Gravity waves and the aether

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Mike:

Yes, I can see the similarities. But I too was under the impression that the universe somehow curved back on itself so that there are no edges.

 

Perhaps one is putting the cart before the horse. It might help to know a little more about the basis of that which is causing said waves before speculating about the medium, e.g., the elusive gravitons.

 

I understand that it seems like every other type of wave seems to need a medium, so it seems logical that gravity would follow suit. But I wonder whether that is true:

 

light/electromagnetic waves can travel through a vacuum, and do not require a medium. In empty space, the wave does not dissipate (grow smaller) no matter how far it travels, because the wave is not interacting with anything else.

 

I gather that gravitational waves also not only travel at the speed of light, but can travel through a vacuum. I presume that gravitational waves (re gravitons?) per se also have no mass.

 

One explanation for the fact that light does not need a physical medium, is that light, and electric/magnetic waves in general travel through their own all-pervasive fields, which keep oscillating and propagating themselves through space. The electric and magnetic waves don't require a medium (other than spacetime and electromagnetic fields) because they aren't transmitted via massive particles. (An massive aether is unlikely given that there is, for one thing, no detectable drag on objects through space.)

 

Apparently one can say that there are higher probabilities of detecting photons at certain places in beams of light and that the pattern of these probabilities has a formal resemblance to physical waves. So it should be of no overwhelming surprise or significance that we find resemblances between massive physical waves (e.g., water) and those in space/time.

 

Perhaps a key point, then,regarding the necessity of a physical medium is the issue of whether or not a wave has mass. Somebody please correct me if I am off track, but it seems that massless waves do not require a medium because they, in some sense, provide the ubiquitous field through which they travel, while massive waves do require massive fields.

 

I agree that I need a lot more math in order to really know what I am talking about, but I can often follow the abstract paragraph in a quantum theory study, while the rest is mostly gibberish to me. So at this point I am just looking for the abstract paragraph here, and will wade into the math with less of a chill when I have it.

--------------

Science , somehow has got , like hung up , on this aether thing , because of the " Michaelson Morely " experiment etc .

 

Whatever is happening in space , just up in space , immediately away from Earth. To me is an unknown , is it dragging space around ? Or is it moving through space?

 

--------------

 

For the time being , I wonder if there is not a medium , some way or other, in whatever form . Which act like dominoes, first one photon goes over, hits next one, it goes over , and on domino after domino ...photon after photon . ....The dominoes do not travel just fall.... The first photon does not go anywhere ! Just knocks into the next dominoe , produces a new photon , etc etc throughout the medium of space .

Nothing goes anywhere,

 

JUST THE ENERGY TRANSFER OF THE QUANTISED PHOTON .? The EFFECT GOES AT LIGHT SPEED . .across the MEDIUM of SPACE .

 

This is exactly what happens in the conduit of copper wire in a CONDUCTOR .

Electrons drift very slowly (DC) if not at all but oscillate (AC WAVE ) . The EFFECT travels very very fast , nearly the speed of light . The electrons oscillate , and go nowhere , or drift at walking speed . IT is the EFFECT that travels .

 

For that to happen one needs a MEDIUM .

 

MIKE

Edited July 22, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Markus Hanke]

Science , somehow has got , like hung up , on this aether thing , because of the " Michaelson Morely " experiment etc .

 

 

Actually, no. The MM experiment just happens to be the most well-know, and in itself it doesn't really tell us anything much. However, you need to remember that there has been a very large number of different experiments over the past two centuries or so, all of which have attempted to find some indication of an aether via a myriad of different methods and approaches. This includes rather crude classical experiments, as well as more modern high-precision quantum set-ups. All of those experiments, without exception, have come out negative. While the outcome of a single, isolated experiment such as MM can always be subject to debate, the consistent failure of a large number of different experiments taken together to turn up any trace of an aether is a very significant finding. That is one of the reasons why modern physics has abandoned the concept; the MM experiment played only a small role in that, even though it is very well known. The other main reason then is of course that an aether is quite simply not needed - so if it isn't needed, requires impossible properties to be consistent, and no trace of it can be empirically found, then Occam's razor indicates that it more than likely doesn't exist.

 

One of the immediate consequences of the existence of an aether would be a violation of local Lorentz invariance, so many of the aforementioned experiments fall into that category :

 

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

 

Take careful note though that while the existence of a detectable (!) aether would imply a Lorentz violation, the reverse is not true - Lorentz violations do not automatically imply an aether, but can result from other mechanisms as well.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Markus Hanke

[Strange]

However, you need to remember that there has been a very large number of different experiments over the past two centuries or so, all of which have attempted to find some indication of an aether via a myriad of different methods and approaches.

 

Although people sometimes like to say that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," when there is such an overwhelming absence of evidence, then it very definitely is evidence of absence.

[geordief]

 

Although people sometimes like to say that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," when there is such an overwhelming absence of evidence, then it very definitely is evidence of absence.

To nitpick ,it depends on your definition of "evidence" (there was a recentish thread on another forum I don't think you were involved in on that topic).

 

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/what-is-evidence.156337/

 

"Evidence" could be taken as "supporting evidence" or ""confirming evidence".**

 

I think you might have been using it as "overwhelmingly supporting evidence"

 

 

** that might be the layman's "definition"

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

Why cannot the evidence , be the very incontrovertible evidence, that space is absolutely proved to be :-

 

Full of all sorts of " stuff" . Ranging from dust, gas grit electrons , hadrons , quarks , neutrinos, positrons electrons , electromagnetic fields , dark energy, dark matter , virtual particles , Higgs bosons , and a whole host of other things I have not mentioned.

 

Why cannot this soup of " stuff " be, and act as a MEDIUM? Or at least some of it , can act as a medium ?

 

And all of it makes up Space . Outside of that . IS NOTHING , ?

 

Mike

Edited July 22, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[geordief]

 

Why cannot this soup of " stuff " be, and act as a MEDIUM? Or at least some of it , can act as a medium ?

 

And all of it makes up Space . Outside of that . IS NOTHING , ?

 

Mike

What does the boundary between Space and NOTHING look like ?

[Strange]

.

Why cannot the evidence , be the very incontrovertible evidence, that space is absolutely proved to be :-

 

Full of all sorts of " stuff" . Ranging from dust, gas grit electrons , hadrons , quarks , neutrinos, positrons electrons , electromagnetic fields , dark energy, dark matter , virtual particles , Higgs bosons , and a whole host of other things I have not mentioned.

 

Why cannot this soup of " stuff " be, and act as a MEDIUM? Or at least some of it , can act as a medium ?

 

And all of it makes up Space . Outside of that . IS NOTHING , ?

 

Mike

 

Because none of those things appear in the theory of (or the evidence for) gravitational waves.

 

So, yes, space is full of all those things. But those things are not what space is "made of" and they are not a medium for gravity.

[geordief]

 

 

So, yes, space is full of all those things. But those things are not what space is "made of"

 

If you include absolutely everything from the smallest to the largest (up to stars and maybe even black holes) could you then say that space was made of that--ie could you make a case for space and matter being 2 emergent sides of the same thing?

 

Or is distance the same thing as space?

[Strange]

Or is distance the same thing as space?

 

That is my view (or three orthogonal distances, in our normal choice of coordinates).

[StringJunky]

I think of space as volume that has fields in it, which is everything else; they are both not made of anything tangibly material in the classical sense. They are just evolving conceptual things or models that have parameters that can be usefully measured.

If you include absolutely everything from the smallest to the largest (up to stars and maybe even black holes) could you then say that space was made of that--ie could you make a case for space and matter being 2 emergent sides of the same thing?

 

Or is distance the same thing as space?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

What does the boundary between Space and NOTHING look like ?

 

.

I could not be sure that anybody really knows.

 

One can but surmise.

 

I would posit, that whatever gives space its structure ? Is pretty well up there with the edge , of space .

Then I would surmise that whatever hangs on hard or grips the structure is there or thereabouts .

 

Then I would go with my medium , settled well into the fabric of space and structure .

 

Then whatever ( not all ) requires the medium would be nearby .

 

Then NOTHING .

 

In NOTHING , NOTHING CAN BE SUPPORTED. The end of the physical Universe. No more of the physical 'stuff ' there , nothing supported.

 

Only my surmise ! ..

 

 

We could go on to ask ? Is there anything beyond the Physical Universe?

 

Mike

Edited July 22, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[geordief]

.

I could not be sure that anybody really knows.

 

One can but surmise.

 

I would posit, that whatever gives space its structure ? Is pretty well up there with the edge , of space .

Then I would surmise that whatever hangs on hard or grips the structure is there or thereabouts .

 

Then I would go with my medium , settled well into the fabric of space and structure .

 

Then whatever ( not all ) requires the medium would be nearby .

 

Then NOTHING .

 

In NOTHING , NOTHING CAN BE SUPPORTED. The end of the physical Universe. No more of the physical 'stuff ' there , nothing supported.

 

Only my surmise ! ..

 

 

We could go on to ask ? Is there anything beyond the Physical Universe?

 

Mike

I don't suppose Virgin Galactic will be going there in the near future

 

Anything beyond the Physical Universe? The Metaphysical Universe? (I will get my coat)

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Anything beyond the Physical Universe?

.

 

 

Wait a minute what is that white dot? I cannot quite make it out !

 

Mike

Edited July 23, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Two riders ,on this subject, have arisen in the last few days .

 

1. One of the most famous recent scientists ( who's name escapes me at the moment ) , was heard to repeat ,over and over ,

" the border of a border is ZERO "

So taking a position ( figurativly) , way beyond and above the boundary or border of the Universe ,

Takes us to the 'gods eye view ' of the Universe.

Here we can figuratively see the Supersymetric view of all forces before they symmetry break into the gauge forces between the various rotational symmetries. Such a view is 'impossible' I think , for us to see , as we cannot get up there. However this is where , I imagine , maths may be able to take 'one ' ?

 

2. Yesterday I was in attendance with a group of other artists( learning ) . The man ( 85 years old ) giving the instruction and oversight , himself an artist ( but in early life had been an aircraft designer.) . He came up to me afterwards and commented " Mike, I know you always paint in ' acrylics' , which I do , he said " I never see you using an acrylic MEDIUM ? " . Eh ?

I have been painting in acrylics for 5 or 6 years , without using an acrylic MEDIUM !

I questioned him very closely for some time , also giving him the reason for my ( more than painting reason for probing him deeply )

His reply was very enlightening in view of our / my quest for the greater Medium of the Universe ) . The dialogue that follows is interesting !

 

" Come on Mike, you are an engineer and artist ! You should know that tubes of acrylic paint are just 'pigments' , mixtures of various minerals, particles of earth born , granuals of different elements, mineral substances that give the various colours you want for your picture ."

 

THEY HAVE TO HAVE A ...MEDIUM ... FOR THE RANDOM PIGMENT GRANUALS, TO BE MOVED AND FLOW INTO THE SHAPES AND EFFECTS THAT YOU WANT TO ..... CREATE .....IN YOUR PICTURE .

 

The profundity of what he had just said was quite tangible . ( the wisdom of older people )

 

A MEDIUM IS NOT AN OPTION TO CREATE A UNIVERSE IT IS AN ' ESSENTIAL ' INGREDIENT FOR THE CREATION OF THE WHOLE , BEAUTIFUL, COSMIC EVENT !

 

Eureka!

 

Mike

Edited July 28, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[disarray]

Mike: Again, in contrast to your assumption that everything except gravity has a medium, so why not gravity, I have mentioned (most?) electromagnetic waves (e.g., light) as not needing a medium, perhaps owing in some way to lack of mass. But I could just as well have mentioned the waves created by shaking a rug, which could theoretically be done in a vacuum, i.e., without a medium. Of course, in a practical sense, it is true that the rug makes waves in the air, thereby causing our ear drums to vibrate, etc., but the rug itself does not need the medium of air to do its own wavy thing.

 

As for your example, one might say, then, that the granules (and whatever other ingredients) are the pigment…that is, there is no medium other than what composes the pigment itself, just as we need not even say that the waves that becomes sound in our minds need water, but rather that “making waves” is just something that the medium does.

 

Even if you accept that light does not need anything other than space, you seem to be saying that space is some sort of physics-combo, e.g., space/time/forces/ \energy that acts as a medium for the waves of light, or rather that the space/time/force/energy is a medium that has the quality of being able to make waves.

 

I too entertained the notion that space/time could not exist on its own without other things such as energy, gravitation, strong-weak forces or whatever. After all, they all seem to have arisen together and space seems to be expanding at the rate of light, as if they were holding hands. The problem with that concept, however, is the scientific claim that space expanded at a speed very much greater than the speed of light in the early universe.

 

Nevertheless, the universe does not expand, it is said, into some sort of mega-space outside our own space. Indeed, space/time may be nothing more than our own mathematical measurements, and space itself just seems to be expanding because we observe and calculate the movements of distant things and use the language symbol “space/time” (with space/time fluctuations and tensors composing gravity ) to make sense of these measurements. So, space/time in the sense of which we ordinarily think of them are just illusions, as Einstein said.

 

Thus, photons and electrons and forces and ocean swells and bird songs exist and tend to be wave-like in various ways (some requiring a "third party" medium and some not). In any case, the ultimate medium of space/time apparently is one of those that don’t require a medium that, like water, can be further broken down and analyzed, so that rather than it having any physical or material properties, we literally write it off as just a mathematical pigment of our imagination.

 

As an aside, I would note that existentialists such as Tillich similarly seemed preoccupied with finding some ultimate Ground (level) of Being as if wanting to go to the first floor via an elevator. But things can only be broken down so far, and there is nothing beyond that, so that there is no point looking further for something that ain't there.

Edited July 28, 2016 by disarray

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

Surely the flow along " THE ENABLING MEDIUM " can be seen , everywhere !

 

From the Flow of our host Super Structure of LANIAKEA ,with Galaxy upon galaxies

To the sculpting of our Planet by Water , creating the habitat for life

To the beauty of life and plants themselves.

 

 

Mike

[Strange]

Surely the flow along " THE ENABLING MEDIUM " can be seen , everywhere !

 

Apart from places where it can't (e.g. electromagnetic radiation, gravity, etc.)

 

So not everywhere. You are extrapolating from a few cases and assuming everything must work in the same way. This is a very unscientific, almost irrational, approach.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Mike - either we get back to a SCIENTIFIC discussion of "gravitational waves and the aether" (with possible off-shoots into your claims for the need for a medium in all waves - if kept short and to the point) or I will lock this thread.

 

This is not your blog - stop posting meaningless meanderings accompanied by dodgy snapshots. If you wish to open a blog then do so - it is pretty easy to do and you can wax lyrical to your heart's content; but this is the physics forum and we insist on science here.

 

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread.

 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

Surely the flow along " THE ENABLING MEDIUM " can be seen , everywhere !

From the Flow of our host Super Structure of LANIAKEA ,with Galaxy upon galaxies

 

image.jpeg

If we look at the layout of the super cluster named ' LANIAKEA ' . It has the connotations of Flow . And we know that there is also a comparitivly near ' Dark Attractor ' .

 

If I search my observational experience , for examples 'akin ' to these buitiful lines . I am drawn to my painting experience. We have been taught on many occasions that a good way to paint ' skies' . Is to lay the parchment paper down flat , spread delicately some water on the surface . Pick up the paper gently , and tilt the paper so as to let the water flow naturally , gently . And with style , say sideways tilt as well.

Then drop some blue in randomly , and let it flow . Then dry . It produces clouds , like no other . My point being , as in this case the medium is water . In the case of ' LANIAKEA' no doubt the medium is Dark Matter , or something .

 

 

I do believe there is merit in looking at these things , on a Super Galactic scale . While taking examples as a model , from real physical demonstrations.. ( we are after all in the same universe )

 

In LANIAKEA , we do see here , ( if my model is correct ? ) as with the paint and water . A mixing of gravity and a potential ( ENABLING MEDIUM ) .

 

Mike

Edited July 28, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

 

A MEDIUM IS NOT AN OPTION TO CREATE A UNIVERSE IT IS AN ' ESSENTIAL ' INGREDIENT FOR THE CREATION OF THE WHOLE , BEAUTIFUL, COSMIC EVENT !

 

 

This is an hypothesis, not a spell from Harry Potter and the Luminiferous Aether. Repeating it doesn't make it true.

 

The next step, as you (should) know, is amassing evidence from experiment, and the experiment would be shaped by the questions we need answered. Such as: are we moving with respect to this medium, or are we stationary with respect to it? What effects does this medium have on things passing through it? What does that tell us about the medium's properties?

 

Some fluid, as a medium for waves, has a density and a viscosity and other properties. Waves in water will not move quite the same as waves in some other fluid. So we need to know the properties of this medium you insist exists.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

This is an hypothesis, not a spell from Harry Potter and the Luminiferous Aether. Repeating it doesn't make it true.

 

The next step, as you (should) know, is amassing evidence from experiment, and the experiment would be shaped by the questions we need answered. Such as: are we moving with respect to this medium, or are we stationary with respect to it? What effects does this medium have on things passing through it? What does that tell us about the medium's properties?

 

Some fluid, as a medium for waves, has a density and a viscosity and other properties. Waves in water will not move quite the same as waves in some other fluid. So we need to know the properties of this medium you insist exists.

.

 

Yes , I understand what you are suggesting . But some of these issues have already been suggested for aether and disproved to a limited extent , because of the assumptions raised with those proposals . Say to do with passing through the aether rather than going with the aether . ( no measurement , no aether ) .

 

I have suggested a different approach , by looking at the type of enablement achieved , rather than looking at the enabler .

However , I appreciate there is the need of some form of clarification.

 

In a way , we need to say , as far as I am concerned , if I were part of a super race , beyond imagination ,

 

HOW WOULD I CONCEIVABLY GO ABOUT MAKING THE MECHANISM FOR CREATING A UNIVERSES?

 

ENABLING such a thing to come about . Obviously at our state of advanced understanding we are probably too limited in our thinking to get close. On the other hand we have advanced quite a lot in the last 150 years . We could have a stab at it ! Then do some tests , possibly ?

 

Duplication by positive feedback always bubbles up in my mind . To establish massive expansion .

Two sorts of contents . 1 . Massive and heavy . Structure . 2 Light weight , control , Efemeral .

 

That is a start . So I would say I need an

 

1. ENABLER MEDIUM to contain , move and structure the Heavy Massive Parts . Say dark matter is the Medium .

 

2 . Another separate ENABLER MEDIUM , to communicate , control , and deliver the Efemeral element of the universe.

 

Then I need to start the whole thing going by constant duplication by positive feedback , from an original set of STARTERS .

 

In both the enabling mediums the contents goes along with the medium , much as I illustrated in my ' painting sky ' example mentioned earlier.

 

I think the content aspect is well covered by eg ( matter , anti- matter pairs )

 

Now as regards testing this , I suppose one could build some models . I did play around with this idea , to some extent , years ago , when home computers and ' BASIC ' software came out .

 

However , :-

 

Mike

[disarray]

 

Waves in water will not move quite the same as waves in some other fluid. So we need to know the properties of this medium you insist exists.

 

In retrospect, it seems to me that my example of a rug as being able to have wave-light properties when shook in a vacuum (i.e., without the medium of air) is not true, as the resistance of the air is needed for the rug to move in a wave-like manner. When we look at sound waves in air, for example, and waves in a fluid, we always need the resistant medium.

 

Thus, I can see how one might assume that we always need a resistant medium (drag) in order to have waves, e.g., amplitude being a function of energy and resistance.

 

Apparently, this does not apply to such things as light. Either one might then suggest that photons, as has been suggested with electrons, have some sort of field that spans the universe (as suggested in the case of electron entanglement), or there is some other reason that electromagnetic and gravity waves do not need the same resistant medium (e.g., of space) as many other things that we confront in everyday life need to have. Perhaps no one knows, given the, for example, notion that photons have both the properties of particles and of waves, so that there wave-like properties are still something of a mystery.

Edited July 28, 2016 by disarray

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

I am suggesting that the two different sorts of medium , go out across, in , with space in different ways .

 

 

(A) The Dark Matter as a heavy mass containing medium , carries with it the mass like particles , and they behave as illustrated previously in patterns of reflection Very akin to the established layout of the universe . With areas of concentration , as well as more void areas .

 

On the other hand

 

(B) The Dark Energy , the second medium spreads out fairly regularly and evenly across the universe. Within this medium the electro magnetic field are set up across pretty well all of space and and become the propagating medium for light and other electro magnetic waves . These fields are not subject to the gravitational waves present in the other medium , and so are fairly linear across all of space .

 

------------------------------------------ ILLUSTRATED THUS ------------------------------------------------------------

(A). Type mass medium dark matter , heavy particles . Mass concentrated on the lines produced by gravitational waves as illustrated.

. .

.

 

 

(B) Type massless medium dark energy , light and zero mass particles . Spread out fairly evenly across space , as illustrated.

. .

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

In principle !

 

Mike

Edited July 28, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

 

In retrospect, it seems to me that my example of a rug as being able to have wave-light properties when shook in a vacuum (i.e., without the medium of air) is not true, as the resistance of the air is needed for the rug to move in a wave-like manner. When we look at sound waves in air, for example, and waves in a fluid, we always need the resistant medium.

 

 

Air is not needed for a rug, or fabric, to have exhibit a wave. Air (or lack thereof) will have a small effect on the behavior of the wave, but the principle factor here are the properties of the rug itself. That's what's "waving"

.

 

Yes , I understand what you are suggesting . But some of these issues have already been suggested for aether and disproved to a limited extent , because of the assumptions raised with those proposals . Say to do with passing through the aether rather than going with the aether . ( no measurement , no aether ) .

 

I have suggested a different approach , by looking at the type of enablement achieved , rather than looking at the enabler .

 

 

 

Regardless of how you do it, the questions have to be answered. You can't sidestep them with your different approach, otherwise your different approach is not science.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Regardless of how you do it, the questions have to be answered. You can't sidestep them with your different approach, otherwise your different approach is not science.

.

 

O.k.

Then surely I can point to two areas of science style proof.

 

For the mass based medium . I would point to , dark matter recently identified as the ' shaper at Galaxy level ' ,( probably now the shaper of the whole darn Universe) , and the model of reflected waves in the swimming poor giving a very close fit to the actual layout of the universe as recentely gained by observation of the cosmos . Including the clear picture of 'flow ' usually associated with a fluid medium as illustrated with the super cluster ( of which we are a part ) , namely ' Laniakia ' . Appearing in this weeks ' Scientific America '

 

For the lighter medium . I would point to the argued reasoning for the derivation of both ' the cosmological constant ' / dark energy . Having an early entry into the universe at the separation of the electro-weak force from the early supersymetry of the Very early universe . This becoming an all pervasive e-m field across all of space as it expanded.

 

 

In some respects I can only point to the results achieved by the entire scientific community in recent years . With their various scientific research . And try an make some sense of the picture coming out of all this combined research , and get a bigger picture of the ' Whole Thing ' .

 

Mike

Edited July 29, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos