Physics Challenged

Hey Dave
Here's a tip for ya. As the first order of business, get
rid of that archaic term 'aether' and replace it with something more
descriptive and definitive. Something like "Sub-Planck Energy Domain".
There's such a powerfully entrenched stigma against
'aether/ether' that any referance to it provokes a Pavlovian cacophony
yowls and howls.
oc

Bill Sheppard wrote:
Hey Dave
Here's a tip for ya. As the first order of business, get
rid of that archaic term 'aether' and replace it with something more
descriptive and definitive. Something like "Sub-Planck Energy Domain".

Space within space or better put, sub-space. Reminds me of why the
spacing used in language is always the same, and written communication
always with end points or "periods."


How many times have you heard someone say, "What's your point?"

There's such a powerfully entrenched stigma against
'aether/ether' that any referance to it provokes a Pavlovian cacophony
yowls and howls.
oc


And that says alot about mechanical processes in the human brain as if
on "automatic pilot" preset to a default of ("the point is") zero.

One could say that gravity is like the ego, and emotions behave like the
laws of thermodynamics. Watch how the ego forms a 'singularity' of
dualistic reasoning and spirals into its own entropic death or 'end' point.

Hi oc I like that your term for the aether "sub-Planck energy
dormain". It fits well with my micro thinking.,and where the source of
gravity is hiding. I also relate this microscopic Planck
size,energy,time to what is conditions inside a black hole. My thinking
is its best to use micro energy force particles than matter particles
when thinking of the structure of the aether or inside structure of a
black hole. The aether(space) is getting more play(thought) and the
area between the black holes surface,and its exact core center has to be
very dynamic. It could be spin,and gravity all the way down. It
fits Bert

From Bert:

I like that your term..... "sub-Planck
energy domain".

Actually the term is not mine. The credit goes entirely to Painius, who
assigned it the acronym SPED.
Formerly, i had been using the term 'vacuum energy
density' or VED. Former to that, i had been using Wolter's term "super
energy-dense matrix of space". But that evoked multitudinous yowls and
howls that it was an attempt to resurrect the 'aether theory'. In
exasperation i tried to come up with a term that conveyed the energy
density of space yet preserved the integrity of the "vacuum". Hence
'VED'. But Painius observed that was still more of a description than a
*definition*. After a bit of mutual brainstorming, he suggested 'Sub
Planck Energy Domain'(SPED). For a little while we used SPED/VED, then
dropped 'VED' entirely. oc

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
snipped
This has been discussed on sci.physics.relativity a lot and unfortunaly
there is no clear cut answer available. By definition an inertial frame is
one that is homogenous in space and time and isotropic in space. The POR
says the laws of physics is the same in any inertial frame or one moving
at
constant velocity wrt to an inertial frame. This immediacy implies a
frame
moving at constant velocity wrt to an inertial frame must be inertly and
hence isotropic. If an aether did exist then it would create an aether
wind
that would break isotropy and hence invalidate the POR. However other
views
exist - the most detailed discussion I can recall being one with Timo on
his
excellent derivation of the Lorentz transforms -

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...0a10bc70d7d438.
snipped
Bill

Can I get your thoughts on something? Let's suppose for a second that aether
does exist. For the sake of argument, we'll say that the aether has the
following properties:

it is particulate,
it is massless,
it is arranged such that in the absense of energy (of any kind, matter
included) each particle is 1 Planck unit away from its nearest neighbors,
it is repulsed by its neighbors,
a matter "particle" is the binding of a region of these to a single
given high energy state,
the motion of a "particle" through space is the movement of energy by
means of energizing aether in front of the "particle" and de-energizing
aether behind the "particle",
propagation of EM is energetic wave motion through this aether.


We should be able to set up a mental model from this. Hopefully it's
complete enough for the questions I'll ask. It can be inferred from the
speed of light in a vacuum that no energy exchanges ever occur in less than
1 Planck time. Couldn't this explain why relativistic effects occur? Think
about it for a second. Particles moving through aether would experience
something similar to the sound barrier as they approach the speed of light
because the aether simply is not able to "pass through" the particle fast
enough. As such, the aether in front of the particle would become compressed
to distances shorter than 1 Planck length. This is where the energy not
corresponding to classical mechanics is actually being spent.

As for the isotropy and aether wind issues, under such conditions as what
I've described here, why would it matter? The aether wind itself is not
likely to produce any measurable effects until the detectors are moving at
relativistic speeds. Those effects are themselves known as Special
Relativity. So since Special Relativity is verified, it should be true that
if an aether wind does exist, then relativistic speeds relative to earth in
the direction of the aether wind should require less energy than the same
speeds at right angles to the wind, and those speeds would require less
energy than the same speeds upwind. Does this not make sense? The difference
would likely be minimal since it is doubtful that the total sum of all the
orbital motions of the earth combined would be anywhere near a relativistic
speed.

Taking this view, the Michaelson-Morley experiment was doomed to failure
since relative to the aether, the emitter emitted the light at an angle such
that if the earth had suddenly stopped moving relative to the aether after
the emission, the light would have missed the target. It's no different than
considering what happens when you throw a ball from one car to the other
when both are moving at 20 mph, ignoring atmospheric wind effects(since
atmospheric wind doesn't pass through the ball).

Now the question.

Barring quantum physics (which is statistical where this model is
deterministic), what's conceptually wrong with this model with respect to
Relativity?

R.

"Ranando King" wrote in message
...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
snipped
This has been discussed on sci.physics.relativity a lot and unfortunaly
there is no clear cut answer available. By definition an inertial frame
is
one that is homogenous in space and time and isotropic in space. The
POR
says the laws of physics is the same in any inertial frame or one moving
at
constant velocity wrt to an inertial frame. This immediacy implies a
frame
moving at constant velocity wrt to an inertial frame must be inertly and
hence isotropic. If an aether did exist then it would create an aether
wind
that would break isotropy and hence invalidate the POR. However other
views
exist - the most detailed discussion I can recall being one with Timo on
his
excellent derivation of the Lorentz transforms -


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...0a10bc70d7d438.
snipped
Bill

Can I get your thoughts on something? Let's suppose for a second that
aether
does exist. For the sake of argument, we'll say that the aether has the
following properties:

it is particulate,
it is massless,

If it was massless then it would move at the speed of light in all FOR's -
it is rather difficult to see how a medium moving at the speed of light can
have something traveling relative to it (after all it is meant to be the
wave carrier of light) at the speed of light.

it is arranged such that in the absense of energy (of any kind, matter
included) each particle is 1 Planck unit away from its nearest neighbors,
it is repulsed by its neighbors,
a matter "particle" is the binding of a region of these to a single
given high energy state,
the motion of a "particle" through space is the movement of energy by
means of energizing aether in front of the "particle" and de-energizing
aether behind the "particle",
propagation of EM is energetic wave motion through this aether.

See what I wrote above.



We should be able to set up a mental model from this. Hopefully it's
complete enough for the questions I'll ask. It can be inferred from the
speed of light in a vacuum that no energy exchanges ever occur in less
than
1 Planck time. Couldn't this explain why relativistic effects occur? Think
about it for a second.

No one is denying it is impossible for an aether to exist - aether theories
exist and are in accord with experiment. Aether models have been proposed
that are in accord with experiment. That is not the point. The point is
one does not have to exist and physics has gotten along without it for a
century. If you want to propose a particular model go ahead (what you wrote
above is not really a model - it is simply a lot of vague ideas cobbled
together - a model can make quantitative predictions). Ilja's GLET is an
example of what an actual model would look like.

Particles moving through aether would experience
something similar to the sound barrier as they approach the speed of light
because the aether simply is not able to "pass through" the particle fast
enough. As such, the aether in front of the particle would become
compressed
to distances shorter than 1 Planck length. This is where the energy not
corresponding to classical mechanics is actually being spent.

As for the isotropy and aether wind issues, under such conditions as what
I've described here, why would it matter? The aether wind itself is not
likely to produce any measurable effects until the detectors are moving at
relativistic speeds. Those effects are themselves known as Special
Relativity. So since Special Relativity is verified, it should be true
that
if an aether wind does exist, then relativistic speeds relative to earth
in
the direction of the aether wind should require less energy than the same
speeds at right angles to the wind, and those speeds would require less
energy than the same speeds upwind. Does this not make sense? The
difference
would likely be minimal since it is doubtful that the total sum of all the
orbital motions of the earth combined would be anywhere near a
relativistic
speed.

Taking this view, the Michaelson-Morley experiment was doomed to failure
since relative to the aether, the emitter emitted the light at an angle
such
that if the earth had suddenly stopped moving relative to the aether after
the emission, the light would have missed the target. It's no different
than
considering what happens when you throw a ball from one car to the other
when both are moving at 20 mph, ignoring atmospheric wind effects(since
atmospheric wind doesn't pass through the ball).

Now the question.

Barring quantum physics (which is statistical where this model is
deterministic), what's conceptually wrong with this model with respect to
Relativity?

See what I wrote above.

Thanks
Bill


R.

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Ranando King" wrote in message
snipped
Can I get your thoughts on something? Let's suppose for a second that
aether
does exist. For the sake of argument, we'll say that the aether has the
following properties:

it is particulate,
it is massless,

If it was massless then it would move at the speed of light in all FOR's -
it is rather difficult to see how a medium moving at the speed of light
can
have something traveling relative to it (after all it is meant to be the
wave carrier of light) at the speed of light.

Hang on a sec. If it's massless, is it required to move? I would tend to
state that "when it *does move*, it moves at the speed of light. What's
more, when it does move, it doesn't go very far before giving up it's energy
to the next aether particle and being forced back to its original position.

If aether is the wave carrier of light, then the aether itself would be
*required* to move at the speed of light when it moves in order to pass the
energy on to the next particle of aether, wouldn't it? The reason mass moves
so much slower is because it's not possible for all of the aether particles
that constitute a massive object to pass their energy forward to the next
group of aether particles simultaneously. The more massive the object, the
more difficult it is to pass all of the energy composing it forward.

it is arranged such that in the absense of energy (of any kind,
matter
included) each particle is 1 Planck unit away from its nearest
neighbors,
it is repulsed by its neighbors,
a matter "particle" is the binding of a region of these to a single
given high energy state,
the motion of a "particle" through space is the movement of energy
by
means of energizing aether in front of the "particle" and de-energizing
aether behind the "particle",
propagation of EM is energetic wave motion through this aether.

See what I wrote above.

Please re-evaluate and try to consider the possibilities, regardless of how
vaguely described here.



We should be able to set up a mental model from this. Hopefully it's
complete enough for the questions I'll ask. It can be inferred from the
speed of light in a vacuum that no energy exchanges ever occur in less
than
1 Planck time. Couldn't this explain why relativistic effects occur?
Think
about it for a second.

No one is denying it is impossible for an aether to exist - aether
theories
exist and are in accord with experiment.

Did you mean "impossible" as you wrote, or did you mean "possible"? If you
meant "impossible" then I don't understand the sentence.

Aether models have been proposed
that are in accord with experiment. That is not the point. The point is
one does not have to exist and physics has gotten along without it for a
century. If you want to propose a particular model go ahead (what you
wrote
above is not really a model - it is simply a lot of vague ideas cobbled
together - a model can make quantitative predictions). Ilja's GLET is an
example of what an actual model would look like.

If the point is truely about what doesn't have to exist, then in the same
mode of thinking, neither does science. Life will proceed just fine without
us humans trying to figure out how it all works. Life continued on this
planet for thousands of years without science. :-)

That was admittedly a bit sarcastic, but the point is that the mathematical
models provided by quantum physics are admittedly very much incomplete. The
idea that light travels at the same speed in all reference frames is an
axiom. It may likely pan out to be true if we can ever travel at
relativistic speeds and test the theory. But whether it is true or not, it
is a curiosity. It's natural for one to wonder why.

Its also counter-intuitive that at relativistic speeds, an increasing amount
of the energy you put into accelerating gets diverted to increasing inertia,
but only in the direction of motion. When one asks why such things happen,
the first thing one receives is the mathematics of Relativity. When one
points out that this is merely a model of what's happening and not the
reason, then one is told that this is just how spacetime works.

I, for one, can no more accept such a rather escapist answer than R.A.
Milikan could accept that the then yet to be named electron was as massive
as a hydrogen atom after measuring its charge. The bottom line here is that
a great many properties are attributed to the nothingness of spacetime.
Those of us entertaining the aether notion are simply asking how "nothing"
can have properties.

Particles moving through aether would experience
something similar to the sound barrier as they approach the speed of
light
because the aether simply is not able to "pass through" the particle
fast
enough. As such, the aether in front of the particle would become
compressed
to distances shorter than 1 Planck length. This is where the energy not
corresponding to classical mechanics is actually being spent.

As for the isotropy and aether wind issues, under such conditions as
what
I've described here, why would it matter? The aether wind itself is not
likely to produce any measurable effects until the detectors are moving
at
relativistic speeds. Those effects are themselves known as Special
Relativity. So since Special Relativity is verified, it should be true
that
if an aether wind does exist, then relativistic speeds relative to earth
in
the direction of the aether wind should require less energy than the
same
speeds at right angles to the wind, and those speeds would require less
energy than the same speeds upwind. Does this not make sense? The
difference
would likely be minimal since it is doubtful that the total sum of all
the
orbital motions of the earth combined would be anywhere near a
relativistic
speed.

Taking this view, the Michaelson-Morley experiment was doomed to failure
since relative to the aether, the emitter emitted the light at an angle
such
that if the earth had suddenly stopped moving relative to the aether
after
the emission, the light would have missed the target. It's no different
than
considering what happens when you throw a ball from one car to the other
when both are moving at 20 mph, ignoring atmospheric wind effects(since
atmospheric wind doesn't pass through the ball).

Now the question.

Barring quantum physics (which is statistical where this model is
deterministic), what's conceptually wrong with this model with respect
to
Relativity?

See what I wrote above.

Thanks
Bill


R.



Please re-evaluate.

Thanks
R.

"Ranando King" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Ranando King" wrote in message
snipped
Can I get your thoughts on something? Let's suppose for a second that
aether
does exist. For the sake of argument, we'll say that the aether has
the
following properties:

it is particulate,
it is massless,

If it was massless then it would move at the speed of light in all
FOR's -
it is rather difficult to see how a medium moving at the speed of light
can
have something traveling relative to it (after all it is meant to be the
wave carrier of light) at the speed of light.

Hang on a sec. If it's massless, is it required to move?

Yes - unless you wish to maintain an absurdity such that it is stationary in
every frame.

I would tend to
state that "when it *does move*, it moves at the speed of light. What's
more, when it does move, it doesn't go very far before giving up it's
energy
to the next aether particle and being forced back to its original
position.

If aether is the wave carrier of light, then the aether itself would be
*required* to move at the speed of light when it moves in order to pass
the
energy on to the next particle of aether, wouldn't it?

No. Think about waves in a spring. Particles in the spring move up and
down but the wave propagates at a different speed and that speed is relative
to the spring.

The reason mass moves
so much slower is because it's not possible for all of the aether
particles
that constitute a massive object to pass their energy forward to the next
group of aether particles simultaneously. The more massive the object, the
more difficult it is to pass all of the energy composing it forward.

You are indulging flights of fancy assuming things to be correct we have no
evidence for.


it is arranged such that in the absense of energy (of any kind,
matter
included) each particle is 1 Planck unit away from its nearest
neighbors,
it is repulsed by its neighbors,
a matter "particle" is the binding of a region of these to a
single
given high energy state,
the motion of a "particle" through space is the movement of energy
by
means of energizing aether in front of the "particle" and
de-energizing
aether behind the "particle",
propagation of EM is energetic wave motion through this aether.

See what I wrote above.

Please re-evaluate and try to consider the possibilities, regardless of
how
vaguely described here.

I have. They do not fly.




We should be able to set up a mental model from this. Hopefully it's
complete enough for the questions I'll ask. It can be inferred from
the
speed of light in a vacuum that no energy exchanges ever occur in less
than
1 Planck time. Couldn't this explain why relativistic effects occur?
Think
about it for a second.

No one is denying it is impossible for an aether to exist - aether
theories
exist and are in accord with experiment.

Did you mean "impossible" as you wrote, or did you mean "possible"? If you
meant "impossible" then I don't understand the sentence.

Impossible is the correct word.


Aether models have been proposed
that are in accord with experiment. That is not the point. The point
is
one does not have to exist and physics has gotten along without it for a
century. If you want to propose a particular model go ahead (what you
wrote
above is not really a model - it is simply a lot of vague ideas cobbled
together - a model can make quantitative predictions). Ilja's GLET is
an
example of what an actual model would look like.

If the point is truely about what doesn't have to exist, then in the same
mode of thinking, neither does science. Life will proceed just fine
without
us humans trying to figure out how it all works. Life continued on this
planet for thousands of years without science. :-)

Your point being?


That was admittedly a bit sarcastic, but the point is that the
mathematical
models provided by quantum physics are admittedly very much incomplete.

Why?

The
idea that light travels at the same speed in all reference frames is an
axiom.

Nope - it is a deduction from conservation of charge among other things. As
has been pointed out many times on sci.physics.relativity the second axiom
is irrelevant in deriving the Lorentz transformations - the constant that
appears in the equations follows purely from the POR. The fixing of that
value to be the speed of light comes from many considerations - the most
fundamental one probably being charge conservation.

It may likely pan out to be true if we can ever travel at
relativistic speeds and test the theory. But whether it is true or not, it
is a curiosity. It's natural for one to wonder why.

May I suggest you examine derivations that do not assume the speed of light?
See
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076,
and ancient, but I still think excellent post by Tom Roberts
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e....ih.lucent.com
and chapter 10 of
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/
under the heading of Relativity without c.


Its also counter-intuitive that at relativistic speeds, an increasing
amount
of the energy you put into accelerating gets diverted to increasing
inertia,
but only in the direction of motion. When one asks why such things happen,
the first thing one receives is the mathematics of Relativity. When one
points out that this is merely a model of what's happening and not the
reason, then one is told that this is just how spacetime works.

You are confused about what an explanation is. If assumption A logically
implies B then A has explained B - it makes no difference if that train of
logic includes mathematics or not. I have seen similar arguments many
times. What I ask is what makes the mathematics of relativity different
than the mathematics of Euclidian geometry used by surveyors? Why is it
questioned and what surveyors do not?


I, for one, can no more accept such a rather escapist answer


Then I suggest you think harder about the scientific method.

Thanks
Bill

than R.A.
Milikan could accept that the then yet to be named electron was as massive
as a hydrogen atom after measuring its charge. The bottom line here is
that
a great many properties are attributed to the nothingness of spacetime.
Those of us entertaining the aether notion are simply asking how "nothing"
can have properties.

Particles moving through aether would experience
something similar to the sound barrier as they approach the speed of
light
because the aether simply is not able to "pass through" the particle
fast
enough. As such, the aether in front of the particle would become
compressed
to distances shorter than 1 Planck length. This is where the energy
not
corresponding to classical mechanics is actually being spent.

As for the isotropy and aether wind issues, under such conditions as
what
I've described here, why would it matter? The aether wind itself is
not
likely to produce any measurable effects until the detectors are
moving
at
relativistic speeds. Those effects are themselves known as Special
Relativity. So since Special Relativity is verified, it should be true
that
if an aether wind does exist, then relativistic speeds relative to
earth
in
the direction of the aether wind should require less energy than the
same
speeds at right angles to the wind, and those speeds would require
less
energy than the same speeds upwind. Does this not make sense? The
difference
would likely be minimal since it is doubtful that the total sum of all
the
orbital motions of the earth combined would be anywhere near a
relativistic
speed.

Taking this view, the Michaelson-Morley experiment was doomed to
failure
since relative to the aether, the emitter emitted the light at an
angle
such
that if the earth had suddenly stopped moving relative to the aether
after
the emission, the light would have missed the target. It's no
different
than
considering what happens when you throw a ball from one car to the
other
when both are moving at 20 mph, ignoring atmospheric wind
effects(since
atmospheric wind doesn't pass through the ball).

Now the question.

Barring quantum physics (which is statistical where this model is
deterministic), what's conceptually wrong with this model with respect
to
Relativity?

See what I wrote above.

Thanks
Bill


R.



Please re-evaluate.

Thanks
R.

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Ranando King" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Ranando King" wrote in message
snipped
Can I get your thoughts on something? Let's suppose for a second
that
aether
does exist. For the sake of argument, we'll say that the aether has
the
following properties:

it is particulate,
it is massless,

If it was massless then it would move at the speed of light in all
FOR's -
it is rather difficult to see how a medium moving at the speed of
light
can
have something traveling relative to it (after all it is meant to be
the
wave carrier of light) at the speed of light.

Hang on a sec. If it's massless, is it required to move?

Yes - unless you wish to maintain an absurdity such that it is stationary
in
every frame.

I have no need for such an absurdity. Just out of curiosity, is calling
something stationary in every reference frame any less absurd than saying
something moves at the same speed in every reference frame? The only
difference is that in the first case the speed is 0. It doesn't really
matter what that speed is. The statement is altogether absurd... and yet, so
much science is predicated on it.

The bad part is that this particular absurdity, where that speed is the
speed of light, pans out in experiments.... so far, and it certainly checks
out in the mathematical models. One of the questions that arise because of
this factual absurdity is "What's physically causing this absurdity?". The
mathematical models are currently ineffective at answering this question.
They merey re-inforce the fact that this absurdity must exist.

I would tend to
state that "when it *does move*, it moves at the speed of light. What's
more, when it does move, it doesn't go very far before giving up it's
energy
to the next aether particle and being forced back to its original
position.

If aether is the wave carrier of light, then the aether itself would be
*required* to move at the speed of light when it moves in order to pass
the
energy on to the next particle of aether, wouldn't it?

No. Think about waves in a spring. Particles in the spring move up and
down but the wave propagates at a different speed and that speed is
relative
to the spring.

That's nice for the surface of the spring, but imagine a ridiculously large
(infinite if you like) sphere filled with water so that there is nothing but
water inside and the water occupies the entire volume. Now imagine a wave
beginning somewhere near the center of that volume. What is the motion of
the particles in that case? Treating space & time separately (which I know
is a bad deal), you've got to account for 3D instead of the 2D surface of
water.

The reason mass moves
so much slower is because it's not possible for all of the aether
particles
that constitute a massive object to pass their energy forward to the
next
group of aether particles simultaneously. The more massive the object,
the
more difficult it is to pass all of the energy composing it forward.

You are indulging flights of fancy assuming things to be correct we have
no
evidence for.

I don't deny you that fact. This is all mere speculation. Question. Isn't
M-theory also speculation? We can't even come close to generating the energy
necessary to validate Super String Theory.... And yet, physicists continue
to speculate. Aren't virtual particles speculation? Much like aether,
virtual particles aren't even observable (because they don't exist long
enough).... And yet, physicists continue to speculate.

Maybe there's something to this whole business of indulging flights of
fancy. Before J.J. Thomson's experiment, the notion that electricity was a
stream of particles was a mere flight of fancy. The point is that sometimes
you have to develop an idea before you can find evidence for it. You know as
well as I do that the basic order of science is Theorize, Model, Experiment,
Revise, Re-model, Re-experiment, Repeat ad nauseum.


it is arranged such that in the absense of energy (of any kind,
matter
included) each particle is 1 Planck unit away from its nearest
neighbors,
it is repulsed by its neighbors,
a matter "particle" is the binding of a region of these to a
single
given high energy state,
the motion of a "particle" through space is the movement of
energy
by
means of energizing aether in front of the "particle" and
de-energizing
aether behind the "particle",
propagation of EM is energetic wave motion through this aether.

See what I wrote above.

Please re-evaluate and try to consider the possibilities, regardless of
how
vaguely described here.

I have. They do not fly.




We should be able to set up a mental model from this. Hopefully it's
complete enough for the questions I'll ask. It can be inferred from
the
speed of light in a vacuum that no energy exchanges ever occur in
less
than
1 Planck time. Couldn't this explain why relativistic effects occur?
Think
about it for a second.

No one is denying it is impossible for an aether to exist - aether
theories
exist and are in accord with experiment.

Did you mean "impossible" as you wrote, or did you mean "possible"? If
you
meant "impossible" then I don't understand the sentence.

Impossible is the correct word.


Aether models have been proposed
that are in accord with experiment. That is not the point. The point
is
one does not have to exist and physics has gotten along without it for
a
century. If you want to propose a particular model go ahead (what you
wrote
above is not really a model - it is simply a lot of vague ideas
cobbled
together - a model can make quantitative predictions). Ilja's GLET is
an
example of what an actual model would look like.

If the point is truely about what doesn't have to exist, then in the
same
mode of thinking, neither does science. Life will proceed just fine
without
us humans trying to figure out how it all works. Life continued on this
planet for thousands of years without science. :-)

Your point being?


That was admittedly a bit sarcastic, but the point is that the
mathematical
models provided by quantum physics are admittedly very much incomplete.

Why?

I'll give you an example. A speck of dust on my desk is too big to behave
like a quantum object. C70, or even fluorofullerene (really big molecules!)
are small enough to display quantum behavior. So where's the line? What
physically causes objects to stop displaying quantum effects? Mind you, if
you say observation, I'm going to expect a definition.

The
idea that light travels at the same speed in all reference frames is an
axiom.

Nope - it is a deduction from conservation of charge among other things.
As
has been pointed out many times on sci.physics.relativity the second axiom
is irrelevant in deriving the Lorentz transformations - the constant that
appears in the equations follows purely from the POR. The fixing of that
value to be the speed of light comes from many considerations - the most
fundamental one probably being charge conservation.

Again, the mathematical model. Where's the physical model that's supposed to
accompany it?

It may likely pan out to be true if we can ever travel at
relativistic speeds and test the theory. But whether it is true or not,
it
is a curiosity. It's natural for one to wonder why.

May I suggest you examine derivations that do not assume the speed of
light?
See
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076,
and ancient, but I still think excellent post by Tom Roberts

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e....ih.lucent.com
and chapter 10 of
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/
under the heading of Relativity without c.

This is as I said above, the math confirms that something seemingly absurd
must be true. Now it's up to physicists to find the physical mechanism that
enforces this truth.


Its also counter-intuitive that at relativistic speeds, an increasing
amount
of the energy you put into accelerating gets diverted to increasing
inertia,
but only in the direction of motion. When one asks why such things
happen,
the first thing one receives is the mathematics of Relativity. When one
points out that this is merely a model of what's happening and not the
reason, then one is told that this is just how spacetime works.

You are confused about what an explanation is. If assumption A logically
implies B then A has explained B - it makes no difference if that train of
logic includes mathematics or not. I have seen similar arguments many
times. What I ask is what makes the mathematics of relativity different
than the mathematics of Euclidian geometry used by surveyors? Why is it
questioned and what surveyors do not?

Nope. You're confused about what I'm seeking an explanation for. If
assumption A logically implies B then A has explained B. If B is later
proven to be correct then A is no longer merely assumption and must now be
proven. This is how science has operated for centuries. Remember,
mathematical justification + physical observation = proof. That the speed of
light is constant in all frames has all of the mathematical justification it
needs... and then some. It's time for someone to expose the mechanism that
makes it work.


I, for one, can no more accept such a rather escapist answer


Then I suggest you think harder about the scientific method.

Thanks
Bill

I think I'll let your reply to this be the last in this subthread while I
try to put together a mathematical model to express the ideas I have on this
issue.

R.

"Ranando King" wrote in message
...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Ranando King" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Ranando King" wrote in message
snipped
Can I get your thoughts on something? Let's suppose for a second
that
aether
does exist. For the sake of argument, we'll say that the aether
has
the
following properties:

it is particulate,
it is massless,

If it was massless then it would move at the speed of light in all
FOR's -
it is rather difficult to see how a medium moving at the speed of
light
can
have something traveling relative to it (after all it is meant to be
the
wave carrier of light) at the speed of light.

Hang on a sec. If it's massless, is it required to move?

Yes - unless you wish to maintain an absurdity such that it is
stationary
in
every frame.

I have no need for such an absurdity.

If you wish to maintain particles of zero mass can be stationary you do.

Just out of curiosity, is calling
something stationary in every reference frame any less absurd than saying
something moves at the same speed in every reference frame?

Are you serious? Particles stationary in all frames is trivially
contradicted by the very definition of an inertial frame (they move at
constant velocity relative to each other so a particle stationary at a point
must move at constant velocity in a frame moving at constant velocity by the
very definition of a frame moving at constant velocity - which is all
stationary points in the frame are viewed as moving at constant velocity) -
the speed light being the same is not - in fact to a high level of accuracy
it is found to be true.

The only
difference is that in the first case the speed is 0. It doesn't really
matter what that speed is. The statement is altogether absurd... and yet,
so
much science is predicated on it.

See what I wrote above.


The bad part is that this particular absurdity, where that speed is the
speed of light, pans out in experiments.... so far, and it certainly
checks
out in the mathematical models. One of the questions that arise because of
this factual absurdity is "What's physically causing this absurdity?".


If you read the links I gave you would know the answer - the POR The only
thing it does not explain is why it is finite - that is where other
experimental evidence (such as local charge conservation) must be invoked.

The
mathematical models are currently ineffective at answering this question.

They are fully effective - you for some reason are simply unable to see it.

They merey re-inforce the fact that this absurdity must exist.

I would tend to
state that "when it *does move*, it moves at the speed of light.
What's
more, when it does move, it doesn't go very far before giving up it's
energy
to the next aether particle and being forced back to its original
position.

If aether is the wave carrier of light, then the aether itself would
be
*required* to move at the speed of light when it moves in order to
pass
the
energy on to the next particle of aether, wouldn't it?

No. Think about waves in a spring. Particles in the spring move up and
down but the wave propagates at a different speed and that speed is
relative
to the spring.

That's nice for the surface of the spring, but imagine a ridiculously
large
(infinite if you like) sphere filled with water so that there is nothing
but
water inside and the water occupies the entire volume. Now imagine a wave
beginning somewhere near the center of that volume. What is the motion of
the particles in that case?

Vibrational.

Treating space & time separately (which I know
is a bad deal), you've got to account for 3D instead of the 2D surface of
water.

So? They still move at a different speed than the waves - in fact they are
required to accelerate - something a particle of zero mass can not do since
it moves at the velocity of light always.


The reason mass moves
so much slower is because it's not possible for all of the aether
particles
that constitute a massive object to pass their energy forward to the
next
group of aether particles simultaneously. The more massive the object,
the
more difficult it is to pass all of the energy composing it forward.

You are indulging flights of fancy assuming things to be correct we have
no
evidence for.

I don't deny you that fact. This is all mere speculation. Question. Isn't
M-theory also speculation?

I do not deny that. The difference is it is easy to see your flights of
fancy are wrong - M theory is another matter.

We can't even come close to generating the energy
necessary to validate Super String Theory.... And yet, physicists continue
to speculate. Aren't virtual particles speculation? Much like aether,
virtual particles aren't even observable (because they don't exist long
enough).... And yet, physicists continue to speculate.

Maybe there's something to this whole business of indulging flights of
fancy. Before J.J. Thomson's experiment, the notion that electricity was a
stream of particles was a mere flight of fancy. The point is that
sometimes
you have to develop an idea before you can find evidence for it. You know
as
well as I do that the basic order of science is Theorize, Model,
Experiment,
Revise, Re-model, Re-experiment, Repeat ad nauseum.


it is arranged such that in the absense of energy (of any
kind,
matter
included) each particle is 1 Planck unit away from its nearest
neighbors,
it is repulsed by its neighbors,
a matter "particle" is the binding of a region of these to a
single
given high energy state,
the motion of a "particle" through space is the movement of
energy
by
means of energizing aether in front of the "particle" and
de-energizing
aether behind the "particle",
propagation of EM is energetic wave motion through this
aether.

See what I wrote above.

Please re-evaluate and try to consider the possibilities, regardless
of
how
vaguely described here.

I have. They do not fly.




We should be able to set up a mental model from this. Hopefully
it's
complete enough for the questions I'll ask. It can be inferred
from
the
speed of light in a vacuum that no energy exchanges ever occur in
less
than
1 Planck time. Couldn't this explain why relativistic effects
occur?
Think
about it for a second.

No one is denying it is impossible for an aether to exist - aether
theories
exist and are in accord with experiment.

Did you mean "impossible" as you wrote, or did you mean "possible"? If
you
meant "impossible" then I don't understand the sentence.

Impossible is the correct word.


Aether models have been proposed
that are in accord with experiment. That is not the point. The
point
is
one does not have to exist and physics has gotten along without it
for
a
century. If you want to propose a particular model go ahead (what
you
wrote
above is not really a model - it is simply a lot of vague ideas
cobbled
together - a model can make quantitative predictions). Ilja's GLET
is
an
example of what an actual model would look like.

If the point is truely about what doesn't have to exist, then in the
same
mode of thinking, neither does science. Life will proceed just fine
without
us humans trying to figure out how it all works. Life continued on
this
planet for thousands of years without science. :-)

Your point being?


That was admittedly a bit sarcastic, but the point is that the
mathematical
models provided by quantum physics are admittedly very much
incomplete.

Why?

I'll give you an example. A speck of dust on my desk is too big to behave
like a quantum object. C70, or even fluorofullerene (really big
molecules!)
are small enough to display quantum behavior. So where's the line? What
physically causes objects to stop displaying quantum effects? Mind you, if
you say observation, I'm going to expect a definition.

The theory postulates that the line can be drawn somewhere. Logical
consistency and/or completeness does not demand it tells us exactly where -
indeed any theory has unanswered questions. Singling out this for QM and
saying it is incomplete because it does not answer it would lead you to
logically claim any theory is incomplete Recent research has shown quantum
state diffusion at least partially answers the question. But anyway it is
only an issue for the collapse of a wavefuntion - modern interpretations see
that purely as a calculation device - not as something that actually
occurs - http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/histories1.html

'By contrast, in the consistent histories approach probabilities are
introduced as part of the axiomatic foundations of quantum theory, with no
necessary connection with measurements. Quantum dynamical processes are
inherently stochastic, and the probabilities can be calculated using a
generalization of the rule originally introduced by Born. Because it does
not employ measurement as a fundamental principle, the consistent histories
approach allows one to analyze, from a fully quantum-mechanical perspective,
what actually goes on in a physical measurement process. For example, one
can show that a properly constructed measuring apparatus will reveal a
property that the measured system had before the measurement, and might well
have lost during the measurement process. The probabilities calculated for
measurement outcomes (pointer positions) are identical to those obtained by
the usual rules found in textbooks. What is different is that by employing
suitable families of histories one can show that measurements actually
measure something that is there, rather than producing a mysterious collapse
of a wave function.'

The above is not to say that Einstein did not have a point when he believed
it was incomplete. The issue is if the theory logically forces such a view
on us - the answer is it does not - as Einstein found out when he tried to
do it and Bohr (and others) demolished his objections. In the end he
admitted is was logically consistent - but still believed it was incomplete.
BTW as an aside Einstein never said QM was wrong - merely incomplete. I am
of the camp that believes if Einstein was alive today he would change his
view.


The
idea that light travels at the same speed in all reference frames is
an
axiom.

Nope - it is a deduction from conservation of charge among other things.
As
has been pointed out many times on sci.physics.relativity the second
axiom
is irrelevant in deriving the Lorentz transformations - the constant
that
appears in the equations follows purely from the POR. The fixing of
that
value to be the speed of light comes from many considerations - the most
fundamental one probably being charge conservation.

Again, the mathematical model. Where's the physical model that's supposed
to
accompany it?

What is the physical model that accompanies Euclidian geometry? I have
never seen a point of no size or a line of zero width.


It may likely pan out to be true if we can ever travel at
relativistic speeds and test the theory. But whether it is true or
not,
it
is a curiosity. It's natural for one to wonder why.

May I suggest you examine derivations that do not assume the speed of
light?
See
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076,
and ancient, but I still think excellent post by Tom Roberts


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e....ih.lucent.com
and chapter 10 of
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/
under the heading of Relativity without c.

This is as I said above, the math confirms that something seemingly absurd
must be true. Now it's up to physicists to find the physical mechanism
that
enforces this truth.

You fail to understand what an explanation is. As I have said if the
assumptions of a theory (let us call it A) logically implies something (let
us call it B) then A has explained B. Your assistance that is does so by
something you call physical is simply a gut reaction to things that is to
you counter intuitive. It is an obvious irrelevancy.



Its also counter-intuitive that at relativistic speeds, an increasing
amount
of the energy you put into accelerating gets diverted to increasing
inertia,
but only in the direction of motion. When one asks why such things
happen,
the first thing one receives is the mathematics of Relativity. When
one
points out that this is merely a model of what's happening and not the
reason, then one is told that this is just how spacetime works.

You are confused about what an explanation is. If assumption A
logically
implies B then A has explained B - it makes no difference if that train
of
logic includes mathematics or not. I have seen similar arguments many
times. What I ask is what makes the mathematics of relativity different
than the mathematics of Euclidian geometry used by surveyors? Why is it
questioned and what surveyors do not?

Nope. You're confused about what I'm seeking an explanation for. If
assumption A logically implies B then A has explained B. If B is later
proven to be correct then A is no longer merely assumption and must now be
proven.

Come again. If B is proven true (and only some statements can be proven
true - eg a certain time and at a certain place a magnet will attract iron
can be proven true - the statement a magnet will always and anywhere attract
iron can not) it in no way changes the status of A. Only if B is proven
false will it prove that A must be false.

Bill

This is how science has operated for centuries. Remember,
mathematical justification + physical observation = proof. That the speed
of
light is constant in all frames has all of the mathematical justification
it
needs... and then some. It's time for someone to expose the mechanism that
makes it work.


I, for one, can no more accept such a rather escapist answer


Then I suggest you think harder about the scientific method.

Thanks
Bill

I think I'll let your reply to this be the last in this subthread while I
try to put together a mathematical model to express the ideas I have on
this
issue.

R.