Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Posted March 25, 2008 if you can do animations you can do maths... What I can do is the computer simulation of dense particle system. I can introduce some perturbation into it and to observe, how the perturbation would propagate through system depending on the particle density. But frankly, the character of longitudinal and transversal wave spreading is well known from Victorian era, it's not necessary to analyze it again and again.
Klaynos Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 On what are the simulations bassed? Is this supposed to be what your aether is supposed to be?
ydoaPs Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 So, your computer models don't use math? How'd you manage that?
Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Posted March 25, 2008 On what are the simulations bassed? Is this supposed to be what your aether is supposed to be? The particle system of infinite mass and particle density. So dense, so it forms a homogeneous system.
ydoaPs Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 The particle system of infinite mass and particle density. So dense, so it forms a homogeneous system. And how does your computer model this?
Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Posted March 25, 2008 So, your computer models don't use math? How'd you manage that? The Lattice Boltzman model is using colliding particle system. Here's no math, just probability rules for distribution of particle speed. Such rules follows just from random walk model, not from some ad-hoced model. The particle are colliding while keeping the laws of momentum conservation, that's all.
ajb Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 A physical theory (mathematical notion of a theory is different) can not be proven right or wrong. It is by definition a mathematical construct used to describe nature. You can't really ask if it is right or wrong, but ask how it relates to nature? A theory is said to be "good" if it describes nature to a desired level of accuracy within a range of parameters. One theory may be said to be "better" or "more complete" if the above holds for a wider range of parameters or a higher accuracy.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 This thread is getting stupid. Zephir, allow me to explain something. Physics is limited by what we can measure. Physicists can speculate on the underlying "cause" of what they measure, but there is no definitive "answer" because there is no way to find out. One explanation may fit the data as well as the next. (Quantum mechanics is a good example of this phenomenon.) If you want to prove that your theory is different and better, you need to establish that it makes predictions that can be tested and would produce answers different than current theories predict. (You often see science magazines saying "His theory would be confirmed if the Large Hadron Collider produced particles of certain masses...") To do that, you need mathematical descriptions of how your theory works. If you are trying to explain what is untestable and unverifiable, you are veering into metaphysics.
Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Posted March 25, 2008 You can't really ask if it is right or wrong, but ask how it relates to nature? If so, we should consider/dispute the AWT from the same perspective.
ydoaPs Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 Here's no math, just probability rules for distribution of particle speed. Lolly roffles
Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Posted March 25, 2008 Physics is limited by what we can measure. Nope, many things cannot be measured, just observed. We can observe, whether the Earth is moving around Sun or not. We cannot measure it, this information is given by discrete boolean logic. But it's still is information about system, so we cannot neglect it. How do you want to express the fact, the Earth is moving around Sun and not vice versa by formal math?
Klaynos Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 Nope, many things cannot be measured, just observed. Are you serious? WOW, this is amazing! I love this thread!
ajb Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 If so, we should consider/dispute the AWT from the same perspective. Yes, Maxwell's theory in the form of QED has been tested to a huge degree of accuracy. Therefore, relates to nature better than the aether theory, which (usually?) contains Lorentz violations. (Lorentz symmetry violation may one day be need). It may be worth investigating the aether theory from a modern perspective, but I don't feel that is what you are doing. Or at least you have not really explained in a consistent mathematical way what the theory is. Unless you do this, it is hard to discuss your ideas. Some references may save you here...
Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Posted March 25, 2008 Lolly roffles The AWT goes deeper, then the axioms of math. For example the Peano algebra is limited just to the countable units. The Aether particles aren't required to remain countable. When two Aether particle will collide, the result can be a single particle, therefore 1 + 1 ≠ 2 here. Therefore you can forget everything, what you've remembered about math. Therefore you cannot even compile any formal math model about it, the physical model the less. After all, from this the quantum uncertainty follows.
ajb Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 Aether particles? Quantisation of the Aether? That sounds hard to me. I can discuss why if I am reading you right?
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 Nope, many things cannot be measured, just observed. We can observe, whether the Earth is moving around Sun or not. We cannot measure it, this information is given by discrete boolean logic. But it's still is information about system, so we cannot neglect it. How do you want to express the fact, the Earth is moving around Sun and not vice versa by formal math? You are confusing facts with theories. A fact is a statement of something true. (The Earth orbits the sun.) A theory allows us to make predictions about a situation. ([imath]E^2 - p^2c^2 = m^2c^4[/imath])
Klaynos Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 Deeper than maths with just some words, that frankly mean nothing? OK then! Now you're just making stuff up!
Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Posted March 25, 2008 Quantisation of the Aether? That sounds hard to me. I can discuss why if I am reading you right? The Aether isn't quantized by its true nature, it's just chaos in infinite number of spacetime dimensions. You can imagine it as an infinitely dense particle system, similar to black hole interior. But such particle model is just a tool, which enables to imagine its behavior and to simulate it in real time, i.e. with finite precision.
ajb Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 what are aether particles? I am not very comfortable with infinite density, but if we can never see that it is not really a problem. Linear quantum field theory has similar infinities.
Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Posted March 25, 2008 ..which (usually?) contains Lorentz violation... The Aether doesn't contain any particular model of energy spreading. The Aether is simply stateless chaos. But what we can see from the chaos are just a causual gradients of states. What we can see from condensation of supercritical vapor isn't the vapor density, just the gradients of Aether density.
Klaynos Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 The Aether isn't quantized by its true nature, it's just chaos in infinite number of spacetime dimensions. You can imagine it as an infinitely dense particle system, similar to black hole interior. But such particle model is just a tool, which enables to imagine its behavior and to simulate it in real time, i.e. with finite precision. I can imagine walking on the ceiling, don't mean I can do it.
Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Posted March 25, 2008 what are aether particles? The aether particles are simply density gradients of another aether particles by definition.
Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Posted March 25, 2008 I can imagine walking on the ceiling, don't mean I can do it. Some aspects of Aether we can imagine or even study in real life. For example the aggregation of Aether particles into more complex ones. What you can see is the temporal formation of hypersurface, i.e. the surface composed of many other surfaces which are having the structure of foam.
ajb Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 stateless chaos in what? Yes. States of what? Stateless chaos? What do you mean by state?
Recommended Posts