I'm familiar with the general concept of what's known as aether (ether): It was required that light replaced SOMETHING, a blank space, in order for all this physics to fall into place properly. After several experiments were conducted (notably by Michelson-Morley), it was determined that the general velocity of this 'aether wind' was nonexistent, and it is now assumed that aether has a density of 0 as a result. Please correct me if I was wrong. What implications does this have regarding limitations on our universe? The Great Wiki Says: "As late as 1920, Einstein himself still spoke of a different concept of ether that was not a "ponderable medium" but something of significance nonetheless." Is this aether perhaps what exists OUTSIDE of our universe (i.e. as the universe expands, it replaces the aether), and potentially 'on the other side' of black holes - what singularity is made of? To clarify, is the density of the substance 0 or infinity? Meaning, if an object entered it, would it instantaneously crush into itself, or would it still exist, in something kind of like those cartoon movies, where the guy runs through a white screen and appears on the other side, or something along those lines? With 0 gravity (I'm assuming) and 0 density, possibly outside the time dimention, would it not be bound to the restrictions of light, and theoretically could it travel at speeds faster than c? Or rather, instantaneous travel from point A to B? Is it theoretically possible to 'escape' the bounds of the known physical world? :bugeye: Thanks for any information. Fall Caesar
How can something existing outside of the universe have any effect on the universe? If space has zero density, it's got zero matter or energy in it. If such a region exists somewhere in the universe, it has 'escaped the physical world'.
there are so many things wrong with that post that I cant imagine that anybody will seriously try to answer
I think you're getting a bit confused here, Caeser. The Michelson-Morley detected no aether wind, and thus demonstrated that the "luminiferous aether" did not exist. It merely demonstrated that things weren't the way some people were thinking, and is said to have paved the way for Einstein and relativity. Yes. Einstein is said to have "done away with the aether", but in his 1920 Leyden Address he talks about the aether of general relativity. He's talking of space itself as a form of aether. No. It's just space. It's often called "the vacuum" but note that space sustains waves and fields, and it has its vacuum energy. It isn't the same as nothing. No, sorry. The word density isn't quite appropriate. Space isn't a substance, and while it has an "energy density", it doesn't have a density in the usual sense of the word. No. You're reading too much into it I'm afraid.
To clarify what I meant regarding 0 density, I think I mean 0 resistance, such that the speed of light isn't slowed any. When I stated "it's assumed to have 0 density", as I understand it now (thank you Farsight), it is more or less synonymous with many general properties of a vacuum..? Perhaps. From what I've gathered, the Michelson-Morley experiment is famous for its null result. Aether was suggested as an answer to the problem of how waves propagate through a vacuum. The absence of an aether wind, as objects such as the earth speed through space, is strong evidence against its existence. However, the original question of HOW waves propagate through a vacuum is left unanswered. Can somebody please direct me to proposed solutions for this problem? Essentially, we have an understanding of electromagnetism and all these forces where there's no 'particles', how are all of these entities united? Or do they even have to be? Much of my analogies and questions were quite elementary and attempted to describe this or a phenomenon similar to what was stated by arfa, and speculated on implications in variance with general physics models. Granpa, the general question remains the same and I've stated it above; if you have insight, I'd be happy to hear from you, otherwise please leave this thread. Finally, there was a lot of pseudoscience here, so could a moderator please move this to the proper forum? It would be appreciated. Thank you for your patience with me, I'm relatively new at this.
The resolution is through quantum mechanics. Ocean waves and sound waves need a medium to propagate, to even exist. Light is a very different kind of wave phenomenon: It doesn't need a medium. A beam of light is just a bunch of photons moving through space.
You're welcome Caesar. I think what you're looking for here is vacuum impedance. Impedance is resistance to alternating current. See the Electromagnetic wave equation, though it doesn't really explain the "how" of it.
According to the Standard Model, light does not need a medium and space is defined as a void of nothingness? But don't electrostatic, magnetic, and gravitational forces need a medium of some sort to travel through? Do they travel through light? I would be inclined to think not. How does the standard model relate/explain electrostatic, magnetic, and gravitational forces?
Correct. The Standard Model is moot with regard to gravitation. Somehow melding general relativity and quantum physics is one of the key goal of physics today. Regarding electrostatic and magnetism forces, they do not need a medium. Per quantum electrodynamics, which is a key part of the standard model, these forces result from the exchange of virtual photons. No medium is needed. Better said, they are light. And just because you are inclined to think not does not mean that your inclinations have any connection with reality.
Why can't gravity be explained as electrostatic and magnetic forces are, in the sense that it is the result of an exchange of virtual photons? And to be clear, are electrostatic and magnetic forces different intensities of exchange or different types of photons altogether? Most certainly you are correct.
The mathematical tricks used in quantum electrodynamics simply do not work when applied to gravitation. Google the phrases "Beyond the standard model", "theory of everything", and "quantum gravity" for more info. It's a matter of reference frames. What looks like an electrostatic force in one frame looks like a magnetic force in another. And vice versa. Which is which is a matter of perspective. Another way to look at it: They are one and the same thing.
Is it possible that gravity is likewise an altered perspective, such that electrostatic, magnetic, and gravitational are all skewed perspectives of the same force? I believe this is what Aether calls Gforce. The difference then with the Standard Model and Aether Physics Model is that the SM states that they exist in space, while APM says they exist in a 'fabric' of aether, which is essentially (to the best of my understanding) the same as angular momentum. Why does the SM assume a void of nothingness, when Maxwell, Tesla, Coulomb, Einstein, etc. each propose the possibility of a medium such as aether?
Gravity is different to electromagnetism, Fall Caesar. And the Standard Model doesn't assume a void of nothingness. It's a quantum field theory. DH mentioned virtual photons, but they're virtual, essentially the "accounting units" of QED. As for the underlying physical reality, see Some Attributes of Real and Virtual Photons by J D Lawson. It's quite an old paper, but IMHO it's pretty good. Also see Evanescent modes are virtual photons and Near and far field. There's also articles like this one which says "From a particle physics viewpoint, the vacuum is permeated by a Higgs Field". Think of the Higgs field or "the vacuum" as something like a modern version of the aether. It isn't a substance though.
I'm well aware that gravity and electromagnetism are different, however they're similar in the fact that they have no seen 'particle' cause. And very interesting articles. I'm still perusing through them, but do have a few questions: 1) Am I correct in stating that there is no "pure" vacuum? And that this is the result of the Higgs Field, or other forces outside? 2) How is something 'real' if it isn't a substance? Even these forces like magnetism have substance. And by substance I mean a cause or effect. Electromagnetism has no 'particle' cause, but it has an effecting force. It's therefore substantial. As I currently understand it, the Higgs field has no 'cause' (it's just... there), and no effect (it doesn't do anything). To the best of my understanding, Aether isn't a physical material, but a material unit is placed on it as a measure of angular momentum, which is its cause. 3) 'Virtual' Protons are indeed real, it's merely a misnomer. It's how the uncertainty principle is explained, insofar as the energy is "borrowed" and then "paid back". It comes from other sources, and is real. What is unreal in a physical world? 4) To rephrase my earlier question, and in summary, in what ways are an Aether fabric and a Higgs field different? Aether is the result of angular momentum, but what causes the Higgs field?
I don't think so. But it isn't a clear-cut question. Imagine you're in "pure" vacuum. Hold your hands up with your palms pressed together. Now separate them by one metre. That gap is real, and it isn't a substance. OK, but that's not the sort of substance I meant. This is getting tricky. A photon of light is an electromagnetic field variation, and we describe it as a particle. An electron has a standing electromagnetic field, and we describe it as a particle too. However we wouldn't describe light as substantial, though we would say that electrons were substantial because they have mass. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned the Higgs field. It's arguably the weakest part of the Standard Model, and the Higgs mechanism only accounts for 1% of mass. I'm not that fond of it myself. Fair enough if "aether" isn't a physical material. Yes Planck's constant of action applies to photons and electrons, and h has the dimensions of momentum x distance "which are also the dimensions of angular momentum". But what causes that? I presume you meant virtual photons. There is certainly an underlying reality, the HUP relates to wave phenomena, and quantum fluctuations are akin to "wavelets on the surface of an ocean". But I'd say the common view of virtual photons as transient real photons is inadequate. I don't know. See above. I can't defend the Higgs field. I only offered it in the context of the Standard Model being a quantum field theory. Setting "fabric" aside because of the substance issue, if you asked me in what way is aether different to space, I'd say I don't know of any difference. I base that on Einstein's 1920 Leyden Address.
Photons have no mass; photons are not substantial; is mass the sole determinant of substance? And according to Einstein, mass is merely a form of energy? Wouldn't this mean photons have no energy as well? This doesn't compute right in my head. :X Isn't spin due to a charge imbalance of some sort? Yes, sorry, photons. And I would agree completely. Is it this reason why the Higgs boson is anticipated? Thank you for the honesty and the reference point. I've read the address before, and as I interpret it, he appears to be in favor of a fabric of the Universe of some sort, be it Aether or a Higgs field.
I'd say not. But it does rather depend on how you define substance. Matter is substance in the normal sense, but light isn't. No re photons having no energy. Mass, or more properly rest mass, is a measure of a system's energy content when that system is not moving with respect to you. A region of space has energy content, and if you call it a system you might say it has mass, but it isn't substantial in that you can wave your hand through it and there seems to be nothing there. And sorry, no, spin isn't due to a charge imbalance of some sort. Neutrinos have spin but no charge. Sorry, I don't know why the Higgs boson is anticipated.
There is some evidence that there is an aether 1. Open space has the property of electromagnetic properties. The electric constant and the magnetic constant are measurable, which are both much smaller than those of material masses. This tends to support the existence of an aether. 2. The Michelson-Morley experiment did not disprove the existence of an aether, although neither did it support it (Planck). 3. Electric waves bend as they move through space. What produces this bending is a monumental question. 4. Electromagnetic waves pass through one another without measurable interaction. 5. Gravity can be explained in terms of electric forces. The hydrogen atom consists of but a single electron and a single proton: two electric charges. The electric forces are considerably stronger than magnetic force. It is reasonable to believe that the small leftover force is that of gravity, and there is evidence to support it.
