Aether or whatever

Can someone be so knowledgeable and thorough in his theory to give a simple
explanation of :
What is the need for the imaginary ether ?
What is the great impossibility of Force's ability to act from distance and
therefore the need to invent something like 'ether' or even for that matter
why can't light or radio wave just travel through nothingness ?
What are these multi-dimensions involved in String theory and how they are
not visible while residing in the selfsame 3 dimensions?

The question is :

Will a bullet which is fired with a great velocity will only travel if there
is a medium and when it suddenly faces emptiness will not know what to do
and wait until someone invents ether or comes up with such theory?

Researcher

"LEJ Brouwer" wrote in message
oups.com...

Tom Roberts wrote:
Anyone who has actually performed a COMPUTATION in any viable aether
theory knows that they are all considerably more complicated to use than
is SR.

Two things I would point out here - just because calculations are more
difficult does not mean that the underlying concept is not simpler.
Zwiebach's formulation of string field theory uses the concept of
minimal area surfaces - which is a simple intuitive idea, but actually
calculating the surfaces can be rather difficult.

Also has already been mentioned, there have been several different
meanings attached to the word 'aether' in the past. One implies the
existence of a preferred reference frame with the hope of providing an
alternative explanation for relativity. On the other hand the
'luminiferous aether' is a space-filling medium which is responsible
for the propagation of electromagnetic waves - the latter need not be
an alternative description of SR, and moreover can be compatible with
it (see my last paper). You seem to be ignorant of this fact.

And until someone explains how an aether can induce quantum behavior, no

aether theory will be acceptable to anyone who knows very much about
modern physics. shrug

[This is in agreement with the observation that few aether
advocates know much about the actual experimental record.]

Apparently you are unaware that the aether was not introduced to
explain quantum behaviour, and neither was special relativity. Imagine
saying something like "special relativity will not be acceptable to
anyone who knows very much about modern physics". How many aether
advocates do you actually know by the way? Just those that frequent
sci.physics.relativity?

In any case, it is quite possible that an aether theory may have much
to say about the origins of quantum mechanics - your statement is, as
usual, one of ignorance. Just because YOU have no idea how an aether
may induce quantum behaviour does NOT imply that it is impossible for
an aether model to induce quantum behaviour.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Researcher" wrote in message
.. .
| Can someone be so knowledgeable and thorough in his theory to give a
simple
| explanation of :
| What is the need for the imaginary ether ?


There isn't a "need", but because light shows wavelike behaviour it was
once thought that light was a wave, much like sound needs air to be
a pressure wave in. Aether was the stuff that waved. It was really
just a misunderstanding as electricity and magnetism were being studied.
This magnet doesn't need any aether to spin the compass needle nearby,
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/spin.gif
and this magnet uses wires to spin the compass needle at a distance:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...indistance.gif

The same principle is used to move a loudspeaker coil, and we
call that "wireless radio". A crystal radio set can be heard without
any power at all except the magnetism from the transmitter but it is faint,
so amplifiers are then used.
Beyond that is the study of AC theory, but you are just starting.
First build a radio from a kit, they are quite cheap.
http://tinyurl.com/ygelue

I suggest you forget about aether, it isn't needed.

Researcher wrote:
why can't light or radio wave just travel through nothingness ?

Could you explain what you mean by 'nothingness', and if you really do
mean nothing, then what it means for something to 'travel' through it?

Dear Researcher:

"Researcher" wrote in message
.. .
Can someone be so knowledgeable and thorough in his
theory to give a simple explanation of :
What is the need for the imaginary ether ?

A medium for a wave to wave in. The wave model of light is very
useful... if still just a model.

What is the great impossibility of Force's ability
to act from distance and therefore the need to invent
something like 'ether' or even for that matter why
can't light or radio wave just travel through nothingness ?

Yes, our "Newtonian" minds can imagine light propagating as
little "bullets"... but not at constant speed for all observers.
It is the constant speed that is just so "pregnant"...

What are these multi-dimensions involved in String
theory and how they are not visible while residing in the
selfsame 3 dimensions?

The average particle requires more than 4 dimensions to
completely describe it. *Without* string theory.

The question is :

Will a bullet which is fired with a great velocity will only
travel if there is a medium and when it suddenly faces
emptiness will not know what to do and wait until
someone invents ether or comes up with such theory?

I will turn the tables on you a little bit. When does slit
geometry produce indentically zero deviation in a
self-interference pattern? The answer is that there is a
non-zero angle of deflection for all types of diffraction, for
*all finite geometries*. Both / either the particle and / or the
slit is as wide as the Universe. If there is no remote corner of
the Universe that does not have a (very) little of everything in
it, the Universe *is* the aether. Spacetime isn't the product of
mass / energy, it *is* all mass / energy.

Or not. ;)

David A. Smith

"LEJ Brouwer" wrote in message
oups.com...

Researcher wrote:
why can't light or radio wave just travel through nothingness ?

Could you explain what you mean by 'nothingness', and if you really do
mean nothing, then what it means for something to 'travel' through it?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---

I mean it has nothing until this something enters and travels through.
I never said it is in the state of 'nothingness' at the time something is
passing through it.

Let's take the space occupied by let's say our own bodies.

The entire space occupied by myself is under my own control and I
proliferate it with the conglomeration of atoms and molecules that form my
body. By the way we all try to play 'God' somewhat, but this is the direct
space you play "God' to and not even a finger moves without that person's
own decision.

Now, imagine one does a pure vanishing act from the space occupied by
himself. In the truest sense and before any other stuff occupies the vacated
space.

That is the space I mean by empty space.

Researcher
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Researcher" schrieb
Can someone be so knowledgeable and thorough in his theory to give a
simple
explanation of :
What is the need for the imaginary ether ?

Let's distinguish two parts of the ether hypothesis: The existence of
a preferred frame, and a discrete model similar to condensed matter
physics for the observable fields.

The preferred frame is necessary for any realistic (hidden variable) theory.
That's because of the violation of Bell's inequality, which forbids
Einstein-causal realistic theories compatible with quantum theory.

It is also necessary to solve the "problem of time" in quantum theory. This
problem consists of many closely related parts, especially problems related
with energy-momentum-conservation in GR.

It allows a three-dimensional geometric interpretation of SM fermions
as sections of the bundle C x A(3) x /\(R^3), with an appropriate
Dirac equation on it, and of GR as geometrodynamics (ADM decomposition).

Discretization in space, with preferred frame, instead of spacetime,
gives a different picture of fermion doubling. We obtain 8 (instead of 16)
doublers, and, for staggered fermions, 2 (instead of 4). This allows a
physical interpretation in terms of SM octets and electroweak doublets.

Ether theory suggests also an E(3) symmetry for the observable fields.
There is such a remarkable E(3) symmetry of the SM fermions, preserved
by all SM gauge fields: rotations among the three generations, and
translations as shifts on a component of the right-handed neutrino. This
symmetry explains a lot of properties of SM gauge fields.

Ether theory allows unification of all fields: fermions as basic
oscillations
of a cellular lattice, gauge fields as lattice defects (strong as defects of
the cell configuration, electroweak as defects of the lattice), and
gravity as density, velocity and stress tensor of the ether.

In Message-ID:
you can find the details.

Ilja

Researcher wrote:
Can someone be so knowledgeable and thorough in his theory to give a simple
explanation of :
What is the need for the imaginary ether ?

All theories of physics are ether theories. For example:
1. The different fields in QFT are different names for the distortions
in a stationary ether.
2. The interactions of virtual particles with real particles are the
results of the real particles reacting to the distortions in the
stationary ether.
3. In GR the curvature in space-time is the distortion in the
stationary ether. When an object follows the curvature of space-time it
is following the distortion in the stationary ether. This is the reason
for the observed action-at-a-distance.
4. In SR the observer assumes that he is at rest in the ether and
that's why he sees all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and
all the rods moving wrt him are contracted. BTW this assumption of SR
is the reason why SR is incomplete. In real life all observers are in a
state of absolute motion.Therefore he will sees some of the clocks
moving wrt him are running slow and some are running fast. Also the
existence of the ether and absolute time is the reason why all
observers measures the same speed of light as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for
a clock second co-moving with the ruler.

For a description of a modern ether theory please read the paper
entitled "Unification of Physics" in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto


What is the great impossibility of Force's ability to act from distance and
therefore the need to invent something like 'ether' or even for that matter
why can't light or radio wave just travel through nothingness ?
What are these multi-dimensions involved in String theory and how they are
not visible while residing in the selfsame 3 dimensions?

The question is :

Will a bullet which is fired with a great velocity will only travel if there
is a medium and when it suddenly faces emptiness will not know what to do
and wait until someone invents ether or comes up with such theory?

Researcher

"LEJ Brouwer" wrote in message
oups.com...

Tom Roberts wrote:
Anyone who has actually performed a COMPUTATION in any viable aether
theory knows that they are all considerably more complicated to use than
is SR.

Two things I would point out here - just because calculations are more
difficult does not mean that the underlying concept is not simpler.
Zwiebach's formulation of string field theory uses the concept of
minimal area surfaces - which is a simple intuitive idea, but actually
calculating the surfaces can be rather difficult.

Also has already been mentioned, there have been several different
meanings attached to the word 'aether' in the past. One implies the
existence of a preferred reference frame with the hope of providing an
alternative explanation for relativity. On the other hand the
'luminiferous aether' is a space-filling medium which is responsible
for the propagation of electromagnetic waves - the latter need not be
an alternative description of SR, and moreover can be compatible with
it (see my last paper). You seem to be ignorant of this fact.

And until someone explains how an aether can induce quantum behavior, no

aether theory will be acceptable to anyone who knows very much about
modern physics. shrug

[This is in agreement with the observation that few aether
advocates know much about the actual experimental record.]

Apparently you are unaware that the aether was not introduced to
explain quantum behaviour, and neither was special relativity. Imagine
saying something like "special relativity will not be acceptable to
anyone who knows very much about modern physics". How many aether
advocates do you actually know by the way? Just those that frequent
sci.physics.relativity?

In any case, it is quite possible that an aether theory may have much
to say about the origins of quantum mechanics - your statement is, as
usual, one of ignorance. Just because YOU have no idea how an aether
may induce quantum behaviour does NOT imply that it is impossible for
an aether model to induce quantum behaviour.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Hi,

Thank you.
Just happened to read.
Mostly spending time on alt.sci.physics
Is it OK if one depends on sci.physics only? As I find more postings here.
The high and mighty sci.physics.research don't post others views.
I wonder who is moderating?

Researcher

However sci.physics.relativity
"Timo A. Nieminen" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Researcher wrote:

Can someone be so knowledgeable and thorough in his theory to give a
simple
explanation of :
What is the need for the imaginary ether ?

Seriously, do some serious reading of the history of physics. It's much
easier to see why some ideas were felt useful at the time, or why they
were seen as revolutionary, etc.

Why aether? Basically, it was thought that light either consisted of
particles or waves. The two most famous participants in the argument as of
approx 1700 were Newton (particles) and Huygens (waves). Huygens
hypothesised a "molecular" aether, essentially like an ideal gas - as a
consequence, light waves would be pressure waves in the aether. Problem:
polarisation of light; as a result, the corpuscular (ie light as particle)
hypothesis gained the upper hand. The next wave of theories of light came
just after 1800, with Young demonstrating interference, and explaining it
in terms of a wave theory, and Fresnel explaining polarisation in terms of
transverse waves. This led to the widespread acceptance of the wave theory
of light.

This led to a problem: waves in what? Remember, this is before the ideas
of electric fields, magnetic fields, etc were around - in theory, there
was matter, and matter could interact by contact, perhaps at a distance
(eg gravitation), and could support waves. Enter the aether, since light
waves could travel across space that appeared to contain no matter.
Considering that waves are a travelling disturbance in a medium (well,
that's a definition still found in many 1st year physics texts), how could
a wave travel without a medium? It's not that instantaneous action at a
distance was considered impossible (again, gravitation), but that would
not provide the wave behaviour that was needed to model the observed
properties of light.

The third wave of wave theories of light came around 1900, with
experimental detection of the aether failing, and a difficulty in
explaining contradictory observations: Fresnel - the aether is partially
dragged, Michelson-Morley - the aether is fully dragged, and Bradley - the
aether is undragged. See Panofsky & Philips for a concise discussion of
this. This led to a serious of hypotheses that provided the mathematical
basis of special relativity by Lorentz, Larmor, and Poincare that could
model these experiments, essentially implying that the aether was
undetectable. Next, Einstein provided the same mathematical results
without assuming any aether existed. Meanwhile, Ludwig Lorenz had
formulated a theory of electromagnetism mathematically equivalent to
Maxwell's in terms of retarded action at a distance, but it doesn't seem
to have attracted any attention.

That's a summary of the birth and redundancy (not the death - it still
keeps turning up, for better or for worse) of the luminiferous aether.

I might add as a postscript to the above that if there was a "death of the
aether", it was due to statistical mechanics - essentially, the blackbody
ultraviolet catastrophe. I haven't researched this with any thoroughness,
but this crisis of theory appears to have taken place about 1905-1920.

What is the great impossibility of Force's ability to act from distance
and
therefore the need to invent something like 'ether' or even for that
matter
why can't light or radio wave just travel through nothingness ?
What are these multi-dimensions involved in String theory and how they
are
not visible while residing in the selfsame 3 dimensions?

The question is :

Will a bullet which is fired with a great velocity will only travel if
there
is a medium and when it suddenly faces emptiness will not know what to
do
and wait until someone invents ether or comes up with such theory?

Questions akin to this occupied a lot of work on physics between Aristotle
and Newton. There was a nice paper on this in American Journal of Physics
a while ago; I don't have the paper at hand at the moment, but my database
suggest to me that the paper might be:
Allan Franklin, Principle of inertia in the Middle Ages, AJP 44, 529-545,
1976.

Again, consider a serious study of the history of physics. You appear to
be interested in the real fundamentals. However, these entered physics in
what is regarded by most texts as the irrelevantly distant past, and thus
will be found in history rather than physics texts. You could also seek
out modernish works on fundamentals of physics - the books by Mario Bunge
come to mind, and if Bill Hobba is reading, I'm sure he can suggest some
online sources.

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/...,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Researcher wrote:
Can someone be so knowledgeable and thorough in his theory to give a simple
explanation of :
What is the need for the imaginary ether ?

You are asking the wrong people.The best thing to do is go back to the
mid 19th century when people were more genuine and straightforward with
this matter.The top right column adequately frames the dillema faced by
dynamacists at the time -

http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/i...5 4.336.x.425

The later fables created by the early 20th century guys amounted to
dumping aether/medium on Newton as 'absolute space' anyway and then
getting Albert to reject aether/Newton.It should seem strange to you
because Newton is extremely explicit about an aether/medium -

"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large celestial
bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the microscopic pores of
bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of their parts which
their heat and all their active force consists in. Further, since
matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but would actually
interfere with the operations of Nature, and [314] weaken them, there
is no solid reason why we should believe in any such matter at all.
Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected."
Newton, Optics 1704

Unless you have a severe reading disability,there is no aether in 1905
to reject,at least in terms of the Newtonian agenda but these are
unusual times and men do not behave like men.The mid 19th century
article is truly impressive,these men knew they were stuck in a
conceptual rut with no way out as Newton knew where and how to block
things off.He probably did not count on a bigger can of worms that is
called 'relativity' but there you have it .

Have a ball.




What is the great impossibility of Force's ability to act from distance and
therefore the need to invent something like 'ether' or even for that matter
why can't light or radio wave just travel through nothingness ?
What are these multi-dimensions involved in String theory and how they are
not visible while residing in the selfsame 3 dimensions?

The question is :

Will a bullet which is fired with a great velocity will only travel if there
is a medium and when it suddenly faces emptiness will not know what to do
and wait until someone invents ether or comes up with such theory?

Researcher

"LEJ Brouwer" wrote in message
oups.com...

Tom Roberts wrote:
Anyone who has actually performed a COMPUTATION in any viable aether
theory knows that they are all considerably more complicated to use than
is SR.

Two things I would point out here - just because calculations are more
difficult does not mean that the underlying concept is not simpler.
Zwiebach's formulation of string field theory uses the concept of
minimal area surfaces - which is a simple intuitive idea, but actually
calculating the surfaces can be rather difficult.

Also has already been mentioned, there have been several different
meanings attached to the word 'aether' in the past. One implies the
existence of a preferred reference frame with the hope of providing an
alternative explanation for relativity. On the other hand the
'luminiferous aether' is a space-filling medium which is responsible
for the propagation of electromagnetic waves - the latter need not be
an alternative description of SR, and moreover can be compatible with
it (see my last paper). You seem to be ignorant of this fact.

And until someone explains how an aether can induce quantum behavior, no

aether theory will be acceptable to anyone who knows very much about
modern physics. shrug

[This is in agreement with the observation that few aether
advocates know much about the actual experimental record.]

Apparently you are unaware that the aether was not introduced to
explain quantum behaviour, and neither was special relativity. Imagine
saying something like "special relativity will not be acceptable to
anyone who knows very much about modern physics". How many aether
advocates do you actually know by the way? Just those that frequent
sci.physics.relativity?

In any case, it is quite possible that an aether theory may have much
to say about the origins of quantum mechanics - your statement is, as
usual, one of ignorance. Just because YOU have no idea how an aether
may induce quantum behaviour does NOT imply that it is impossible for
an aether model to induce quantum behaviour.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

If it happens that the height of the quicksilver is less at the top than at
the base of the mountain, it follows of necessity that the weight and
pressure of the air is the sole cause of this suspension of the quicksilver,
and not the abhorrence of the vacuum :

For it is quite certain that there is much more air that presses on the foot
of the mountain that at its summit.

-- Blaise Pascal

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!


"oriel36" wrote in message
ps.com...

Researcher wrote:
Can someone be so knowledgeable and thorough in his theory to give a
simple
explanation of :
What is the need for the imaginary ether ?

You are asking the wrong people.The best thing to do is go back to the
mid 19th century when people were more genuine and straightforward with
this matter.The top right column adequately frames the dillema faced by
dynamacists at the time -


http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/i...q=9&size=1&id=
bm.1843.10.x.54.336.x.425

The later fables created by the early 20th century guys amounted to
dumping aether/medium on Newton as 'absolute space' anyway and then
getting Albert to reject aether/Newton.It should seem strange to you
because Newton is extremely explicit about an aether/medium -

"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large celestial
bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the microscopic pores of
bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of their parts which
their heat and all their active force consists in. Further, since
matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but would actually
interfere with the operations of Nature, and [314] weaken them, there
is no solid reason why we should believe in any such matter at all.
Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected."
Newton, Optics 1704

Unless you have a severe reading disability,there is no aether in 1905
to reject,at least in terms of the Newtonian agenda but these are
unusual times and men do not behave like men.The mid 19th century
article is truly impressive,these men knew they were stuck in a
conceptual rut with no way out as Newton knew where and how to block
things off.He probably did not count on a bigger can of worms that is
called 'relativity' but there you have it .

Have a ball.




What is the great impossibility of Force's ability to act from distance
and
therefore the need to invent something like 'ether' or even for that
matter
why can't light or radio wave just travel through nothingness ?
What are these multi-dimensions involved in String theory and how they
are
not visible while residing in the selfsame 3 dimensions?

The question is :

Will a bullet which is fired with a great velocity will only travel if
there
is a medium and when it suddenly faces emptiness will not know what to
do
and wait until someone invents ether or comes up with such theory?

Researcher

"LEJ Brouwer" wrote in message
oups.com...

Tom Roberts wrote:
Anyone who has actually performed a COMPUTATION in any viable aether
theory knows that they are all considerably more complicated to use
than
is SR.

Two things I would point out here - just because calculations are more
difficult does not mean that the underlying concept is not simpler.
Zwiebach's formulation of string field theory uses the concept of
minimal area surfaces - which is a simple intuitive idea, but actually
calculating the surfaces can be rather difficult.

Also has already been mentioned, there have been several different
meanings attached to the word 'aether' in the past. One implies the
existence of a preferred reference frame with the hope of providing an
alternative explanation for relativity. On the other hand the
'luminiferous aether' is a space-filling medium which is responsible
for the propagation of electromagnetic waves - the latter need not be
an alternative description of SR, and moreover can be compatible with
it (see my last paper). You seem to be ignorant of this fact.

And until someone explains how an aether can induce quantum
behavior, no

aether theory will be acceptable to anyone who knows very much about
modern physics. shrug

[This is in agreement with the observation that few aether
advocates know much about the actual experimental record.]

Apparently you are unaware that the aether was not introduced to
explain quantum behaviour, and neither was special relativity. Imagine
saying something like "special relativity will not be acceptable to
anyone who knows very much about modern physics". How many aether
advocates do you actually know by the way? Just those that frequent
sci.physics.relativity?

In any case, it is quite possible that an aether theory may have much
to say about the origins of quantum mechanics - your statement is, as
usual, one of ignorance. Just because YOU have no idea how an aether
may induce quantum behaviour does NOT imply that it is impossible for
an aether model to induce quantum behaviour.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com