Fields and ether

[MigL]

The aether was thought or assumed to be needed, because, up to that point in time, all classical wave motion had involved a medium.
The medium is the  'thing' that waves for energy to translate.

In the early years of the 20th century, models were created which didn't require a medium, for certain wave motions.
Experiments were also done, which established that the then accepted model for the aether could not exist as such.
the choices were, then, to keep the aether model, but modify it with such fantastical properties, that it could never be detected ( but you would still have a medium for all your waves ), or discard it completely, as the newly introduced models didn't require it.

These newly introduced models have been extensively tested in the last century, and are in very good agreement with experiment.
The aether has simply become superfluous; it is not needed.
And the two principles ( there could be more ) that allow us to discard it are the KISS Principle and Occam's Razor.

[quiet]

@MigL
Thanks for what you have contributed. What is the KISS Principle?

---------

I return to the basic theme of the thread. The bicycle without wheels does not travel. And the concept of physical wave does not apply when the substrate is missing. Here are two details that merit clarification.

Substrate properties?

1. Be present in all points of the region where the wave propagates.

2. The state of the substrate at each point is perfectly defined for each moment.

I repeat Without substrate there is no physical wave. You can, if you wish, formulate a formally similar function, or if you want identical, a wave function. Without substrate, such a function does not correspond to a physical wave.

---------

Let's put the pieces of the puzzle on the table.

- In all tests the electromagnetic radiation gives the signals that are expected from the waves.

- These same proofs prove convincingly the impossibility of a substratum of substantial type, as implied by the idea of the ether. There is only propagation and emptiness.

- Without a substrate there is no wave.

---------

Let's try to put the puzzle together.

- Substrate = Substance is the hypothesis rejected by the evidence.

- Propagation and emptiness is the scenario exhibited by the evidence.

- The substrate is essential for the existence of the wave.

- In a scenario where there is only propagation and vacuum, is there something capable of fulfilling the function of the substrate? This is like saying that there are only two people, Mary and John, it is known that one has clear eyes and it is known that John has dark eyes. Who is the person with clear eyes? In the case that interests us, the propagation is the effect of the substrate, that is, it is not the substrate. Then the only thing that the function of the substrate can fulfill is the vacuum.

Can the vacuum really operate as a substrate? This question is too crucial to answer verbally. We need mathematical language.

Which 19th century theory offers a complete, coherent and consistent description of the spread in a vacuum? It's Maxwell's electrodynamics.

Now comes the most delicate stage of the puzzle, because our subjectivity lurks to bias the range of what should be investigated.

The electromagnetic wave equation has a complex exponential solution. Subjectively we assume that, in a vacuum, that solution can only correspond to circular polarization, elliptical, or cases of that type. Without attempting a meticulous and careful mathematical development, we assume that, in a vacuum, the exponential solution can not correspond to a flat wave without circular or elliptical polarization. Before stating something like this verbally, we need to examine that in the context of Maxwellian electrodynamics, a pertinent theory in the 19th century.

When we make the mathematical statement, all the following appears.

- The classical electrodynamics is perfectly prepared to formulate the polarization of the vacuum.

- A vacuum unable to polarize would not serve as a substrate. In contrast, the polarizable vacuum serves perfectly, because it generates a density of bounded charge in the region where the wave propagates. That charge density is a continuous function defined throughout the region. Is that possible ? The usual particles can not establish a perfectly continuous charge density, that is, continuous in infinitesimal terms. And here another prejudice interposes, because we believe that the electric charge can only appear in the format of the usual particles. Something worse. We imagine that the quantization of the charge and the perfect continuity in the region of propagation are mutually incompatible. That is a mistake and classical electrodynamics explains why.

- The idea of the ether is inadmissible. The polarization of the vacuum is admissible and essential in the context of classical electrodynamics, since this polarization perfectly fulfills the function of the substrate. It fulfills physically and mathematically.

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, quiet said:

What is the KISS Principle?

Keep it simple, stupid

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, quiet said:

And the concept of physical wave does not apply when the substrate is missing.

That is the same "common sense" assumption that made people think there was an aether int eh first place. It is still baseless.

7 minutes ago, quiet said:

I repeat Without substrate there is no physical wave.

 

8 minutes ago, quiet said:

Without a substrate there is no wave.

7 minutes ago, quiet said:

The substrate is essential for the existence of the wave.

It doesn't matter how often you repeat it, there is still no reason or evidence for this claim.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is the same "common sense" assumption that made people think there was an aether int eh first place. It is still baseless.

 

It doesn't matter how often you repeat it, there is still no reason or evidence for this claim.

 

What is the essence of distance? Why is it that the wave cannot transverse faster or slower across it? Why can it not arrive sooner or later?

Edited December 15, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Strange]

27 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What is the essence of distance? Why is it that the wave cannot transverse faster or slower across it? Why can it not arrive sooner or later?

Light waves travel at a constant (and, more importantly, invariant) speed. Why is that so odd?

The speed can be related to the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum (but that just pushes the question of "why that speed" back one step - why do they have those values).

In relativity, all massless particles travel at c. Probably because it is the scaling factor between the units we use for measuring distance and measuring time.

In natural units, the speed of light is 1. Which seems, well ... natural.

[MigL]

Given that English is not your first language, some of the ideas I was trying to convey, might have gotten lost in translation.

If you would require a 'substrate' or medium, for EM waves, you would need to model some pretty fantastic properties.
One property is that, to support the highest speed possible for a disturbance travelling in it, it would need to exhibit extremely high ( near infinite ) stiffness. Stiffer than diamond, or even neutronium.
The other property is that it needs to offer very little ( near zero ) resistance to objects travelling through it, or else Michelson-Morley would have detected something.

These properties are at odds with each other.
And since we have working models that DON'T require a 'substrate' or medium ( very extensively tested ), we choose to keep it simple, and cut away anything unneeded with Occam's razor.
The aether 'substrate' or medium, is simply NOT needed

[studiot]

It is easy to loose sight of the ingenuity of the natural universe and in this case human ingenuity.
We should guard against this and not try to force our limited theories on what we observe.
This applies to both sides of the discussion.

11 hours ago, quiet said:

I return to the basic theme of the thread. The bicycle without wheels does not travel. And the concept of physical wave does not apply when the substrate is missing. Here are two details that merit clarification.

Substrate properties?

1. Be present in all points of the region where the wave propagates.

2. The state of the substrate at each point is perfectly defined for each moment.

I repeat Without substrate there is no physical wave. You can, if you wish, formulate a formally similar function, or if you want identical, a wave function. Without substrate, such a function does not correspond to a physical wave.

---------

Let's put the pieces of the puzzle on the table.

- In all tests the electromagnetic radiation gives the signals that are expected from the waves.

- These same proofs prove convincingly the impossibility of a substratum of substantial type, as implied by the idea of the ether. There is only propagation and emptiness.

- Without a substrate there is no wave.

---------

Let's try to put the puzzle together.

- Substrate = Substance is the hypothesis rejected by the evidence.

- Propagation and emptiness is the scenario exhibited by the evidence.

- The substrate is essential for the existence of the wave.

 

 

Firstly let us dispel this failure of logic, both from a theoretical point of view and a phenomenological one.

The logical progression of the above runs

Waves can be regarded as a sequence of phase linked single oscillators, each one performing its activity in turn.
Many working model demonstation machines are constructed like this.

For this model to be successful there must be oscillators.
What you call the substrate, and most call the medium, comprises this sequence of oscillators.

Now for some human igenuity.

Why is it necessary for all these oscillators to exist, even when they are not oscillating?
Why can they not pop up into place like ducks in a shooting gallery when they are needed.
And pop down again when they are no (ie the wave has passed their location) ?

Alternatively why can they not be laid like the railway tracks in the Wallace & Grommit movie,
directly infront of the travelling train or wave?
And pulled up again behind the train.

One classical view of EM radiation is that "It carries its own medium along with it",
so doesn't need an inplace medium lying around like sound does.
Very neat and tidy, don't you think?

It is even possible to construct a simple mechanical model to demonstrate this.

Suppose you had a conveyor belt carrying ducks of graded height, graded according to a wave pattern.
The ducks generally lie flat(horizontal) but flip up just before arriving at a target point and flip down again immediately after passing it.
If you watched this point through a rifle sight you would observe a sinuous wave passing, going up and down in height (amplitude).
But if you sighted anywhere else along the gallery you would see nothing.

So you would have to conclude that there is no permanent medium along the gallery.

Now you have also said.

Quote

- In all tests the electromagnetic radiation gives the signals that are expected from the waves.

No this is not true, even by your own words and constitutes a failure of logic since it should read "all other tests except for the existence of a medium"

Otherwise you cannot take the (logical) step/deduction

Therefore there must be a medium.

This was indeed the situation in the early part of the 19 century,

but the situation changed dramatically with the discovery of the photoelectric effect

and became no longer true.

There was no known mechanism for the threshold to occur with any known wave equation.

Or there was no known wave equation that could model the threshold.

(Note some thresholds do occur in wave theory for example total internal reflection and all sorts of ideas like this were examined.)

So we then had a failure of EM radiation to act in accordance with expectations to explain.

 

9 hours ago, MigL said:

Given that English is not your first language, some of the ideas I was trying to convey, might have gotten lost in translation.

If you would require a 'substrate' or medium, for EM waves, you would need to model some pretty fantastic properties.
One property is that, to support the highest speed possible for a disturbance travelling in it, it would need to exhibit extremely high ( near infinite ) stiffness. Stiffer than diamond, or even neutronium.
The other property is that it needs to offer very little ( near zero ) resistance to objects travelling through it, or else Michelson-Morley would have detected something.

These properties are at odds with each other.
And since we have working models that DON'T require a 'substrate' or medium ( very extensively tested ), we choose to keep it simple, and cut away anything unneeded with Occam's razor.
The aether 'substrate' or medium, is simply NOT needed

 

The description I posted about the Maxwell mechanical vortex theory of a medium does not have these properties.
Further in that source in a part I did not post, Maxwell himself is reported as saying that he derived to to exactly fit his famous four equations,
But that he could not accept it as it was too cumbersome and that there must be therefore some other explanation.
 

Post#5 here

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117405-currents-and-symmetry/

 

Edited December 15, 2018 by studiot

[Romeo22]

How then could we possibly discredit the ether theory as a redundant and obviously erroneous idea made by our predecessors while most of us today (as we believe we are more enlightened and free from such defects) are still clinging to the same sought of reasoning. Case in point: Dark Matter, Dark Energy and The Inflation Force.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Romeo22 said:

How then could we possibly discredit the ether theory as a redundant and obviously erroneous idea made by our predecessors while most of us today (as we believe we are more enlightened and free from such defects) are still clinging to the same sought of reasoning. Case in point: Dark Matter, Dark Energy and The Inflation Force.

I don't understand the comparison you are making.

The aether was an assumption made for no reason (ie. no evidence). When tests were done to test the various aether models, no evidence was found. And, as noted, the aether would require physically impossible and contradictory properties. So this seems to be completely different than the examples you give, which are entirely based on evidence. 

Dark energy is an explanation for the observations we have made (ie. evidence). There are multiple hypotheses for what dark matter could be (including various forms of matter, different ways of modifying gravity and others). These are all being tested by looking for further evidence predicted by each model.

The same is largely true of dark energy: there is evidence that needs explaining. People are looking for more evidence to confirm or rule out various possible explanations.

And inflation is a hypothesis to explain aspects of the early universe. There are alternative hypotheses. Again, people are looking for evidence to confirm these or rule them out.

In all cases, we don't know what the explanation is, but there is evidence that requires an explanation. Do you think we should just ignore the evidence? What are you suggesting? how are these analogous to the aether?

 

[Romeo22]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

I don't understand the comparison you are making.

The aether was an assumption made for no reason (ie. no evidence). When tests were done to test the various aether models, no evidence was found. And, as noted, the aether would require physically impossible and contradictory properties. So this seems to be completely different than the examples you give, which are entirely based on evidence. 

Dark energy is an explanation for the observations we have made (ie. evidence). There are multiple hypotheses for what dark matter could be (including various forms of matter, different ways of modifying gravity and others). These are all being tested by looking for further evidence predicted by each model.

The same is largely true of dark energy: there is evidence that needs explaining. People are looking for more evidence to confirm or rule out various possible explanations.

And inflation is a hypothesis to explain aspects of the early universe. There are alternative hypotheses. Again, people are looking for evidence to confirm these or rule them out.

In all cases, we don't know what the explanation is, but there is evidence that requires an explanation. Do you think we should just ignore the evidence? What are you suggesting? how are these analogous to the aether?

 

The same sought of reasoning Strange.

"The aether was an assumption made for no reason (ie. no evidence)."

"In all cases, we don't know what the explanation is, but there is evidence that requires an explanation. "

Edited December 15, 2018 by Romeo22

[Strange]

21 minutes ago, Romeo22 said:

The same sought of reasoning Strange.

"The aether was an assumption made for no reason (ie. no evidence)."

"In all cases, we don't know what the explanation is, but there is evidence that requires an explanation. "

Those are completely different sorts of reasoning.

One is not based on evidence, the other is. Can you explain what the similarity is, instead of just repeating the same thing.

So, what should we do about the evidence? Ignore it because we don't have an explanation? Or come up with some models and test them (you know, do science)?

[Romeo22]

23 minutes ago, Strange said:

Those are completely different sorts of reasoning.

One is not based on evidence, the other is.

So, what should we do about the evidence? Ignore it because we don't have an explanation? Or come up with some models and test them?

Strange said "these are COMPLETELY different sorts of reasoning"

Would you agree with me that the ether was vital to physics because at the time -- all wave disturbances required a medium -- the ether was one theoretical solution to this. A "fix". While there was no experimental justifications for it. I.e it had not been proven. There was "theoretical evidence of its existence" based on the medium theory.

 

How long since Zwicky proposed the idea of dark matter "a fix" and how many failed experiments to date December of 2018? MOND, TEVES et. Al are built to explain a disperancy without explaining its underlying cause. But of course this is not the same kind of reasoning.

Again I could elaborate on dark energy and the inflation force but I believe I have made my point.

Also I am overwhelmed by your excessive use of the word evidence on these topics. Has any of this "evidence" been conclusive?

Edited December 15, 2018 by Romeo22

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, Romeo22 said:

Would you agree with me that the ether was vital to physics because at the time -- all wave disturbances required a medium -- the ether was one theoretical solution to this. A "fix".

No. We had a model that explained electromagnetic waves before the aether. We had exactly the same model after the aether was disproved. Nothing changed. So it can't have been vital.

But I suppose you are right in that a model was proposed, tested and then rejected. This is what will, inevitably, happen to some (maybe all) of the current hypotheses for dark matter, etc.

16 minutes ago, Romeo22 said:

How long since Zwicky proposed the idea of dark matter

Because of evidence.

16 minutes ago, Romeo22 said:

built to explain a disperancy without explaining its underlying cause. But of course this is not the same kind of reasoning.

So we should not attempt to create and test new models to explain new evidence? We should just ignore it?

16 minutes ago, Romeo22 said:

Also I am overwhelmed by your excessive use of the word evidence on these topics. Has any of this "evidence" been conclusive?

Of course it is conclusive. The measurements that Zwicky made have been repeatedly confirmed. And then similar measurements were made within galaxies. And then gravitational lensing observations have been confirmed this. And so on and so on.

Do you have any reason (evidence) to say that all these many measurements are wrong?

(Maybe I should as a moderator to split these posts to Speculations where you will have to properly defend you views.)

[studiot]

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

No. We had a model that explained electromagnetic waves before the aether. We had exactly the same model after the aether was disproved. Nothing changed. So it can't have been vital.

 

(Maybe I should as a moderator to split these posts to Speculations where you will have to properly defend you views.)

Before you do that second line read this.

 

Fresnel was the first to propose a luminerferous aether, named as such in 1818 nearly half a century before Maxwell showed that electromagnetic fields are capable of supporting waves and longer before Hertz proved it experimentally.

But centuries before this some sort of transmission medium was assumed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_luminiferous_aether

 

I am ignoring all the off topic stuff about modern cosmological theories.

Edited December 15, 2018 by studiot

[Romeo22]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

No. We had a model that explained electromagnetic waves before the aether. We had exactly the same model after the aether was disproved. Nothing changed. So it can't have been vital.

Because of evidence.

So we should not attempt to create and test new models to explain new evidence? We should just ignore it?

Of course it is conclusive. The measurements that Zwicky made have been repeatedly confirmed. And then similar measurements were made within galaxies. And then gravitational lensing observations have been confirmed this. And so on and so on.

Do you have any reason (evidence) to say that all these many measurements are wrong?

(Maybe I should as a moderator to split these posts to Speculations where you will have to properly defend you views.)

"course it is conclusive. The measurements that Zwicky made have been repeatedly confirmed. And then similar measurements were made within galaxies. And then gravitational lensing observations have been confirmed this. And so on and so on."

 

You have COMPLETELY misunderstood me but thats okay. That evidence proves that there is something we do not understand... it could be exotic matter (unproven) it could be a flaw in gravity (unproven) or something completely different. Do not confuse the two. Which why I said the same sought of reasoning... but I do not blame you it is a sunday after all.

[swansont]

21 minutes ago, Romeo22 said:

Strange said "these are COMPLETELY different sorts of reasoning"

Would you agree with me that the ether was vital to physics because at the time -- all wave disturbances required a medium -- the ether was one theoretical solution to this. A "fix". While there was no experimental justifications for it. I.e it had not been proven. There was "theoretical evidence of its existence" based on the medium theory.

It wasn't a "fix" because it wasn't a response to anything being broken. It was assumed to be there. But then someone tested to confirm it (M-M) and someone investigated the ramifications of the invariance of the working theory (Einstein)

 

 

[Romeo22]

You also say the ether was not vital. Let me not even try to show you how flawed your reasoning is.

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

Before you do that second line read this.

 

Fresnel was the first to propose a luminerferous aether, named as such in 1818 nearly half a century before Maxwell showed that electromagnetic fields are capable of supporting waves and longer before Hertz proved it experimentally.

But centuries before this some sort of transmission medium was assumed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_luminiferous_aether

OK. Maybe I should have phrased that better: We had a model for the transmission of light waves before the aether was disproved and we had the same one afterwards.

5 minutes ago, Romeo22 said:

You have COMPLETELY misunderstood me but thats okay. That evidence proves that there is something we do not understand... it could be exotic matter (unproven) it could be a flaw in gravity (unproven) or something completely different. Do not confuse the two. Which why I said the same sought of reasoning... but I do not blame you it is a sunday after all.

Do not confuse the two what?

But is your point just that the aether was a hypothesis that was disproved and (most) dark matter explanations are hypotheses that will be disproved?

In which case, why sound so negative about the normal process of science?

(And it is Saturday here!)

[Romeo22]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

It wasn't a "fix" because it wasn't a response to anything being broken. It was assumed to be there. But then someone tested to confirm it (M-M) and someone investigated the ramifications of the invariance of the working theory (Einstein)

 

 

Hence the "fix"

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Romeo22 said:

You also say the ether was not vital. Let me not even try to show you how flawed your reasoning is.

No. Go on. How was it vital? If it were vital, it would have been confirmed by experiment.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Romeo22 said:

Hence the "fix"

No, you had proposed the aether as a fix, not its removal. The aether was not a fix.

[studiot]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

OK. Maybe I should have phrased that better: We had a model for the transmission of light waves before the aether was disproved and we had the same one afterwards.

 

Yes a transmission model, but as I keep pointing out, not a totally successful model for the interaction with matter.

 

Further we should make a distinction between the connection of light to Relativity

and

The connection of light to Quantum Mechanics.

Edited December 15, 2018 by studiot

[Romeo22]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

No, you had proposed the aether as a fix, not its removal. The aether was not a fix.

And where I come from this " " has a meaning. But I would also understand if where you come from this has no meaning

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, Romeo22 said:

And where I come from this " " has a meaning. But I would also understand if where you come from this has no meaning

Scare quotes have meaning where I come from, but it doesn't make "fix" the proper description of the introduction/use of the aether.

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Further we should make a distinction between the connection of light to Relativity

and

The connection of light to Quantum Mechanics.

Isn't that moot? The aether was dropped before QM, and was dropped because of SR. There's no overlap. The aether is a purely Newtonian classical physics issue, that was dropped pretty quickly after we had a good model of electromagnetism.