A case for an ether model of physics

Yes, and the moon is made of green cheese if we define cheese to be a mainly silicon rocklike substance rather than a fermented dairy product. That is your argument. That by redefining words, we can keep the old idea. You started by saying, "it is important to be clear about definitions." And then you say definitions are flexible enough to account for anything. Nice logic.

More obfuscation. If you are not arguing for the ether, then you do a very good impression of a duck.

Relativity does not require an ether. It is a purely geometrical argument. The argument that an "ether" would have relativistic properties, would have to boil down to the ether being geometry. The people that support ether theories are anti-relativity. People like you that try and equate the two are held in contempt by both sides. It is a bad position to be in.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hog slop. You should go into politics because science does not seem to be your thing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is correct. The existence of dark matter is inferred based on direct observations of the gravitational effects on matter, gravitational lensing, discrepancies in large objects, etc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi Cheezle.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What an odd 'abstract belief' you seem to be working with, mate.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the already existing geometry of spatial dimensional relativities allow only certain 'packing densities/arrangements' for real objects possessed of real topological properties which distinguish between the objects via the mutual interactions at/proximate to their respective effective 'boundary condition' layer(s) (which may extend deep into the outer layers of interacting sub-constituents, like 'lower electron shell' involvement etc).

Hence the 'geometry' you speak of is merely the spatial packing/interacting possibilities FOR objects existing/moving IN the spatial extent. The geometry ITSELF cannot BE 'object' or 'interaction' or 'arrangement' or 'explanation in itself'.

Only the arrangements/behaviors of objects existing/moving according to the spatial geometry possibilities can be the 'explanation' WITHIN that 'geometry context' of possibilities/actions/arrangements etc 'physical phenomena'.

You believing that "...a purely geometric argument..." is all the 'explanation' context required seems therefore rather naive and simplistic, implying as it does mere abstraction rather than recognition of what the geometry ALLOWS REAL THINGS to DO in the REAL spatial extent.

Geometry is purely a pre-existing spatial dimensional relativity which we have formalized mathematically to reflect that long recognized relativity ever before Einstein's mathematical treatments involving motion within that spatial extent; ever before those 'equations' further promulgated the impression of 'time' as somehow 'real thing' in itself. Whenever that 'time' aspect is examined closely and without any pre-conceived 'impressions' and 'beliefs' based on mathematical concepts ONLY, we observe that 'time' always boils down to being a strictly analytical/mathematical 'degree of variable freedom'.

That is, 'time' is merely abstraction/comparisons of/between motions of 'real things' IN the 'real' 3 spatial dimensions which actually already exist before any 'pseudo' analytical/mathematical 'overlay dimensions' are brought into it by human abstractions from that real fundamental dimensional geometry/relativity OF space, as observed via the behavior/packing relativities between the real objects existing/moving to the observed 'spatial dimensional degrees of freedom' allowable within that real space.

In short, let's not let the currently 'fashionable' abstraction-upon-abstraction method of 'doing/explaining physics' run way with us when we speak of and formulate explanations for the real and unreal things which may be conflated if we don't watch out, and so mislead our understandings as to what is fundamental 'physical' reality and what is abstract 'mathematical' (un)reality.

Good luck and good thinking, Cheezle, OnlyMe, everyone!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Your high school English Composition teacher just committed suicide ... mate.

 

Reduced to comments like the above you depart from any real discussion. If you have any real and currently valid argument put it forth.

In part here you are correct, except I would say GR is a geometric model not argument. As to what that would mean for the concept of an ether within the context of GR, I disagree. Rather than reducing ether to geometry, it requires that one should consider or hypothesize an ether as dynamic rather than fixed. It is the same as the difference between the absolute background metric for space and time in Newton's world as opposed to the dynamic space and time of Einstein's.

When I initially commented on your post #13, I should have just pointed out that your argument was historical and based on a definition of the aether and a concept of the world that is no longer accepted. The point.., your references and comment in Post 13, were a reasonably accurate account of the historical debate, and have little to do with the state of theoretical developement today. Time, space and everything in it today, and yes even an ether if it should exist, are not and cannot be rigidly defined by the standards of the late 1800's. Newton presented a world where objects were dynamic and space, time and the aether were a fixed background reference, Einstein ushered in a new conceptual model where objects, space and time were all dynamic.., and yes within the context Einstein presented even any hypotheical ether would have to also be dynamic. The old arguments and disproofs, centered around the fixed background of Newton are no longer a valid argument within the context of a dynamic modle.

Do you get the difference now? I make here no claim one way or the other on the existence of an ether. My intent was only to separate the archaic historical dialog/argument from the changed dynamic environment of today.

There are still from time to time credible re examinations of ether models, within the context of current knowledge and understanding. None as yet have achieved the predictive success of the geometry of GR, but the two are really different horses. GR does not attempt to define why things are as they are. It only describes the dynamics the interactions involved..., the geometry... Most re examinations of the ether concept are attempts to describe the why or how... Without success true, but then neither have any similar attempts from the realm of QM yet been successful.

 

The scientists called the detection 'direct'. I agree with them. What we still need to learn is the particle physics associated with something very difficult to detect. The ether has been relegated to a figment of crank imagination at this late date.

A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407

Wow, 200 citations for that experiment. Not one to question the experiments conclusions. Lots of papers discussing the derivation of a testable particle model. I'm especially fond of the Mirror Dark Matter proposal. There's several ongoing experiments trying to detect dark matter particles. Citation #199 looks like something I want to read.

 

An argument for a "relativistic ether" reminds me of Pirate Theory. If you take a pirate and chop off his leg and replace it with a wooden peg he is still a pirate. Then replace his hand with a metal hook and his eye with a patch. In the end you still have a pirate. Your idea of a relativistic ether is a similar argument. That you can take the concept of ether, which was proposed as a material substance that functioned as a medium for light, and then you begin removing attributes while still calling it an ether. Pirate Theory does not apply to a concept like ether. You see, a pirate is a pirate because he has sailed the ocean attacking ships and stealing their booty. It is a history thing. If the ether were a thing it is not defined by its history. It is more of a class of things than an particular object. And its parts are not removable. Ether is a much more fundamental idea than a pirate. If you modify the definition of an ether, it ceases to be an ether. An ether that has its attribute of position or motion removed, becomes nothing. If you remove its attribute of being a physical substance, it likewise is no longer an ether. Remove those attributes and the whole concept just vanishes.

 

No not really. You see I was responding to an explanation of the precession of Mercury's perihelion that was completely contrived. It not only could not be correct, but it was a little insulting to readers. He might as well have used the explanation that Mercury is moved about by the flapping of angels wings. It was in fact, pure hog slop.

 

That's not correct.

 

It's amazing how many folks want to believe in something that is as undetectable and totally unnecessary as the ether. Wait. I forgot most folks believe in stuff that's undetectable and totally unnecessary.

 

Well let's see, there is direct observation, indirect observation, is there a third category?

 

While the paper you cited is a very good one, its title is a misnomer: detection via "weak gravitational lensing" counts as indirect since no particles forming the dark matter are being detected. The "detection" in the cited paper is based on an effect of the presence of dark matter, that of (weak) gravitational lensing.
By contrast, all methods of direct detection are based on attempts of detecting the particles that are the alleged constituents of dark matter, the Weakly Interacting Massive Particles. To date, no such particles have been detected, so, there is no direct detection of dark matter.

 

OnlyMe, I hold to claiming that the model given for a resonational vibrational ether will stand up to critical analysis vis a vis Einsteinian relativitistic and quantum mechnanical models, were there to be a dialogue about it. -As far as "virtual photons" that you mentioned, in the model I outlined, the idea is that what we refer to as photon electrons are actually "etheroidal" intermediate-scale energic units, parts of a continuum of energic resonations extending from the atomic and quantal scale level all the way down to the true etheric level. The linking resonance only occurs at the elemental etheric level. The other larger scale energic units are merely "particle capacities" which are formed by aggregative links of the pure etheric units. Photons thus can form and "resonate back down" to smaller scale units in a "virtual" or trnasient-wave fashion as seen in the double slit experiment.

 

OnlyMe: The criticisms of the ether model presented by me essentially all go around in the same old circle. "Our empirical evidence doesn't support the ether so there can't be one." That's sticking one's head in the sand. Think about it. If an ether exists and our empirical observations are intrinsically mediated at a scale (quantal and subquantum) larger than the etheric, of course we won't detect the ether. -There could be a test designed to produce an etheric energy field (which I derived from a secret source of info) but it would be expensive and would need a sponsor with deep pockets. There could be biological fringe benefits. -As far as the arguments you gave for staying with Einsteinian views of phenomena like Gravity and Time, standard theory doesn't understand either one so far. -I claim the ether model of resonance/vibration of elemental ether units would account for both. Time very simply as a rate of vibration of elemental units that filters resonationally up to our quantum world. The rate of Time varies in different macrocosmic settings, because the ambient energy setting changes the rate of vibration of elemental ether units, and the rate change resonates on up to our atomic level.

 

Michael,

Admitting that I have not spent the effort it would take to try and really understand what you are attempting to say, from a superficial overview, it seems that you are making claims, which appear to challenge large portions of existing theory, in the areas of both GR and QM.

Without beginning from some common basic accepted understanding of how the world works, which seems missing in that superficial overview of your presentation, it is difficult to accept your assertion that what you present is consistent with GR and QM. Before you can successfully claim that something will standup to an analysis based on GR and QM, you must present some common shared fundamental basis.

What a superficial review of your presentation suggests is that it challenges, perhaps even overturns much those theoretical models. Given that, I cannot see how your statement quoted above could hold true.

Remember you are posting in the Alternative Theories folder... This allows anyone to post their ideas without the burden of supporting credible reference or proof. It generally results in an environment where the responses you get will come from interested lay persons. Keeping that in mind, historically lay discussions of "the ether" have centered and focused on past debate. As far as I am aware that primarily addresses "the ether" as it was conceptually envisioned in the 1800s. That then is the framework of lay oriented discussion and debate.

On another note, the way you post in close to 500 word single paragraphs, stands little chance of drawing any response from the few credible and knowledgable professionals who sometimes frequent these forums. Not that my tendency to over talk issues and run on, is much better!

=======

Again and as a separate comment on the idea of "the or an ether":

There are aspects of current credible theoretical research which conceptually approach some of the basic components of what could be thought of as a "relativistic ether". Without starting an entirely new discussion, when I use the term "relativistic ether", I refer to conceptual interpretation of existing models which, is both dynamic and fundamentally consistent with SR and at present to a lesser extent GR. These are almost exclusively within the context of QM and areas of QM that are seldom the subject of lay oriented discussions.

 

OnlyMe, I haven't claimed that this ether-model "agrees" with GR or QM. As far as Quantum Mechanics, the way my model would differ from the classical QM model (which as you know involves the concept of discrete electronic "particles" describing orbits around a central atomic nucleus in a neat lattice arrangement, I would ask a simple question: how could this have arisen? My model emphasizes "origins." If standard theory makes no sense from the standpoint of formation and origin, I submit we need to discard or modify it drastically. -In my ether model, the idea is that in the beginning, you had elemental electronic units only. They were in motion in response to resonational and aggregational resonances with other electronic elemental units. As these tiny elemental electronic units moved through space, there occurred aggregational resonances which formed somewhat larger scale units, the protonic and neutronic "etheroidal" units. Being larger, they were slower in terms of resonance and movement, and more or less "sat" in the center while the electronic units sped curvationally around them on the outside of atoms. -This model makes a lot more sense to me than QM's concept of discrete particulate subatomic units that "just are" with no concept of how they arose. -As far as GR, I would only submit the general criticism that it gives no attention to how such a cosmos originally could have arisen. My model has almost no correlation with Einsteinian GR, so your critique about my model failing to address relativistic models of the ether or of Einsteinian relativity, I very honestly see no drawback whatsoever in my model. You can join the crowd and simply assert that the standard QM and GR models are "proven" through observation and maths, but it doesn't affect this ether model's credibility as a new different kind of model.

 

How can you object to a theory when you clearly do not even understand what the theory is saying? The above is a horrific mischaracterization of QM!

 

origin: Perhaps it would help support the ether model vis a vis QM and GR if I compare it (this ether model) with a couple of points made in Einstein's GR. A. Einstein famously alluded to the terminology "spooky action at a distrance" in referring to the observation that "particles" exhibit a sort of connection even when they become separated by vast cosmic distances. -In this ether model, this observation would represent resonance between the particles mediated via instantaneous resonance of elemental etheric energic units along a selective "like to like" pathway across space, due to the specific affinity between the two particles. -There is a coninuous medium, the ether, which acts to transmit the high-affinity resonance between the two particles, no matter the vast distance involved between them. -So it becomes not as "spooky" a phenomenon with the ether model. -Analogously, the observation that light beams from a distant star are observed to bend around the Sun on the way to Earth (which Einstein p;redicted and was hailed at the time as "final proof" of General Relativity) could also be addressed using this new ether model. -As the light leaves the distant star, it is in a highly energized vibratory state and of resonance with other etheric light particles in space. Then, as it resonates with distant stars like our Sun, across space, it has to traverse the much-less-energized space between the distant star and the Sun, which causes it to lose (through resonance with less energized etheric light energies in space) much of its energy. Then, once again arriving in the vicinity of the highly-energized vicinity of our Sun, it once again picks up an increased energic vibration, and, viewed from earth, appears to have "bent" in its course from the distant star. -But using this ether model, the bending of the light beam's path did not result from Einsteinian curvature of space-time, but rather is due to differential resonations of photonic etheric energic units passing through differently-energized spatial regions.

 

It seems the following implies just that. How can your "theory" hold up to a critical relativistic and QM analysis, if it does not at least begin with some common or basic agreement?

I second origin's comment and suggest that you do a little more research into QM. To be clear I am not an expert on any aspect of QM, though I do read papers dealing with various subsections... That said... It sounds like you may have read some very early description of an atom and just assumed that definitions never evolve and change. Electrons are not thought of as orbiting a nucleus.., anymore. In fact if you go back far enough atoms were thought to be the smallest particles of matter. Knowledge and understanding evolve. Sometimes looking back it seems very quickly or in leaps and bounds, while looking forward it almost seems a snails pace.

GR never attempts to describe why objects interact gravitationally the way they they do, though even some noted physicists will on occasion misstate the curvature of spacetime as a "cause" of gravity. GR is four dimensional geometric description of the dynamics of the interaction of gravitating objects. It is essentially an abstract mathematical four dimensional "piece" of graph paper. The graph does not determine the cause, it just describes the interactions, as observed. It (GR) does that as best and accurately as we can, so far. Even if it proves one day to be replaced by some other descriptive model, any model that replaces it will almost certainly incorporate it, just as Einstein's field equations do not negate the validity of Newton's, they just improve upon them and extend the scope of accurate application.