Etherized Space-Time

[khan]

Albert Einstein wrote this paper in 1939 and he did not believe that singularities could actually exist:

http://www.cscamm.umd.edu/tiglio/GR2...warzschild.pdf

Singularities might not actually form...

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

[khan]

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.

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.

A combination of bean machines could simulate the diffraction patterns...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bean_machine

[khan]

This appears as a very interesting idea to me, gravity as the force of quantum entanglement

http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.4568

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

Einstein'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 Id]

Einstein 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.

[JJM]

Howdy.....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 Id]

JJM,

Not sure. What you're saying. Because. It's not clear. To me anyway.

[OnlyMe]

Einstein 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 Kemmerer]

[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 Kemmerer]

Fractals. 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 Id]

I 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 Kemmerer]

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.

Your entire post, appropriate and informative.

[OnlyMe]

I 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 Id]

And 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 Kemmerer]

At 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.Layman]

Surprised 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.