Re:Question about the aether
Don McNeill ( (no email) )
Tue, 04 Apr 2000 15:08:30 PDT
>From: DMBoss1021@aol.com
>To: Interact@keelynet.com
>Subject: Re:Question about the aether
>Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 09:09:08 EDT
>
>Hi folks:
>
>Peter Ammon writes:
><<
>When people in this discussion list talk about the aether, are they using
>the historical definition; i.e. a unique rest frame through which light
>moves? Or do they mean something else entirely?
>
>If they do mean the historical definition, how do they explain the fact
>that no aether is observed; i.e. light always moves at the same speed no
>matter how fast you move?
> >>
>
>Most modern use of the term "aether" is used to describe the substrate or
>matrix underlying and pervading our 3D universe. It does not likely have
>the
>simple properties that the earlier definition ascribed to it.
>
>As pointed out in the other reply, prior to this one, Michelson did find a
>difference in light speed, and subsequently I have read of other accounts
>of
>this as well.
>
>And as Jerry pointed out in a recent post, a laser ring gyro, which is
>commonly used for navigation, has differing speeds of the light beams in
>various relative directions, and can be used to indicate the direction
>change
>of the vehicle in which it resides. (conventional empty space has a hard
>time
>explaining this)
>
>There is a phenomenon called Fresnel Drag, in which the speed of light
>passing through a liquid is altered if the liquid is moving. If the light
>direction is the same or opposite to the fluid flow, the fluid speed is
>added
>to or subtracted from the light speed. (again empty space/conventional
>theory cannot account for this)
>
>The list of unexplained anomalies goes on, if you dig a little.
>
>Even that pillar of modern EM theory, Maxwell, held that there is an
>aether,
>and he used this assumption when formulating his famous equations. (I
>understand)
>
>And last, Einstein himself DID NOT DISMISS a substrate to the universe, or
>aether and he refers to this in at least one address:
><<
>Ether and the Theory of Relativity
>
>Albert Einstein
>An address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden
>
>HOW does it come about that alongside of the idea of ponderable matter,
>which
>is derived by abstraction from everyday life, the physicists set the idea
>of
>the existence of another kind of matter, the ether? The explanation is
>probably to be sought in those phenomena which have given rise to the
>theory
>of action at a distance, and in the properties of light which have led to
>the
>undulatory theory. Let us devote a little while to the consideration of
>these
>two subjects.
>
>.....More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory
>of
>relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of
>an ether,; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it,
>i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic
>which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of
>view,
>the conceivability of which shall at once endeavour to make more
>intelligible
>by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the
>general
>theory of relativity.
>
>.....Certainly, from the standpoint of the special theory of relativity,
>the
>ether hypothesis appears at first to be an empty hypothesis. 1n the
>equations
>of the electromagnetic field there occur, in addition to the densities of
>the
>electric charge, only the intensities of the field. The career of
>electromagnetic processes in vacuo appears to be completely determined by
>tliese equations, uninfluenced by other physical quantities. The
>electromagnetic fields appear as ultimate, irreducible realities, and at
>first it seems superfluous to postulate a homogeneous, isotropic
>ether-medium, and to envisage electromagnetic fields as states of this
>medium.
>
>But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour
>of
>the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is nltimately to assuine that empty
>space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of
>mechanics
>do not harmonize with this view. For the mechanical behaviour of a
>corporeal
>system hovering freely in empty space depends not only on relative
>positions
>(distances) and relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation,
>which
>physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the system
>in
>itself. In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at
>least
>formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he classes
>his
>absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an
>absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have
>called
>his absolute space ``Ether''; what is essential is merely that besides
>observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, inust be
>looked
>upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as
>something real.
>
>.....As to the part which the new ether is to play in the physics of the
>future we are not yet clear. We know that it determines the metrical
>relations in the space-time continuum, e.g. the configurative possibilities
>of solid bodies as well as the gravitational fields; but we do not know
>whether it has an essential share in the structure of the electrical
>elementary particles constituting matter. Nor do we know whether it is only
>in the proximity of ponderable masses that its structure differs
>essentially
>from that of the Lorentzian ether; whether the geometry of spaces of cosmic
>extent is approximately Euclidean. But we can assert by reason of the
>relativistic equations of gravitation that there must be a departure from
>Euclidean relations, with spaces of cosmic order of magnitude, if there
>exists a positive mean density, no matter how small, of the matter in the
>universe. In this case the universe must of necessity be spatially
>unbounded
>and of finite magnitude, its inagnitude being determined by the value of
>that
>inean density.
>
>If we consider the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field from
>the
>standpoint of the ether hypothesis, we find a remarkable difference between
>the two. There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational
>potentials; for these confer upon space its metrical qualities, without
>which
>it cannot be imagined at all. The existence of the gravitational field is
>inseparably bound up with the existence of space. On the other hand a part
>of
>space may very well be imagined without an electromagnetic field; thus in
>contrast with the gravitational field, the electromagnetic field seems to
>be
>only secondarily linked to the ether, the formal nature of the
>electromagnetic field being as yet in no way determined by that of
>gravitational ether. From the present state of theory it looks as if the
>electromagnetic field, as opposed to the gravitational field, rests upon an
>entirely new formal motif, as though nature might just as well have endowed
>the gravitational ether with fields of quite another type, for example,
>with
>fields of a scalar potential, instead of fields of the electromagnetic
>type.
> >>
>
>The full text of this address is found at:
>
>http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aether_0.html
>
>And many interesting correlations and papers are also at the location where
>the above resides:
>
>http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aether.html
>
>So you see, there may indeed have been a great blunder in modern physics
>abandoning an "aether" or "substance" to space/vacuum/everywhere in our
>universe.
>
>But it does not have the simple properties that were originally ascribed to
>it.
>
>It is not likely particulate, and seems to act as a fluid, with similar
>characteristics to fluid dynamics - indeed much of the conventionally
>accepted EM theory and equations, are remarkably similar to those for fluid
>dynamics. (if there is no medium, than what is the "flow direction" that is
>commonly given to a magnetic field, or magnetic lines of flux; indeed is
>not
>the word flux used to describe a flow of some kind?)
>
>And finally, if you would like to see a very odd little theory that uses
>the
>Aether, and is very compelling, and if true, might lead towards a simple
>unified theory of everything, see my site:
>
>http://hometown.aol.com/dmboss1021/NEWPH/Index.html
>
>I don't pretend to have orginiated this theory, nor is it the only
>explanation - but I find that study of other perspectives share much in
>common - different terms are used - but the same basic concepts seem to
>recur
>in many theories, old and new.
>
>And using this admittedly simple mechanical model of the aether, and
>Primary
>Energy, has allowed some prediction of observed, and new phenomenon, as
>well
>as providing explanation for a wide variety of known phenomenon, and
>possible
>resolution to many paradoxes left in "conventional physics" - like
>wave/particle duality.
>
>(but the properties of the aether are seriously different from ordinary
>matter - it is non particulate; it has similar properties to a fluid/gas -
>viscosity, density, and compressibility, at the least)
>
>Sincerely,
>
>DMBoss1021
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>Hi all,
Perhaps we've just got to many names and definitions of aether. In order to
have energy, we must have motion in space and in order to perceive it, we
must have time.
So, perhaps space is synominious with aether. In other words, it is the
aether.
One definition of space is the viewpoint of definition. If I place two
objects a distance from each other, and I then look at them, I can see both
objects as well as the space between them, hence, space is viewpoint of
dimension. Without space there is no dimension and if aether is space,
there would be not be any aether either.
To claim that the aether is some sort of particle-s is not proven and is
just an assumption. But to claim that there is no aether-space would
nullify our very existence.
Sometimes it's hard to realize that all we're doing is perceiving thru our
eyes and emotions, which results in our mental processing and concluding
what we are perceiving.
Perhaps this is just a holographic universe . . .
Just some thoughts I've got and want to pass on.
Don
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com>
> with the body text: leave Interact
> list archives and on line subscription forms are at
> http://keelynet.com/interact/
> -------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------------------------------------------------------
To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com>
with the body text: leave Interact
list archives and on line subscription forms are at
http://keelynet.com/interact/
-------------------------------------------------------------