What is an absolute vacuum?

[D H]

With no background in science, especially physics, I'm not trying to be controversial or a smart a--; just inquisitive?

With no background in physics, don't you think that a better plan of action for you just might be to learn some physics rather than to make up nonsense?

 

But I do believe "ether" is a physical part of our universe not remotely understood at this time. Have we ever brought back a bucket of the stuff to be analyzed?

How are we to collect this bucket of nonsense? And it is nonsense.

 

Learn some physics. The Feynman lecture series is an excellent way to start.

Edited January 26, 2012 by D H

[swansont]

With no background in science, especially physics, I'm not trying to be controversial or a smart a--; just inquisitive? But I do believe "ether" is a physical part of our universe not remotely understood at this time. Have we ever brought back a bucket of the stuff to be analyzed? (uncontaminated cylinders, not vacuumed or pressurized, that is). Almost every test I find has to do with photons and other exotic particles racing through it, not space itself. Can anyone lead me to any physical tests that have been done?

If you want to do a test, you have to have an idea of what properties to test for. The traditional aether has been ruled out - there is no medium through which EM waves travel.

[JustinW]

doG,

Is there some point to repeating what I said and then acting as if it's not true? I was simply pointing out to rigney that 'space' itself cannot be evacuated.

Sorry, I somehow got the notion that you were asserting that there was such thing as empty space, but reading back I guess that was just an assumption on my part. I appologize.

 

 

When defining "space" when looking at it from a different aspect than volume, could we say that space is that which reflects pressure? This still wouldn't make it a physical entity, but might give a different perspective on what space is and how it is thought of.

[doG]

doG,

Sorry, I somehow got the notion that you were asserting that there was such thing as empty space, but reading back I guess that was just an assumption on my part. I appologize.

I do seem to recall that atoms are mostly empty space. Now if that isn't the case then perhaps you could share your atomic model with us.

[rigney]

If you want to do a test, you have to have an idea of what properties to test for. The traditional aether has been ruled out - there is no medium through which EM waves travel.

Question is, have we ever brought a container(s) of uncontaminated ether back from space? Is it a pressure, vacuum or neutral? If we take the cylinder under water and release the contents, will it make a bubble or not? I know there are many contaminates in inter- stellar space that can not be ruled out. If the container is heated, will there be a pressure, due to expansion? If it is cooled to -200F or so, will there be a vacuum created due to shrinkage? These are only layman questions, but have they been tried, and if so do you know the results?

Thanks

I found the following interesting.

http://discovermagazine.com/1992/mar/vacuummatters9

Edited January 27, 2012 by rigney

[Tres Juicy]

There is no aether or ether....

 

Are you suggesting brining back a container of space?

 

If so it would be a vacuum and would be crushed (depending on the container) by the earths atmospheric pressure.

 

If you were to open the container under water there would be no bubble, the water would just rush in to fill the void.

[D H]

Question is, have we ever brought a container(s) of uncontaminated ether back from space?

Of course not, for the same reason we haven't brought back unicorn horns from Hyboria, or wherever it is that those elusive unicorns live.

[rigney]

There is no aether or ether....

 

Are you suggesting brining back a container of space?

 

If so it would be a vacuum and would be crushed (depending on the container) by the earths atmospheric pressure.

If you were to open the container under water there would be no bubble, the water would just rush in to fill the void.

 

I get in a lot of trouble by asking, but have there been tests done to substantiate these assertions as fact? My ideas are only brainstorms, so they are only questions. But you have to remember, we have only been going into space for the past 50 or so years.

Maybe we missed something???

[Tres Juicy]

MM experiment and lack of aether wind spring to mind.

 

More to the point, why are you so convinced that there is such a thing as aether?

[JustinW]

I do seem to recall that atoms are mostly empty space. Now if that isn't the case then perhaps you could share your atomic model with us.

Don't really have one. I'm a mere layman good sir. But thinking about it, could it not be a negative pressure that holds an atom together. I'll just be talking out my hind end till I read up on the accepted atomic model. I'll have to get back to you on that. Edited January 27, 2012 by JustinW

[rigney]

MM experiment and lack of aether wind spring to mind.

 

More to the point, why are you so convinced that there is such a thing as aether?

 

Don't believe I referred to it as "aether", but ether, not that it matters. But space itself, I believe it is there whether we like it or not. Science may eventually convince me that it isn't a physical thing, but where there is ambiguity;I have my doubts. The Higgs boson, if it is found?, may shed some light on my ignorance. Edited January 27, 2012 by rigney

[Tres Juicy]

Don't believe I referred to it as "aether", but ether, not that it matters. Would you reference the MM experiment to me since I'm not familiar with it. But space itself, I believe it is there whether we like it or not. Science may eventually convince me that it isn't a physical thing, but where there is ambiguity;I have my doubts. The Higgs boson, if it is found?, may shed some light on my ignorance.

 

Michelson-Morley:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

 

Space is there, but it's not comprised of any ether...

 

Let me put it another way: Imagine ether did exist, it would still have to exist somewhere.

 

That somewhere is space, the space that your ether would exist in.

 

I think I see what you're thinking, but it doesn't work that way. Space ins't made of anything, it's just space.

 

Einstein said something like "Space is what we measure with a ruler, nothing more". There's no structure to it, just volume.

 

You can't think of it any other way, however tempting it is.

[D H]

Would you reference the MM experiment to me since I'm not familiar with it.

You aren't familiar with the Michelson Morley experiment and yet you feel qualified to conjecture on physics? Your conjectures are pure, unadulterated nonsense. That's not surprising as you aren't even familiar with the most basic facts.

 

I just do not get this phenomenon of people who feel qualified to conjecture on some subject of which they are completely ignorant, and completely ignorant by their own admission!

[rigney]

Michelson-Morley:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

 

Space is there, but it's not comprised of any ether...

 

Let me put it another way: Imagine ether did exist, it would still have to exist somewhere.

 

That somewhere is space, the space that your ether would exist in.

 

I think I see what you're thinking, but it doesn't work that way. Space ins't made of anything, it's just space.

 

Einstein said something like "Space is what we measure with a ruler, nothing more". There's no structure to it, just volume.

 

You can't think of it any other way, however tempting it is.

 

Maybe a bit of mis-communication on my part, but I believe the words, ether and space are interchangable, not something in space, like; dust, atoms or photons. Personally not knowing, I refer to it as a; "continuum of un-real estate". Can't get much more of an ignorant meaning than that. The MM thing? It was done over a hundred years ago in a sterile, but ground based lab. Today we see many anomalies that were overlooked back then. If the Higgs boson is found to be the backbone of our universe, you'll not have to beat me up to change my mind. 'Till then, I'll believe that space is a physical entity, not simply a vacuum.

 

You aren't familiar with the Michelson Morley experiment and yet you feel qualified to conjecture on physics? Your conjectures are pure, unadulterated nonsense. That's not surprising as you aren't even familiar with the most basic facts.

 

I just do not get this phenomenon of people who feel qualified to conjecture on some subject of which they are completely ignorant, and completely ignorant by their own admission!

 

My pity goes out to those who somehow are convinced they have no fallacies. Edited January 27, 2012 by rigney

[Tres Juicy]

Maybe a bit of mis-communication on my part, but I believe the words, ether and space are interchangable, not something in space, like; dust, atoms or photons. Personally not knowing, I refer to it as a; "continuum of un-real estate". Can't get much more of an ignorant meaning than that. The MM thing? It was done over a hundred years ago in a sterile, but ground based lab. Today we see many anomalies that were overlooked back then. If the Higgs boson is found to be the backbone of our universe, you'll not have to beat me up to change my mind. 'Till then, I'll believe that space is a physical entity, not simply a vacuum.

 

 

Are you talking about the fabric of space itself?

 

If you are, then I refer you back to this:

 

"Space is what we measure with a ruler, nothing more". There's no structure to it, just volume.

 

 

The aether idea came about because it was assumed that any form of wave needed a medium to travel through and since light could pass unhindered through a vacuum, there must be something else there as the medium.

 

This assumption was wrong.

[D H]

My pity goes out to those who somehow are convinced they have no fallacies.

Self pity is not a good thing.

 

Something quite remarkable happens to people as they learn ever more: They learn how little they know. It is the unskilled and incompetent who don't know that they are completely unqualified to comment upon something. Perhaps you should read this:

 

J.Kruger and D. Dunning, Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1999) 77:6 1121-1134.

http://people.psych.cornell.edu/~dunning/publications/pdf/unskilledandunaware.pdf

[Klaynos]

Just so we're clear on the point the MM experiment wasn't just conducted once 100 years about by MM and then taken as gospel, it has been tested many many times since. There is still no evidence for an ether.

 

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v91/i2/e020401

 

Is probably as good a place as any for a modern version. Assuming a good undergraduate level understanding of physics.

[swansont]

Ignorance is something I can accept, but willful ignorance is not. Ignorance can be remedied. Willful ignorance is just sad.

[JustinW]

Ignorance is something I can accept, but willful ignorance is not. Ignorance can be remedied. Willful ignorance is just sad.

Might depend on where you're standing at the time.Might be the truth is worse in knowing than not.

Edited January 27, 2012 by JustinW

[rigney]

Are you talking about the fabric of space itself?

 

If you are, then I refer you back to this:

 

The aether idea came about because it was assumed that any form of wave needed a medium to travel through and since light could pass unhindered through a vacuum, there must be something else there as the medium.

 

This assumption was wrong.

 

If I give you my definition of Einsteins "fabric of space", which is somewhat off subjest, it will make you laugh. Just not too hard though. But I believe ether, space; or what ever it's called, has been here forever. I also believe our universe is "Cyclic". From the first moment of conception, birth, creation etc. I believe it has been moving outward at a constant speed? Debatable? Yes. And the "I believes" are hopefully to keep me out of trouble since I profess nothing factually. Anyway, after a few million years or so, this extended plasma began to coalesce into what we consider matter. But the universe didn't slow down in speed, but continued on its merry way. After a billion years or so this matter began to concentrate into huge balls due to magnetism and gravity. Just keep in mind, my: "I Thinks", not facts.

If you would like to go farther into my dream world, just ask. If not, let's conclude this thread.

Edited January 27, 2012 by rigney

[rigney]

Are you talking about the fabric of space itself?

 

If you are, then I refer you back to this:

 

The aether idea came about because it was assumed that any form of wave needed a medium to travel through and since light could pass unhindered through a vacuum, there must be something else there as the medium.

 

This assumption was wrong.

 

Without trying to be controversial, I don't believe there is such a thing as "space fabric". One has to remember that our universe is moving outward at a constant rate of speed? After thirteen+ billions of years, other than vectorial differences; "each bit" of matter has a pretty good idea where it is going. My understanding of ether is that, it is simply space itself, "and static". Not moving as the universe does, but allowing matter, regardless of configuration; to move unbstructed. I see "space fabric" as magnetism in rotational variables that has, over the millenia brought the universe into consort. Edited January 30, 2012 by rigney

[derek w]

I can understand why light would have a finite speed if it were propagating through a medium.

My question is why would the speed of light be finite if there was no medium?

 

Creating a perfect vacuum is imposable,if neutrinos can pass through the earth without interacting,how would you keep them out of your vacuum container.As far as neutrinos are concerned you might as well us a fishing net.

Edited January 29, 2012 by derek w

[DrRocket]

 

The aether idea came about because it was assumed that any form of wave needed a medium to travel through and since light could pass unhindered through a vacuum, there must be something else there as the medium.

 

This assumption was wrong.

 

Actually there is a perfectly valid theory that does admit an ether. It is the "Lorentz Ether Theory" and is it completely equivalent to special relativity.

 

It is not usually taught simply because there is no good reason to teach it. It produces exactly the same predictions as special relativity.

 

To get the Lorentz Ether theory you simply select some inertial reference frame and, by fiat, call it the "ether frame". You then, also by fiat, demand that the relationship between distance and time in one inertial frame be related to distance and time in any other inertial frame by the associated Lorentz transformation. Since the Lorentz transformation group is what really determines special relativity you automatically have a theory that is equivalent to ordinary special relativity.

 

The significant difference between special relativity and the Lorentz Ether theory is that special relativity is based on two straightforward assumptions: 1) that light propagates at the same speed in all reference frames and 2) the laws of the physics are the same in all inertial reference frames. While these tenets are also true in Lorentz Ether theory, they are derived from the less satisfying axiom that the Lorentz transformations relate time and space in different frames, while in special relativity it is the Lorentz transformations themselves that are derived.

 

Before you dismiss this out of hand, remember that in quantum electrodynamics the quantum vacuum (which is NOT simply "nothing") essentially plays the role of the ether. One ought not be too dogmatic about viewpoints in physics -- quite often a twist on an old viewpoint turns out to be very productive. A very good example is the original corpuscular theory of light of Newton which gave way to Huygens wave theory of light which in turn gave way to the modern quantum theory which is again corpuscular (photons).

[rigney]

Actually there is a perfectly valid theory that does admit an ether. It is the "Lorentz Ether Theory" and is it completely equivalent to special relativity.

 

It is not usually taught simply because there is no good reason to teach it. It produces exactly the same predictions as special relativity.

 

To get the Lorentz Ether theory you simply select some inertial reference frame and, by fiat, call it the "ether frame". You then, also by fiat, demand that the relationship between distance and time in one inertial frame be related to distance and time in any other inertial frame by the associated Lorentz transformation. Since the Lorentz transformation group is what really determines special relativity you automatically have a theory that is equivalent to ordinary special relativity.

 

The significant difference between special relativity and the Lorentz Ether theory is that special relativity is based on two straightforward assumptions: 1) that light propagates at the same speed in all reference frames and 2) the laws of the physics are the same in all inertial reference frames. While these tenets are also true in Lorentz Ether theory, they are derived from the less satisfying axiom that the Lorentz transformations relate time and space in different frames, while in special relativity it is the Lorentz transformations themselves that are derived.

 

Before you dismiss this out of hand, remember that in quantum electrodynamics the quantum vacuum (which is NOT simply "nothing") essentially plays the role of the ether. One ought not be too dogmatic about viewpoints in physics -- quite often a twist on an old viewpoint turns out to be very productive. A very good example is the original corpuscular theory of light of Newton which gave way to Huygens wave theory of light which in turn gave way to the modern quantum theory which is again corpuscular (photons).

 

Appreciate your input and wish I could conjecture, but being only a layman; I'm lost. But, is there something prevalent in my madness that makes sense? Edited January 30, 2012 by rigney

[D H]

Actually there is a perfectly valid theory that does admit an ether. It is the "Lorentz Ether Theory" and is it completely equivalent to special relativity.

 

It is not usually taught simply because there is no good reason to teach it. It produces exactly the same predictions as special relativity.

 

To get the Lorentz Ether theory you simply select some inertial reference frame and, by fiat, call it the "ether frame".

That's a bit disingenuous. Poincare and Lorentz approached the problem presented by Maxwell's equations from a Newtonian perspective: That somewhere out there is some absolute truth. Their ether frame was not any old random inertial frame. They were looking for the one true inertial frame, or "God's frame". By the time they had worked the bugs out of their Lorentz Ether Theory, this one true inertial frame was just as unobservable as it was in Newtonian mechanics (which also assumes the existence of "God's frame").