SciForums.com > On the Fringe > Pseudoscience > Etherized Space-Time PDA View Full Version : Etherized Space-Time Post ReplyCreate New Thread khan04-01-12, 01:57 AMthis is my pseudo-scientific hypothesis regarding etherized space-time: Space-time could possibly posses fluid-like characteristics, thereby allowing for a medium of electromagnetic wave propagation - but such a universal fluid property of space-time could not be interpreted as a fixed frame of reference. A useful analogy would be how motion on the ocean cannot be seen as motion with respect to the water itself but only with respect to other floating objects in the sea or other benchmarks like small islands. Ether could also be theorized as the origin of inertia and gravity, where accelerated motion causes wave interference and resistance to change in motion while non-accelerated motion could be seen as an object floating at rest on a calm sea of space-time. Gravity can be simply described as compression and "curvature" of such etherized space-time. :itold: AlexG04-01-12, 02:10 AMI've got just two words for you. Michelson Morley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment) khan04-01-12, 02:41 AMI've got just two words for you. Michelson Morley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment) Relative non-accelerated motion of objects cannot be ascertained to be with respect to fluidlike [etherized] space-time, thus your link is not relevant as a valid counterargument. :itold: There might be a way to test for the fluidic-spacetime-ether with accelerating particles...not sure :shrug: Einstein's ether: http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether,; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity. AlphaNumeric04-01-12, 03:12 AMIt's easy to say wordy explanations which sound superficially viable. For example, inertia is the interaction between objects and the viscous forces in the aether. Or particles are vortices in the aether, thus explaining why they have spin. Bound starts are vortices trapped in other vortices. See, easy, if you don't do any calculations or experiments then saying "Light is an oscillation in a medium, just like water waves in water" sounds intuitively appealing. It's only when you start trying to construct predictive models do you find problems in reconciling the concept with experiments, hence the Michelson Morley issue with traditional aether concepts. khan04-01-12, 03:36 AMIt's easy to say wordy explanations which sound superficially viable. For example, inertia is the interaction between objects and the viscous forces in the aether. Or particles are vortices in the aether, thus explaining why they have spin. Bound starts are vortices trapped in other vortices. See, easy, if you don't do any calculations or experiments then saying "Light is an oscillation in a medium, just like water waves in water" sounds intuitively appealing. It's only when you start trying to construct predictive models do you find problems in reconciling the concept with experiments, hence the Michelson Morley issue with traditional aether concepts. Since light moves at constant unaccelerated velocity through my hypothesized fluid of space-time, it probably would not cause an aether drag as indicated by the many Michelson Morley experiments for light. Frame dragging appears to be an indication of possible vorticelike motion of space-time though. Ronald Mallett proposed this laser set up as a way to build a time machine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Mallett#Time_machine_project If spinning masses and lasers can cause frame dragging it appears that space and time must have some type of tangible or etherlike properties. Accelerating light would be a better way to test for the ether ...if that is possible :D khan04-01-12, 06:38 AMDark matter and dark energy might be two possible aspects of one "dark fluid". http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506732 Is it possible to consider Dark Energy and Dark Matter as a same and unique Dark Fluid? In the standard model of cosmology, the present evolution of the Universe is determined by the presence of two components of unknown nature. One of them is referenced as dark matter'' to justify the fact that it behaves cosmologically like usual baryonic matter, whereas the other one is called dark energy'', which is a component with a negative pressure. As the nature of both dark components remains unknown, it is interesting to consider other models. In particular, it seems that the cosmological observations can also be understood for a Universe which does not contain two fluids of unknown nature, but only one fluid with other properties. To arrive to this conclusion, we will review the observational constraints from supernovae of type Ia, cosmic microwave background, large scale structures, and the theoretical results of big-bang nucleosynthesis. We will try to determine constraints on this unifying dark fluid'', and briefly review different possibilities to build models of dark fluid. I imagine the challenge is trying to figure out the higher dimensional properties of this fluid in that an object moving at relativistic speeds would become a four dimensional ellipsoid with dilated time and contracted length. The same type of compression would occur in a strong gravity field AKA spacetime curvature. http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/4503/17753511.png Aqueous Id04-01-12, 08:19 PMExcept the properties of fluid seem to have nothing to do with space or time. khan04-01-12, 10:15 PMExcept the properties of fluid seem to have nothing to do with space or time. I am not so sure about that yet... :shrug: Strangely enough, the fluidic properties of space may tie into the holographic principle also... http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3165 Hydrodynamics of spacetime and vacuum viscosity [...] We postulate that the vacuum thermal state in the Rindler wedge of spacetime obeys the holographic principle. Hydrodynamic perturbations of this state exist and are manifested in the dynamics of a stretched horizon fluid at the horizon boundary. Using the equations of hydrodynamics we derive the entropy balance law and show the Einstein equation is a consequence of vacuum hydrodynamics. OnlyMe04-01-12, 11:27 PMI am not so sure about that yet... :shrug: Strangely enough, the fluidic properties of space may tie into the holographic principle also... http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3165 I did not read the whole paper, at least yet, but your quote is from the abstract and at least from the intrduction they are exploring the dynamics of a black hole... There may ay be more to it than that, but I thought before spending too much time I would mention, within the context of GR black holes, and stars have been modeled as perfect fluid states for quite some time, nothing new in that. There is virtually no way to model the gravitational field of a complex gravitational mass like a star, otherwise. There are too many changing variables. There have also been papers published attempting to model space as a perfect fluid like ether both in the Newtonian and GR case, none that I have seen have been successful and they usually mention the limitations in the paper itself. These are generally tests of concept rather than serious attempts to replace GR, as far as they read to me. I will pull a copy of the paper off line and if it is not too long and does not get too deeply into quantum gravity, I'll see what it looks like. P.S. 24 pages - don't hold your breath. khan04-02-12, 02:26 AMThis might be an extremely daunting task to figure out :eek: I am assuming that space-time behaves like a compressible fluid flow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_dynamics#Compressible_vs_incompressible_flow All fluids are compressible to some extent, that is changes in pressure or temperature will result in changes in density. However, in many situations the changes in pressure and temperature are sufficiently small that the changes in density are negligible. In this case the flow can be modeled as an incompressible flow. Otherwise the more general compressible flow equations must be used. Non-linear partial differential equations ...more fun :eek: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nonlinear_partial_differential_equations In mathematics and physics, nonlinear partial differential equations are (as their name suggests) partial differential equations with nonlinear terms. They describe many different physical systems, ranging from gravitation to fluid dynamics, and have been used in mathematics to solve problems such as the Poincaré conjecture and the Calabi conjecture. They are difficult to study: there are almost no general techniques that work for all such equations, and usually each individual equation has to be studied as a separate problem. OnlyMe04-02-12, 10:41 AMThis might be an extremely daunting task to figure out :eek: I am assuming that space-time behaves like a compressible fluid flow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_dynamics#Compressible_vs_incompressible_flow Non-linear partial differential equations ...more fun :eek: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nonlinear_partial_differential_equations There have been models of this kind of thinking already, as I said each falls short of duplicating the success of GR in some way. I will see if I can dig up a couple later. Most of the current stuff, is along the lines of the paper you linked earlier and gets into or heads toward quantum gravity.., I still have not read it, so that is a guess. Those papers are out of my comfort zone and I generally wind up trying to digest them a page to paragraph at a time, so discussion in that area would be extremely superficial for my part and that is likely being generous to myself. OnlyMe04-02-12, 10:52 AMHere are a couple of papers that look at what I think you are getting at, somehow I think I ran into another but must not have marked for an easy search or may not have kept a copy. General Relativity As an Aether Theory (http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.4572) Einstein-aether gravity: a status report (http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1547) It has been a while since I looked either of these over but as I remember neither suggests they have found "the answer". Aqueous Id04-02-12, 03:48 PMI guess I was commenting on this: Space-time could possibly posses fluid-like characteristics, thereby allowing for a medium of electromagnetic wave propagation Are you wondering why EM waves propagate in space? Obviously we can detect wave propagation in solids or gasses, but we usually can see them in (that is, on the surface of) liquids. So are you looking for some connection between a visual representation of wave propagation, in connection to the phenomenon that we think of -- as far as wave propagation in space is concerned? khan04-03-12, 01:06 AMI guess I was commenting on this: Are you wondering why EM waves propagate in space? Obviously we can detect wave propagation in solids or gasses, but we usually can see them in (that is, on the surface of) liquids. So are you looking for some connection between a visual representation of wave propagation, in connection to the phenomenon that we think of -- as far as wave propagation in space is concerned? It seems that there must be some type of conductive medium, or mechanism, for transference of information[photons] between different points in the universe. I recall reading some speculative idea that our universe could be inside a black hole. Other theories also propose that universes can be born inside a black hole, become pinched off from the parent universe and expand into a region of hyperspace away from the parent universe. I am going to assume that singularity pinch points cannot actually exist. Instead, black holes can have universes inside them but they are not expanding universes; these universes are being computed - as in - they are being computed by a quantum computer. Hypothetically speaking, black holes are natural quantum computers. These universes inside black holes would be continually shrinking ...but to the occupants inside them, it looks like their universe is expanding. Arthur Eddington wrote this tongue in cheek idea in his book "The Expanding Universe": http://books.google.com/books?id=KHyV4-2EyrUC&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=eddington+%22shrinking+atom%22&source=bl&ots=xb60Y2oh21&sig=LXQnX80EgLxQF8TjOkF3MJAFXH8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9316T86dH4Hs2QW6nIWBAw&sqi=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false All change is relative. The universe is expanding relatively to our common standards; our common standards are shrinking relatively to the size of the universe. The theory of the "expanding universe" might also be called the theory of the "shrinking atom" . ... khan04-03-12, 01:19 AMHere are a couple of papers that look at what I think you are getting at, somehow I think I ran into another but must not have marked for an easy search or may not have kept a copy. General Relativity As an Aether Theory (http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.4572) Einstein-aether gravity: a status report (http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1547) It has been a while since I looked either of these over but as I remember neither suggests they have found "the answer". Thanks for the links. Frank Tipler has some interesting ideas, yes :D khan04-03-12, 02:36 AMThe universe could be a quantum computer... :D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_the_Universe Programming the Universe is a 2006 popular science book by Seth Lloyd, professor of mechanical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The book proposes that the universe is a quantum computer, and advances in the understanding of physics may come from viewing entropy as a phenomenon of information, rather than simply thermodynamics. Aqueous Id04-03-12, 07:55 PMIt seems that there must be some type of conductive medium, or mechanism, for transference of information[photons] between different points in the universe. It seems to me that there are two layers of thought concerning propagation in a medium. At the outer layer is what we observe—some type of wave—such as a wave rolling in at the beach. Or I could plot a sound wave (or any other kind of invisible wave) and visualize it as a function of time (or space). From this perspective I can go deeper into analyzing the wave properties by looking into its frequency and amplitude components—its spectrum. If the wave traverses water (such as the ocean wave) or air (such as sound) it gives me a sense of confirmation because it's plausible how this works, since I only have to imagine particles colliding with each other—albeit on a massive scale under a complex distribution of forces imparted by the source. Nevertheless this comports with common experience, whether I relate this to the way billiard balls collide and bounce apart or the way a row of standing dominoes will topple into each other sequentially. This perspective—in which I can visualize the (usually) invisible particle-particle interaction that's embedded inside the group behavior and over huge numbers of particles all forcing collisions in one direction, then another—is what I mean by the inner layer of perception. Here, I'm open to the idea that the particles cross empty space to collide with one another because it comports with common experience. I don't need a medium to send a particle. So even when I'm at ease with the idea of wave propagation in a medium, I have implicitly allowed for particle propagation to occur across some (usually small) span of the vacuum of space. My take on your position is that this is probably acceptable to you, but that you find it harder to allow for the wave itself to traverse empty space, because that's not how it works in common experience. Intuition reduces this to the particle collision explanation, which seems plausible. So I'm wondering if your pursuit for an ether of some sort is a reflection on another kind of problem, namely, that in physics particles have a dual nature in which they also exhibit wave properties, such as frequency, and, contrary to common experience, the waves propagate in three dimensions even though the particle travels in only one dimension (the Euclidean distance, or the projection of 3-space onto 1-space). So I offer this as something to consider, that perhaps it's not so weird that waves propagate without a medium, but rather, that 3D waves "emanate" from the 1D space traversed by particles. That discussion can lead to some observations about wave-particle duality by revisiting the matter-energy and matter-frequency equivalences of Einstein and Planck: E\quad =\quad m{ c }^{ 2\quad },\quad E\quad =\quad h\nu \quad \quad \Rightarrow \quad \quad m{ c }^{ 2 }\quad =\quad h\nu \quad \quad \Rightarrow \quad \quad m\quad =\quad \nu h{ c }^{ -2 }\quad \quad \Rightarrow \quad \quad m\quad \propto \quad \nu \quad \quad \Rightarrow \quad \quad m\quad \propto \quad { \lambda }^{ -1 }\quad Which gives a rationale for wave-particle duality: mass is proportional to frequency, or inversely proportional to wavelength. Considering what frequency and wavelength mean, we can also determine that mass is inversely proportional to an amount of time or space, depending on which formulation we pick. I say this because we commonly think of a particle in terms of an infinitesimal mass. To some extent this is an arbitrary selection we make based on perception; we could just as easily think of the particle as an infinitesimal wave of a particular frequency. As a corollary, we can describe its mass (in magnitude) in terms of an amount of time (to complete one cycle), or an amount of space (to hold one wavelength)—as an inverse relationship, that is. My purpose in saying this is to note that I can readily accept that particle collisions produce the propagation of sound waves in air, and that I can readily accept the way the collisions must occur between air molecules in the interstitial vacuum of space within the air. Once I accept the above formulation, then I can begin to visualize the propagation of a wave in the vacuum of free space, merely from the viewpoint that this must be what is happening even if it doesn't seem as intuitively obvious. I recall reading some speculative idea that our universe could be inside a black hole. Other theories also propose that universes can be born inside a black hole, become pinched off from the parent universe and expand into a region of hyperspace away from the parent universe. I am going to assume that singularity pinch points cannot actually exist. Instead, black holes can have universes inside them but they are not expanding universes; these universes are being computed - as in - they are being computed by a quantum computer. Hypothetically speaking, black holes are natural quantum computers. These universes inside black holes would be continually shrinking ...but to the occupants inside them, it looks like their universe is expanding. Suppose I accept that the universe springs from a Big Bang event billions of years ago. And suppose I further accept that space and time are created in the Big Bang. I don't find it too hard to believe that time and space are created. For one thing, it helps me get around the possibility that time extends infinitely into the past, which is itself a puzzle...namely: how does the clock ever get to the present if it has to work its way out of an infinite past? I can set that problem aside when I go with the idea that time and space are created. In a sense it seems more plausible. Now another problem crops up. This implies a prerequisite: a timeless, spaceless origin, a point of convergence looking back into the cone as I imagine I must do in contemplating it. I am now required to accept that there is a domain (the origin) in which neither time nor space exist. If so, then this domain must exist for all time—that is, it must be eternal. I infer this from the fact that its clock never advances, therefore it's always "there" no matter where we mark time on the world line. Furthermore, if I note that the oldest epochs are the ones coming at me from all directions, as in the most distant of light sources, or the cosmic microwave background itself, then another problem comes up. Now I must convince myself that no matter where I look, in any angles of azimuth and elevation, I am staring into that cone that converges to the eternal spaceless point. I am left to visualize the universe as a gigantic sphere having an inner surface that contains the largest possible area that can fit within the bounds of space. If I infer that this sphere is inflating like a balloon at the speed of light, then this "inner surface" is what is expanding. I can further equate this imagined "surface" as the boundary condition that existed at the birth of spacetime. Thus, if I could "cross over" that boundary, at any point on this imagined surface, I would "enter" that origin, namely, that original domain which is timeless and spaceless. By this reasoning, I am required to imagine that the universe is imploding inside this dimensionless point. In other words, the reasoning I have followed seems to require that we are stuffed inside the Big Bang singularity itself. Furthermore, the dimensionless point which forms the "shell" of the universe, since it is timeless, is a vantage point from which an observer would look out onto all that ever was and ever will be—supposing, of course, that anything could be seen across the event horizon. Furthermore, suppose I were to connect the idea that wherever there exists a singularity, there must be a cone that looks back to the origin. This would imply that anywhere that I could traverse an event horizon, I would simply end up at the same common point, the origin, looking back at the universe, that is, all that ever was and ever will be. Finally, if I incorporate the idea from string theory that all matter is composed of quantum singularities, then I would conclude that crossing a quantum event horizon leads to its singularity which is identical to that same timeless spaceless origin, peering out over the entire universe in its entire continuum, that is, all that ever was and ever will be. In this case I arrive "outside" the "shell" of the universe by something akin to a wormhole which is tied to the most infinitesimal object of all, a string. That is, this wormhole joins the largest and smallest possible realms by delivering each string to the outermost shell of the universe. I would liken this to the way the limit, as x→∞ ,of f(x)=x, and the limit, as x→0, of g(x)=1/x, would both converge at infinity. This leaves me to consider the universe as a complex of involuted "surfaces" that bend the outermost, largest surface conceivable, inside-out, into a zillion quantum singularities that "boil up" inside the sphere. Since the "inner surface" is ever-expanding, then there would seem to be some kind of correspondence to the generation of strings directly from the outer expansion. By involution, I mean something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_w4HYXuo9M I have no idea whether the solution given in the video is legitimate, or even if that quick knot-tying at the end might suggest a something as improbable as a Calabi-Yau manifold, but there seems to be some kind of inference like this which must be required upon accepting the idea that time and space are created in the Big Bang. khan04-04-12, 01:47 AMSo I'm wondering if your pursuit for an ether of some sort is a reflection on another kind of problem, namely, that in physics particles have a dual nature in which they also exhibit wave properties, such as frequency, and, contrary to common experience, the waves propagate in three dimensions even though the particle travels in only one dimension (the Euclidean distance, or the projection of 3-space onto 1-space). My idea of etherized space-time is related to this definition of perfect fluid, with slight differences that I am still trying to figure out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_fluid Real fluids are "sticky" and contain (and conduct) heat. Perfect fluids are idealized models in which these possibilities are neglected. Specifically, perfect fluids have no shear stresses, viscosity, or heat conduction. The energy momentum tensor of Einstein's field equations also includes pressure terms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutions_of_the_Einstein_field_equations#Solving_ the_equations The outer surface shell of a universe inside a black hole would be the holographic two dimensional surface encoding information and the inward projection of the collapsing surface as the black hole undergoes accelerated evaporation towards the end of its life time would become an accelerated computation, whereby the universe within would evolve and "compute". The collapsing surface would add a third dimension, a depth perception of a three dimensional world for the occupants within. The speed of light in vacuum as seen by the inner observers, would be the rate of computation of the inner black hole universe. This leaves me to consider the universe as a complex of involuted "surfaces" that bend the outermost, largest surface conceivable, inside-out, into a zillion quantum singularities that "boil up" inside the sphere. Since the "inner surface" is ever-expanding, then there would seem to be some kind of correspondence to the generation of strings directly from the outer expansion. By involution, I mean something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_w4HYXuo9M I have no idea whether the solution given in the video is legitimate, or even if that quick knot-tying at the end might suggest a something as improbable as a Calabi-Yau manifold, but there seems to be some kind of inference like this which must be required upon accepting the idea that time and space are created in the Big Bang. The curled up dimensions and something called T-duality might be an interesting avenue of approach, not sure :shrug: I am trying to figure out Eddington's ideas for the -incredible shrinking atom universe - that he mentioned and I quoted a couple of posts ago. It would be an inverse of what we think of as an expanding space-time where matter is held constant. It would be a type of shrinking universe where gravity is attractive at close distances and repulsive at when galaxies are far apart. AlphaNumeric04-04-12, 01:44 PMNon-linear partial differential equations ...more fun :eek: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nonlinear_partial_differential_equationsWe lcome to the real world of physics, things aren't nice. So have you got any actual quantitative ideas or are you just throwing around buzzwords? khan04-05-12, 12:38 AMWelcome to the real world of physics, things aren't nice. So have you got any actual quantitative ideas or are you just throwing around buzzwords? With your patience and kind permission I may be stuck in the pseudoscientific buzzword mode for awhile, here, in the pseudoscience forum. :D Given the diameter of any circle, pi is a constant ratio of circumference/diameter. Big circles and small circles all have this constant ratio. For a shrinking universe, the occupants within would see the universe as expanding but it would actually be shrinking. General Relativity predicts singularities. Maybe GR is still an incomplete theory, not sure :shrug: A dark fluid would make matter attractive at close distances and repulsive at far distances. Dark matter and dark energy could be two aspects of this one etherized fluid. Pressure would continually increase but the ratio remains constant. The pressure might be expressed as the cosmological constant. Black holes could be quantum computers and they could be computing entire universes - within them. The two dimensional surface of the black hole would be holographically encoded in some form. The Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric can be used to describe a contracting universe but I am not sure how to derive a shrinking universe with shrinking matter that looks like an expanding universe from inside and it probably needs quantum theory also. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Robertson% E2%80%93Walker_metric ... khan04-06-12, 03:19 AMAlbert Einstein wrote this paper in 1939 and he did not believe that singularities could actually exist: http://www.cscamm.umd.edu/tiglio/GR2011/Syllabus_files/EinsteinSchwarzschild.pdf Singularities might not actually form... :D http://blog.case.edu/case-news/2007/06/20/blackholes [...] "If you define the black hole as some place where you can lose objects, then there is no such thing because the black hole evaporates before anything is seen to fall in," [...] The physicists are quick to assure astronomers and astrophysicists that what is observed in gravity pulling masses together still holds true, but what is controversial about the new finding is that "from an external viewer's point it takes an infinite amount of time to form an event horizon and that the clock for the objects falling into the black hole appears to slow down to zero," said Krauss, director of Case's Center for Education and Research in Cosmology. http://phys.org/news101560368.html Researchers may have solved information loss paradox to find black holes do not form [...] The masses on the edge of the incipient black hole continue to appear into infinity that they are collapsing but never fall over inside what is known as the event horizon, the region from which there is no return, according to the researchers. By starting out with something that was nonsingular and then collapsing that matter, they were determined to see if an event horizon formed, signaling the creation of a black hole. The mass shrinks in size, but it never gets to collapse inside an event horizon due to evidence of pre-Hawking radiation, a non-thermal radiation that allows information of the nature of what is collapsing to be recovered far from the collapsing mass. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0609024 One qualitative prediction for etherized universes within black holes is that as the black hole evaporates and shrinks, it heats up. The temperature of the universes within them should begin to increase with respect to an era of previous cooling. No big rip :shrug: khan04-07-12, 12:55 AMThis perspective—in which I can visualize the (usually) invisible particle-particle interaction that's embedded inside the group behavior and over huge numbers of particles all forcing collisions in one direction, then another—is what I mean by the inner layer of perception. Here, I'm open to the idea that the particles cross empty space to collide with one another because it comports with common experience. I don't need a medium to send a particle. So even when I'm at ease with the idea of wave propagation in a medium, I have implicitly allowed for particle propagation to occur across some (usually small) span of the vacuum of space. With the two slit experiment, even by sending photons through one at a time, the diffraction pattern still emerges. Richard Feynman said that the entire mystery of quantum mechanics is in the double-slit experiment. Holgram wave interference patterns could set up ether channels that give statistical binomial distribution diffraction patterns for the two slit experiment for single particles. :shrug: A combination of bean machines could simulate the diffraction patterns... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bean_machine http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/2879/tsesim.png khan04-15-12, 02:57 AMThis appears as a very interesting idea to me, gravity as the force of quantum entanglement :cool: http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.4568 Gerhard Kemmerer06-16-12, 05:45 AMEinstein's ether: http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html Khan, I just want to thank you for this reference, this has cleared up so much for me. I did not know that Einstein did not dismiss ether, but only the mechanics attributed to it. I believe those pioneers were on the right track, and would have discovered, sooner or later that ether has the qualities to produce all the physical properties we know, Einstein did not deny that. thanks Khan! Aqueous Id06-16-12, 09:56 AMEinstein did not dismiss what? We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it. JJM06-16-12, 11:35 AMHowdy.....Hello.....Fractals. Work it out. Answers are there. Cause and Effect. Laws of Identity. Allow ability. N/1/n. Exactitude. Were I to tell you, you would play your games and deny it. So I won't tell you. Find it out yourselves. Action, re-action. Pre baryon to post baryon. I have said too much. One of the many answers of infinity, is size. Aqueous Id06-16-12, 11:38 AM:DJJM, Not sure. What you're saying. Because. It's not clear. To me anyway. :D OnlyMe06-16-12, 12:00 PMEinstein did not dismiss what? We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it. And so, other than the, "dismiss what" statement.., your comment or interpretation is? I almost responded to the last post earlier, but it generally gets rather involved, or begins another whole discussion. Still there are a few things I would have anyone who reads that address, or any historical account, keep in mind... That 1920 address was to students and faculty at a German University. SR had been introduced only 15 years earlier and GR essentially 5 years earlier. The education system had not yet, at least fully, incorporated the revolution in thought represented by SR, let alone GR. There was still some controversy on the whole subject at the time. Einstein was essentially introducing his theory of GR to a group of people who had been educated from a perspective that was rooted in the Luminefierous Aether... An audience is far more receptive to new ideas if they are framed within a context that incorporates what they already believe or have learned. I read that address as an attempt to frame the discussion in a way that the audience could then read or study GR, from a less biased perspective. There are many who believe that SR dismissed the idea of an ether. This is a common thread in current education. It is not really the case. What SR did was to demonstrate that the ether is not necessary to explain experience. Specifically as it relates to Maxwell's work and the dynamics of moving bodies. As an after affect, it would be accurate to say that the Luminefiferous Aether, which was tied to the ridged Newtonian definition of space, was displaced by SR. One can say that in the aftermath of SR and GR the idea that the aether exists ridgedly fixed in the background, as was Newton's idea of space, was overthrown for a spacetime and even an ether of some sort, that was a dynamic counterpart to the material objects within it..., though the word ether has been so associated with the early definition of the mid 1800's that the word itself generates generally violent reactions, in the scientific community. The last portion you placed in bold above, really only expresses the limitations of the day. It associates what ever intrinsic substance, space must have to interact with mass (or material objects), with an at least at the time unmeasureable substance. It separated the ether of GR and spacetime from mass, matter and the material objects that were known and measureable at the time. Today there are a number of different ways the same basic intrinsic substance is defined or discussed. Most of them do not improve on the unmeasureable nature of that intrinsic substance, though they suggest a number of names for it... Think, cosmological constant, dark energy, perhaps even dark matter in some models, and the ZPF of vacuum energy in QM. The last perhaps comes closest to something measurable, of the lot. Yet even there a great deal of uncertainty remains. When reading historical records of events and ideas, such as Einstein's address in Leyden, it is important to remember the context and the understanding of the day, within which it was given. We cannot always read history literally from today's perspective and understand its historical intent. The second point is that, there must be some truth to the idea that space or spacetime has some independent intrinsic substance.., and the the exact nature of that substance still eludes us. Gerhard Kemmerer06-16-12, 09:04 PM[QUOTE=Aqueous Id;2948597]Einstein did not dismiss what? Einstein saw that the ideas of aether at the time, were not sufficient, without denying the exixtence of it as modern science has chosen to do. I understand Einstein, he writes clearly and inclusively. I do not understand interpretations of his work by others. Gerhard Kemmerer06-16-12, 09:14 PMFractals. Work it out. Answers are there. Cause and Effect. Laws of Identity. Allow ability. N/1/n. Exactitude. One of the characteristics of aether is the repetition of the same conditions that engender a proliferation of space and time effects. Aether or the background force as I call it, has dual properties that work pardoxically, producing interactions that can best be described as fractals that defy definition by common dimensions. Talk to me. Aqueous Id06-16-12, 09:19 PMI suppose once you've left behind the notion that the ether is the "medium that undulates", then you've accepted what Einstein meant by "The idea of motion may not be applied to it." That pretty well puts the OP to bed. Gerhard Kemmerer06-16-12, 09:33 PMThe second point is that, there must be some truth to the idea that space or spacetime has some independent intrinsic substance.., and the the exact nature of that substance still eludes us. Your entire post, appropriate and informative. OnlyMe06-16-12, 09:42 PMI suppose once you've left behind the notion that the ether is the "medium that undulates", then you've accepted what Einstein meant by "The idea of motion may not be applied to it." That pretty well puts the OP to bed. I don't think you can separate that portion of the statement from the sentence immediately preceding it. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. Taken together it seems to me that the intent is directed more toward the idea that spacetime or the ether of GR cannot be thought of as having parts. Motion and tracked through time are similar, if not equivalent concepts. The thing is that spacetime itself must be thought of as a dynamic partner in the kinetics of material objects. An object at the center of a gravity well moves in space and spacetime. As it does so the gravity well, and associated curvature of space moves with it. Spacetime is dynamic, it just is not comprised of parts that can be pondered and measured, in the same way we can observe and measure the size and motion of "objects". Still the curvature of spacetime is not fixed, as was the case within the Newtonian view. It is dynamic and changes over time, in relation to the objects within it. Aqueous Id06-16-12, 09:59 PMAnd so, other than the, "dismiss what" statement.., your comment or interpretation is? Einstein has no use for ether in the non-relativistic scenarios. Einstein was essentially introducing his theory of GR to a group of people who had been educated from a perspective that was rooted in the Luminefierous Aether... I got that. There are many who believe that SR dismissed the idea of an ether. This is a common thread in current education. It is not really the case. What SR did was to demonstrate that the ether is not necessary to explain experience. Specifically as it relates to Maxwell's work and the dynamics of moving bodies. The "sea of undulating stuff" of the non-relativistic scenarios is what keeps raring its ugly head. though the word ether has been so associated with the early definition of the mid 1800's that the word itself generates generally violent reactions, in the scientific community. It's a silly antiquated notion from ancient history, when waves needed an ocean to convey them. The last portion you placed in bold above, really only expresses the limitations of the day. Since Einstein's words were being taken in vain, I was just giving him a chance to defend himself. It associates what ever intrinsic substance, space must have to interact with mass (or material objects), with an at least at the time unmeasureable substance. It separated the ether of GR and spacetime from mass, matter and the material objects that were known and measureable at the time. Einstein isn't talking about substance, or any "ponderable media", or which has parts that can be tracked through time, or motion. He's disavowing all of that. Today there are a number of different ways the same basic intrinsic substance is defined or discussed. Most of them do not improve on the unmeasureable nature of that intrinsic substance, though they suggest a number of names for it... Think, cosmological constant, dark energy, perhaps even dark matter in some models, and the ZPF of vacuum energy in QM. The last perhaps comes closest to something measurable, of the lot. Yet even there a great deal of uncertainty remains. Before going off into the deep end I think we need to dispel the more common allusion to the undulating "ponderable media", down here in the shallows. When reading historical records of events and ideas, such as Einstein's address in Leyden, it is important to remember the context and the understanding of the day, within which it was given. We cannot always read history literally from today's perspective and understand its historical intent.That caveat needs to apply to the folks who are trying to resurrect conventional ether from the remarks at Leydon. The second point is that, there must be some truth to the idea that space or spacetime has some independent intrinsic substance.., and the the exact nature of that substance still eludes us. I think the disagreement turns on the difference between substance and essence. Gerhard Kemmerer08-04-12, 05:18 PMAt about that time, science was heading down another road of philosophy. The SR and GR theories were appealing to that new philosophy, because it seemed to satisfy the need to dismiss any other context for the existence of matter. Matter in their minds was increasingly self existent, whereas before the pioneers were clearly influenced by a religious philosophy that acknowledged greater forces responsible for the existence of matter. However, prior to those times of great advancement in science, the church had effectively suffocated any rationale. For a short period, in pace with the reformation by Protestants, science went forward rapidly, then around the 1860's it began to grind to a halt. By the time Einstein came into the picture, science had well pushed God out of the picture. Two things resulted, the world would be left with no significant progress in the understanding of the nature of matter, and the ongoing technology would hardly go beyond the basics of electromagnetism as discovered by the pioneers. What we are left with, is hybridised forms of em technology, and a scientific world that is as closely guarded as a cult. A repetition of history in a different manner. Prof.Layman08-04-12, 06:09 PMSurprised no one ever tried to take another approuch to describe the wavelike properties of massless particles by describing them as a four dimensional translation of them traveling around a lower dimensional unit circle without time, actually I am not that surprised. :) It would be all bah-humbug, lower dimensions. It would be interesting to find that string theory could predict wavelike properties from particles traveling in higher curled up dimensions. Just seems like deriving trig functions would be the easiest way to get to a mathmatical wave. Post ReplyCreate New Thread