swansont Posted September 5, 2012 Posted September 5, 2012 If there is an aether, what are its properties? Are we moving through it, or is it stationary, or something more convoluted? Those are some of the questions you have to rigorously address if you want to introduce an aether. You need a working model that's consistent with all of our observations, just as a start.
too-open-minded Posted September 5, 2012 Posted September 5, 2012 I'm wondering if light traveling in a wave could be caused from something being in its way? Rather than photons needing something to travel on. If this were the case then their would have to be a constant in a vacuum to effect light as such. As light travels farther its wavelengths get very drawn out with its frequency dropping, It looks to me like their is something in the way of light rather than light traveling on something.
Brandenburg Posted September 5, 2012 Posted September 5, 2012 Tesla demonstrated the ability to transmit electricity wirelessly in 1891. Although i believe the electricity was transmitted along the electromagnetic wave.
O'Nero Samuel Posted September 5, 2012 Author Posted September 5, 2012 Tesla demonstrated the ability to transmit electricity wirelessly in 1891. Although i believe the electricity was transmitted along the electromagnetic wave. Please could you provide a link or file to that experiment? If there is an aether, what are its properties? Are we moving through it, or is it stationary, or something more convoluted? Those are some of the questions you have to rigorously address if you want to introduce an aether. You need a working model that's consistent with all of our observations, just as a start. Firstly, there is the "old aether" and the "new aether". The problem of the old aether are those you just outlined; is it rigid? Mobile? A fluid filling all of space? etc. I believe the role of this aether is more arbitrary than mainstream science would want to make it. But instead of describing what it is, lets look at some arbitrarily glaring properties of the suposed aether. Firstly, the presence of an aether has no obvious effect on EM waves and its transmission; that was why Lorentz's covarent transform and special theory of relativity arrived at similar conclusion. Secondly, the conclusions of the special and general theory of relativity implies the need for an aether(as proposed by Paul Dirac) and Einstien has to come up with the New aether. Einstein talked of aether of mechanics and aether of electrodynamics. Due to the cancellation of its immobility, the aether then has to be four dimensional; this gave birth to Einstein's "aether of special relativity". Due to the absolute nature of this aether, this gave birth to "the aether of general relativity". Now matter is influenced by this aether and matter influences the structure of this aether. Now dont you ever wonder why modern physics swallowed the whole of relativity and ignored the new aether proposed by Einstein?
derek w Posted September 5, 2012 Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) Mathematically you can say that 0 =( +1 -1)10^18/sec = E If you have an aether that can be a nothingness but can also be split into matter and anti-matter(with borrowed energy from nothing)for a brief amount of time,so that matter and anti-matter only oscillates in and out of existence. A creative aether? Edited September 5, 2012 by derek w
O'Nero Samuel Posted September 5, 2012 Author Posted September 5, 2012 Mathematically you can say that 0 =( +1 -1)10^18/sec = E If you have an aether that can be a nothingness but can also be split into matter and anti-matter(with borrowed energy from nothing)for a brief amount of time,so that matter and anti-matter only oscillates in and out of existence. A creative aether? In my own thesis I call that a zero function. And if that is it then you are right. Funny you have to bring this up. Maybe weird. But you are right that was an aether. Though this might sound highly speculative but an aether is really a zero function. What do you really understand about your interpolation in relation to an aether?
derek w Posted September 7, 2012 Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) If you google the phrase "Its confirmed:matter is merely vacuum fluctuations". Then there is an article in New Scientist and a link to another thread on this site(no sorry its a link to physics forum),with the same title. There was a lot of objection to the word "confirmed". Edited September 7, 2012 by derek w 1
gib65 Posted September 13, 2012 Posted September 13, 2012 I still don't see why an eather is needed at all. We would only need an eather to expain EM waves if EM waves were just like regular energy waves (the kind you find in water waves). What wave/particle duality tells us is that although the wave model of light and other particles works for some applications, it doesn't work for everything all the time. What this tells us is that it is a mistake to think of light waves as exactly like ordinary energy waves. They're similar, but not quite the same thing. Therefore, we have no right to draw the conclusion that an eather is necessary (as we might think it is for normal energy waves). Maybe we'll find out that it is necessary after we deepen our understand of EM waves, but for now, there's no reason to think an eather is needed. 1
O'Nero Samuel Posted September 13, 2012 Author Posted September 13, 2012 (edited) "We would find out the necessity of an aether when we deepen our knowledge of EM waves". And we certainly will. Come to think of it, if there actually is an aether (new aether according to Einstein) then its existence would require an effect. This effects is what motivates the quest to prove its existence. But what would they be? Edited September 13, 2012 by O'Nero Samuel
Tres Juicy Posted September 13, 2012 Posted September 13, 2012 http://en.wikipedia....niferous_aether This is a joke right?
derek w Posted September 18, 2012 Posted September 18, 2012 (edited) Is the Higgs field a medium through which particles have to travel? Edited September 18, 2012 by derek w
O'Nero Samuel Posted September 20, 2012 Author Posted September 20, 2012 The Higgs field, I believe, has a crucial role in unifying the fundamental forces of the universe. The generation of mass from interaction with higgs boson should give us something with which we could trace the source of gravitation, and unify the four forces into a system. There is a system for sure, its just that we still haven't got enough information to decipher it. The generation of mass, I believe has a crucial role, and gives an arbitrary answer to the question of this thread. There is an interaction between higgs boson, electromagnetic waves and gravitation in relation to subatomic particles. This sounds very speculative, but it seem to put "it all" in a nut shell.
derek w Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) If there is an aether, what are its properties? Are we moving through it, or is it stationary, or something more convoluted? Those are some of the questions you have to rigorously address if you want to introduce an aether. You need a working model that's consistent with all of our observations, just as a start. An excitable medium,an oscillating particle in such a medium would create waves that split the medium,into virtual matter at the peaks of the waves and virtual anti-matter at the troughs of the waves.Energy from the particle being imparted into the medium and visa versa energy from the medium being imparted back into the particle.Creating a wave/particle duality. Edited October 7, 2012 by derek w
IM Egdall Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 This is a joke right? I was responding to a request for a link on the idea of an ether to conduct EM radiation and the fact that the Michelson-Morley experiments failed to find evidence for it. Why do you think its a joke?
Tres Juicy Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 I was responding to a request for a link on the idea of an ether to conduct EM radiation and the fact that the Michelson-Morley experiments failed to find evidence for it. Why do you think its a joke? Because there is no ether...
swansont Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 An excitable medium,an oscillating particle in such a medium would create waves that split the medium,into virtual matter at the peaks of the waves and virtual anti-matter at the troughs of the waves.Energy from the particle being imparted into the medium and visa versa energy from the medium being imparted back into the particle.Creating a wave/particle duality. How do you test this, and are we moving through it, or are we at rest?
ElasticCollision Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 The fluorescent bulb is lit because the potential difference across the bulb is large enough; the source is the radiation from the transmission lines. The effect will diminish with distance because for a line or point source, that's what happens. Why does the effect diminish? Wouldn't this be evidence that it is passing through a medium and losing energy? Or does this effect only take place within an atmosphere as the radiation is absorbed by, for example, air?
alpha2cen Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) Except ether, think about this. Does empty space have no physical property? Edited October 8, 2012 by alpha2cen
swansont Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 Why does the effect diminish? Wouldn't this be evidence that it is passing through a medium and losing energy? Or does this effect only take place within an atmosphere as the radiation is absorbed by, for example, air? Any line source will drop off as 1/r because of the geometry — the surface area increases with distance. Point sources drop off as 1/r^2.
ElasticCollision Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 Any line source will drop off as 1/r because of the geometry — the surface area increases with distance. Point sources drop off as 1/r^2. I think I understand, but not entirely. I can't see an answer to my question in that. I'm not entirely sure whether EM is a point or a line source (I think it is a point source, but I'm not 100%), but whichever it is, if it gets weaker through a vacuum, shouldn't that be evidence for some sort of aether that it is passing through and losing energy to? Or am I entirely wrong, and EM doesn't lose energy in a vacuum?
swansont Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 I think I understand, but not entirely. I can't see an answer to my question in that. I'm not entirely sure whether EM is a point or a line source (I think it is a point source, but I'm not 100%), but whichever it is, if it gets weaker through a vacuum, shouldn't that be evidence for some sort of aether that it is passing through and losing energy to? Or am I entirely wrong, and EM doesn't lose energy in a vacuum? Any single photon doesn't lose energy, but the photon density drops off because of the geometry. The photons spread out, so any effect which depends on photon density (i.e. the intensity) will be weaker.
derek w Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 You can't lose the energy,it can only become more rarefied and therefore less chance of finding a photon at any given point.
O'Nero Samuel Posted October 8, 2012 Author Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) Because there is no ether... That sounds absolute, but where is your proof? The properties and the interaction of EM waves with matter has been understoood without an aether, but EM waves and its transmission of energy, has not been filly comprehended and utilise. Edited October 8, 2012 by O'Nero Samuel
IM Egdall Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 Because there is no ether... I agree with you! It is the first thing the link I gave says -- that MM failed to find evidence for the ether.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now