology
"the particles postulated by Bohmian mechanics do not influence the evolution of the wavefunction"
(1) is a 4D manifold. (2) is not.
http://www.oe.eclipse.co.uk/nom/aether.htm
"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." --Einstein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory#Occam.27s_razor_criticism
"It is usually overlooked that Bohm's theory contains the same "many worlds" of dynamically separate branches as the Everett interpretation (now regarded as "empty" wave components), since it is based on precisely the same . . . global wave function . . "
(2) and (3) are not the same
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83225904&postcount=39Again, 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.
(1) and (3) are not the same. (3) pertains to quantum field theory excitations and is not beholden to any particular interpretation of QM. (1) Pertains to an interpretation of quantum mechanics.The explain it. What occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment?
The system is a Hilbert state, a quantum wave function of possible configurations, that undergoes time evolution as described by the Schrödinger equation. The wave function passes through both slits. A measurement/detection is made and, depending on the interpretation the Hilbert space reduces to an eigenstate, or becomes entangled with the measurement apparatus to produce relative eigenstates. In each case, these eigenstates, as observed by us, manifest as dots on the detector plate behind the slits.0 -
No matter how many times you repeat yourself, what you say will remain untrue.
There are three different concepts brought up here that are all trying to be smuggled in as the same thing (an aether).
(1) The pilot wave medium of the De Broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics.
(2) The dynamical spacetime manifold of general relativity.
(3) Quantised fields of quantum field theory.
(1) and (2) are not the same as explained earlier. For example: (2) is influenced by matter. (3) is not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_views_on_the_aether#Einstein.27s_views_on_the_aether
"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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory#The_ontology
"the particles postulated by Bohmian mechanics do not influence the evolution of the wavefunction"
(1) is a 4D manifold. (2) is not.
What do you think "energetic contact" means?
“any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium” - Louis de Broglie
(1) and (2) are the same. (1) and (2) are the hidden medium of wave mechanics. (1) and (2) are the ether of relativity.The wave function passes through both slits.
So, when a double slit experiment is performed with a C-60 molecule, that's 60 interconnected atoms, and detectors are placed at the exits to the slits why are all 60 atoms always detected exiting a single slit if the wave function physically passes through both slits?
In a double slit experiment performed with a C-60 molecule all 60 interconnected atoms travel a well defined path and it is the associated wave in the aether which passes through all of the slits.0 -
What do you think "energetic contact" means?
“any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium” - Louis de Broglie
(1) and (2) are the same. (1) and (2) are the hidden medium of wave mechanics. (1) and (2) are the ether of relativity.
I think I'll let your ridiculous non-answer stand for itself. I am happy to leave it at that. Feel free to respond by spamming with quotes from scientists you don't understand.So, when a double slit experiment is performed with a C-60 molecule, that's 60 interconnected atoms, and detectors are placed at the exits to the slits why are all 60 atoms always detected exiting a single slit if the wave function physically passes through both slits?
You left this part out.Morbert wrote:A measurement/detection is made and, depending on the interpretation the Hilbert space reduces to an eigenstate, or becomes entangled with the measurement apparatus to produce relative eigenstates. In each case, these eigenstates, as observed by us, manifest as dots on the detector plate behind the slits.0 -
Advertisement
-
You left this part out.
You left this part out.The wave function passes through both slits.
If the wave function is physically passing through both slits and detectors are placed in the middle of the slits how is it that all 60 atoms are detected as a single C-60 molecule within a single slit?
Q. Why is the particle always detected entering, traveling through and exiting a single slit?
A. The particle always enters, travels through and exits a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through.0 -
-
Is it that you don't understand what I say?
I understand what you are saying is exactly what Steinberg says is wrong with quantum mechanics. All in order to not understand it is space itself which waves in a double slit experiment.
'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.0 -
I understand what you are saying is exactly what Steinberg says is wrong with quantum mechanics. All in order to not understand it is space itself which waves in a double slit experiment.
'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.
So it's clear that you don't understand what I write, as evidenced by your repetition of quotes that do not support your view, and your refusal to engage with what I say.
I am also confident that, therefore, nobody will find your spam in any way compelling.0 -
So it's clear that you don't understand what I write, as evidenced by your repetition of quotes that do not support your view, and your refusal to engage with what I say.
I am also confident that, therefore, nobody will find your spam in any way compelling.
What you are saying is in order to not understand in a double slit experiment it is the aether which waves.0 -
Advertisement
-
Something or nothing ... Medium
That something has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space.
There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter anchored to matter.
Particles of matter are condensations of aether. Particles of matter move through and displace the aether.
The particle is defined as a moving singularity occupying a very small region of the associated wave in the aether.
A photon is a particle which has an associated wave in the aether.
In a double slit experiment the photon particle travels through a single slit and it is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.
Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.0 -
'General Relativity As an Aether Theory'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.4572
"Most early twentieth century relativists --- Lorentz, Einstein, Eddington, for examples --- claimed that general relativity was merely a theory of the aether."
'The classical ether-drift experiments: a modern re-interpretation'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.3508
"This observation allows one to view the physical vacuum as a superfluid medium [10] where bodies can flow without any apparent friction, consistently with the experimental results."
... as a superfluid medium which bodies move through and displace.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.
Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave. Both are waves in the aether.
What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the aether.0 -
Is it fair to say that whatever exists, exists within some kind of field, as far as we know?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.).
Is it fair to say, also, that if particles are excitations of certain fields, then a table is an aggregate of those excitations? Is that what leads people to characterise matter as, in the words of Bill Hicks, "energy condensed to a slow vibration"?
With regard to photons being an excitation of the EM field, how does that work, just in a very basic sense; is there an EM field which extends through all of space which allows a photon to travel, or does a photon get created and then "carry" an EM field with it?
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.
Can we directly detect spacetime; I think I've heard before that we can't, that we only detect its effects on other objects?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.
If we couldn't detect the aether would violations of Lorentz invariance be practically realisable?0 -
If we couldn't detect the aether would violations of Lorentz invariance be practically realisable?
There is plenty of evidence of the aether. There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter anchored to matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether. Aether has mass.
A 'new dark force' is more speculative than understanding space itself has mass.
'Galactic Pile-Up May Point to Mysterious New Dark Force in the Universe'
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/01/musket-ball-dark-force/
"The reason this is strange is that dark matter is thought to barely interact with itself. The dark matter should just coast through itself and move at the same speed as the hardly interacting galaxies. Instead, it looks like the dark matter is crashing into something — perhaps itself – and slowing down faster than the galaxies are. But this would require the dark matter to be able to interact with itself in a completely new an unexpected way, a “dark force” that affects only dark matter."
It's not a new force. It's the aether displaced by each of the galaxy clusters interacting analogous to the bow waves of two boats which pass by each other.
'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-402_AGU_Voyager.html
"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar space is compacting it."
It is not the particles of matter which exist in quantities less than in any vacuum artifically created on Earth which are pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system.
It is the aether, which the particles of matter exist in, which is the interstellar medium. It is the aether which is displaced by the matter the solar system consists of which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system.
'Surprise! IBEX Finds No Bow ‘Shock’ Outside our Solar System'
http://www.universetoday.com/95094/surprise-ibex-finds-no-bow-shock-outside-our-solar-system/
'“While bow shocks certainly exist ahead of many other stars, we’re finding that our Sun’s interaction doesn’t reach the critical threshold to form a shock,” said Dr. David McComas, principal investigator of the IBEX mission, “so a wave is a more accurate depiction of what’s happening ahead of our heliosphere — much like the wave made by the bow of a boat as it glides through the water.”'
The wave ahead of our heliosphere is an aether displacement wave.
'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html
"Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the water."
The 'pond' consists of aether. The ripple is an aether displacement wave. The ripple is a gravitational wave.
Every time a double slit experiment is performed is evidence of the aether. It's what waves.0 -
cheers mpc, unfortunately I lack the knowledge to evaluate the statements you make on the issue, but superficially (to me that is) they seem interesting. However, having been discussing a broad range of topics with Morbert for quite a long time now, I have a tendency to trust that he has a pretty good understanding of the subject matter, even if I don't agree with him on some fundamental issues.There is plenty of evidence of the aether. There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter anchored to matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether. Aether has mass.
A 'new dark force' is more speculative than understanding space itself has mass.
'Galactic Pile-Up May Point to Mysterious New Dark Force in the Universe'
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/01/musket-ball-dark-force/
"The reason this is strange is that dark matter is thought to barely interact with itself. The dark matter should just coast through itself and move at the same speed as the hardly interacting galaxies. Instead, it looks like the dark matter is crashing into something — perhaps itself – and slowing down faster than the galaxies are. But this would require the dark matter to be able to interact with itself in a completely new an unexpected way, a “dark force” that affects only dark matter."
It's not a new force. It's the aether displaced by each of the galaxy clusters interacting analogous to the bow waves of two boats which pass by each other.
'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-402_AGU_Voyager.html
"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar space is compacting it."
It is not the particles of matter which exist in quantities less than in any vacuum artifically created on Earth which are pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system.
It is the aether, which the particles of matter exist in, which is the interstellar medium. It is the aether which is displaced by the matter the solar system consists of which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system.
'Surprise! IBEX Finds No Bow ‘Shock’ Outside our Solar System'
http://www.universetoday.com/95094/surprise-ibex-finds-no-bow-shock-outside-our-solar-system/
'“While bow shocks certainly exist ahead of many other stars, we’re finding that our Sun’s interaction doesn’t reach the critical threshold to form a shock,” said Dr. David McComas, principal investigator of the IBEX mission, “so a wave is a more accurate depiction of what’s happening ahead of our heliosphere — much like the wave made by the bow of a boat as it glides through the water.”'
The wave ahead of our heliosphere is an aether displacement wave.
'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html
"Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the water."
The 'pond' consists of aether. The ripple is an aether displacement wave. The ripple is a gravitational wave.
Every time a double slit experiment is performed is evidence of the aether. It's what waves.
On a related point, I would echo his sentiments that it isn't very compelling when there seems to be little engagement with his position. Again, though, your own position is interesting, even thought I do lack the knowledge to sufficiently evaluate if for myself.0 -
cheers mpc, unfortunately I lack the knowledge to evaluate the statements you make on the issue, but superficially (to me that is) they seem interesting. However, having been discussing a broad range of topics with Morbert for quite a long time now, I have a tendency to trust that he has a pretty good understanding of the subject matter, even if I don't agree with him on some fundamental issues.
On a related point, I would echo his sentiments that it isn't very compelling when there seems to be little engagement with his position. Again, though, your own position is interesting, even thought I do lack the knowledge to sufficiently evaluate if for myself.
It is pointless to engage with someone who refuses to understand the "hidden medium" of de Broglie wave mechanics is a relativistic ether and the "energetic contact" of the particle and the hidden medium is the state of the ether as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places as defined by Einstein.
de Broglie and Einstein are both referring to the state of displacement of the aether.
If Morbert was willing to understand this then he would understand it is the relativistic ether which waves in a double slit experiment. Mobert has to refuse to understand the "hidden medium" of wave mechanics is a relativistic ether in order to continue to believe what they want to believe.
I too have been at this for quite a long time now and I see the religious dogma which permeates quantum mechanics. Mobert is insisting I not understand what I already understand and that is in a double slit experiment it is the ether which waves.
Most, if not all, of the nonsense associated with mainstream physics is resolved by understanding there is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter anchored to matter. Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. The "energetic contact" referred to by de Broglie and the state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places referred to by Einstein are both referring to the state of displacement of the aether.
You are correct. There is an aether and it is what propagates light. In a double slit experiment it is what waves and that wave passes through both slits. The particle travels through a single slit.0 -
Is it fair to say that whatever exists, exists within some kind of field, as far as we know?
Is it fair to say, also, that if particles are excitations of certain fields, then a table is an aggregate of those excitations? Is that what leads people to characterise matter as, in the words of Bill Hicks, "energy condensed to a slow vibration"?
While I wouldn't necessarily put it in the same way Bill Hicks has, the rest is true. The electrons in the table, for example, are all excitations of a matter field. This is why all particles of the same kind are identical.With regard to photons being an excitation of the EM field, how does that work, just in a very basic sense; is there an EM field which extends through all of space which allows a photon to travel, or does a photon get created and then "carry" an EM field with it?
The photon is the quantum mechanical description of waves in the electromagnetic field. It doesn't carry the field with it. Instead, it is a disturbance in the field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave#Physics
Maxwell's equations showed us that these waves must travel at a specific speed, c. This was the motivation behind the luminiferous aether. People figured there must exist an aether, and the waves must travel at c with respect to the rest frame of the aether. Einstein, Minkowski et al, on the other hand, formulated a theory with a Lorentz invariant field such that the speed of light, (and the laws of physics) was the same for all observers, not just those at rest with respect to an aether.Can we directly detect spacetime; I think I've heard before that we can't, that we only detect its effects on other objects?
If we couldn't detect the aether would violations of Lorentz invariance be practically realisable?
In the same way that we can detect waves in the electromagnetic field, we should also be able to detect waves in spacetime. Unfortunately, while electromagnetic waves are easy to detect, gravitational waves of detectable magnitude would only be emitted from volatile stellar systems. We are only beginning to set up a solid set of detectors, and it may be a while before a conclusive detection is made. There is indirect evidence though, based on observations of binary systems.
Lorentz violations would be realisable. A traditional aether is an example of Lorentz violation. Another example of Lorentz violation would be differences in certain properties of matter and anti-matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter_tests_of_Lorentz_violation0 -
While I wouldn't necessarily put it in the same way Bill Hicks has, the rest is true. The electrons in the table, for example, are all excitations of a matter field. This is why all particles of the same kind are identical.
The photon is the quantum mechanical description of waves in the electromagnetic field. It doesn't carry the field with it. Instead, it is a disturbance in the field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave#Physics
Maxwell's equations showed us that these waves must travel at a specific speed, c. This was the motivation behind the luminiferous aether. People figured there must exist an aether, and the waves must travel at c with respect to the rest frame of the aether. Einstein, Minkowski et al, on the other hand, formulated a theory with a Lorentz invariant field such that the speed of light, (and the laws of physics) was the same for all observers, not just those at rest with respect to an aether.
In the same way that we can detect waves in the electromagnetic field, we should also be able to detect waves in spacetime. Unfortunately, while electromagnetic waves are easy to detect, gravitational waves of detectable magnitude would only be emitted from volatile stellar systems. We are only beginning to set up a solid set of detectors, and it may be a while before a conclusive detection is made. There is indirect evidence though, based on observations of binary systems.
Lorentz violations would be realisable. A traditional aether is an example of Lorentz violation. Another example of Lorentz violation would be differences in certain properties of matter and anti-matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter_tests_of_Lorentz_violation
There is already evidence of gravitational waves.
'Surprise! IBEX Finds No Bow ‘Shock’ Outside our Solar System'
http://www.universetoday.com/95094/surprise-ibex-finds-no-bow-shock-outside-our-solar-system/
'“While bow shocks certainly exist ahead of many other stars, we’re finding that our Sun’s interaction doesn’t reach the critical threshold to form a shock,” said Dr. David McComas, principal investigator of the IBEX mission, “so a wave is a more accurate depiction of what’s happening ahead of our heliosphere — much like the wave made by the bow of a boat as it glides through the water.”'
The wave ahead of our heliosphere is an aether displacement wave. The wave ahead of our heliosphere is a gravitational wave.
'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html
"Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the water."
The 'pond' consists of aether. The ripple is an aether displacement wave. The ripple is a gravitational wave.
'Galactic Pile-Up May Point to Mysterious New Dark Force in the Universe'
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/01/musket-ball-dark-force/
"The reason this is strange is that dark matter is thought to barely interact with itself. The dark matter should just coast through itself and move at the same speed as the hardly interacting galaxies. Instead, it looks like the dark matter is crashing into something — perhaps itself – and slowing down faster than the galaxies are. But this would require the dark matter to be able to interact with itself in a completely new an unexpected way, a “dark force” that affects only dark matter."
It's not a new force. It's the aether displaced by each of the galaxy clusters interacting analogous to the bow waves of two boats which pass by each other. The pile-up is the interaction of the gravitational waves associated with the galaxies.0 -
If the photon is a disturbance in the electromagnetic field, would that mean that the electromagnetic field must permeate the entire universe, or "be everywhere" that light travels?The photon is the quantum mechanical description of waves in the electromagnetic field. It doesn't carry the field with it. Instead, it is a disturbance in the field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave#Physics
Maxwell's equations showed us that these waves must travel at a specific speed, c. This was the motivation behind the luminiferous aether. People figured there must exist an aether, and the waves must travel at c with respect to the rest frame of the aether. Einstein, Minkowski et al, on the other hand, formulated a theory with a Lorentz invariant field such that the speed of light, (and the laws of physics) was the same for all observers, not just those at rest with respect to an aether.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement