Luminiferous Aether Exists!

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Mazulu, Jun 19, 2012.

1. MazuluBannedBanned

Messages:
3,090
The luminiferous aether is a medium that propagates light (through a vacuum). The carrier for electromagnetism is the virtual photon. A virtual photon is a photon that only exists for a short time because it doesn't have enough energy. If you add energy, then virtual photons become real photons.

The scientific community claims that the aether does not exist. Can someone explain to me why virtual photons, which fill the vacuum of space everywhere in the universe, are not the luminiferous aether?

3. OnlyMeValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,914
The luminiferous aether was an 18th century construct, which was fixed in space. It did not interact with matter and did not move, though matter moved through it.

The virtual particles of QM are dynamic. They move and do interact with matter. It is difficult to characterize them as the medium for the propagation of light. They are a form of EM radiation, jus as light itself is.

The Dynamical Casimir Effect is a case where virtual photons become "real" photons. However, I am unsure that this has been conclusively experimentally demonstrated. I have not followed the peer review of the one case I have read about.

There are some aspects of both GR and QM that seem to be similar to an ether, but they are nothing like the luminiferous aerther... And there is so much misinformation and so many fringe ideas involving the ether, that the word itself has come to be a problem. It remains so closely defined by the past and characteristics that are inconsistent with modern experience, that it is of little real use in a serious discussion.

Part of the continuing problem is that where lay oriented discussions are concerned, there is no good alternative and the mathematics and technical descriptions are of little use in lay discussions.

Anyway, the luminiferous aether, as commonly defined is not consistent with experience. It is therefor of no use in discussions and descriptions of the world as we have come to understand it.

5. MazuluBannedBanned

Messages:
3,090
I didn't expect to find such a well articulated rebuttal. Finally, this allows us to get down to the heart of the issue.

If the words luminiferous aether are too charged with magical connotations and misinformation, then let's chuck it. But we still need a medium for light propagation plus other things. I've already raised a concern that cosmologists observe a very finely tuned universe. That doesn't happen by accident. Time and distance have to be calibrated, and I have an idea how nature does that.

Then, there is the issue of permitivity and permeability of free space. Anywhere and everywhere in the universe, $c^2\epsilon_0\mu_0 = 1$. Even when there aren't any photons around, permitivity and permeability are exactly related to the speed of light.

Next, there is the invariance of the speed of light. Einstein set down two postulates for SR. The second one is,

But nobody can explain how nature accomplishes this. They only say that they observe it, it's an Einstein postulate, and nobody questions it.

Gotta go, be back later.

7. MazuluBannedBanned

Messages:
3,090
I've been telling you that nature needs a medium to calibrate distance and time. Nature constructs her own inertial and accelerating reference frames out of waves: fully energized waves, virtual photon waves, and non energized waves. Along the x-direction, from x = x_a = 0 m to x = x_b = 300meters, nature uses the full frequency bandwidth of electromagnetic radiation of waves going in the -x and the +x directions; this results in an infinite number of standing waves. Let me illustrate with $c = \lambda*f$.

1KHz has a cycle wavelength of 300 Km. There is one thousanth of a cycle or 0.36 degrees of a 1KHz standing wave.

1MHz has a cycle wavelength of 300 meters. There is one cycle, 360 degrees of a 1 MHz standing wave.

1GHz has a wavelength of 0.3 meters. There are 100 1GHz cycles, 36000 degrees of 1GHz standing waves in a 300 meter distance.

1THz has wavelengths of 300 microns. There are 10^5 1THz cycles, 36,000,000 degrees of 1THz standing waves in a 300 meter distance.

These four waves are binded together to become one line of vacuum, 300 meters long in one of nature's inertial reference frames. Virtual photons can form temporarily at any of these frequencies by using available background energy. Or, if you emit radiation at one of these frequencies, it will transmit along the x-axis at the speed of light.

You should be complaining that I am using waves with no energy in them. But I need those empty energy waveforms to calibrate distance. I only described four frequencies, but there are an infinite set, from 0.1Hz to 10^27Hz, that calibrate distance using their cycles/degrees.

8. MazuluBannedBanned

Messages:
3,090
If a line 300 meters long is made up of the full electromagnetic bandwidth, measured out by the radians/cycles/degrees of one frequency, then the next, then next, then you get an idea of how nature constructs a line of vacuum. But inertial reference frame should be in three dimensions. Calculating how nature constructs a 3D vacuum box using waves from every frequency in the spectrum is beyond me. But at every point in this inertial frame, there is a full range of frequencies, emitting outwards sphereically and going inwards spherically.

Reference frames are really meant for particles with mass. So what happens if we put a single electron in this 300x300x300 box of empty space? It gets difficult; the electron, at whatever position it is in the box, it should be treated as if it has a spectral signature. The electron is considered to have established relationships with each frequency in the frequency spectrum of that inertial reference frame. When the electron is somehow transitioned to another reference frame, there is a frequency shift of the electrons signature.

Somehow, velocity information is part of the electrons frequency spectrum, but I haven't figured how to convert velocity (kinetic energy) information of the electron into spectral information.

9. Crunchy CatF-in' *meow* baby!!!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
8,423
Do you have evidence that it exists, let alone propagates photons?

Correct.

Inaccurate. A virtual photon pair is literally a temporary fluctuation in an EM field. The energy sum of the pair is zero and they simply come together and cancel (i.e. the fluctuation is over).

Correct.

It's more than a claim. Reality disagrees with the assertion "aether exists".

Beause they are EM field fluctuations? That's a rather silly question.

10. MazuluBannedBanned

Messages:
3,090
Above, I explained how nature calibrates distances through space by binding together the wavelengths of the full electromagnetic spectrum. This is how nature creates an inertial reference frame.

Now I will describe how nature creates an accelerating frame, in the x-direction. For a time dilation, from point A x_a = 0m to point B at x=x_b = 300 meters, there are an infinite set of frequencies, from 0.1Hz to 10^27Hz, each of which measures that distance using cycles of its wavelength. When there is a time dilation of $t_a/t_b = 2$, then every frequency in the spectrum will frequency shifts $\frac{f_b}{f_a}=2$.

Ho hum, you expected that anyway. Time dilation causes frequency shift. Except for how I defined how nature creates inertial and accelerating frames of reference. Nature uses every frequency in the spectrum, whether it has energy or not. Of course all frequencies have noise. But in this model, time dilation is the effect, not the cause.

11. AlexGLike nailing Jello to a treeValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,304
Did God tell you that, or was it the aliens? Because I find it difficult to impossible to accept your 'telling us' as any kind of valid statement.

12. Gerhard KemmererBannedBanned

Messages:
649
The answer is the nature or definition of the aether. Most concepts of it are a variation or reflection of known physics/mechanics, which concepts I do not agree with.
But it would have the capability to carry any type of virtual particles, including those elements that live on the edge, so to speak, appearing and disappearing from detection.

13. Gerhard KemmererBannedBanned

Messages:
649
This concept is interesting.

14. MazuluBannedBanned

Messages:
3,090
Look at the second postulate of special relativity.
Why is the speed of light the same for all observers? If any physicists or physics student dares to try to answer this question, they usually point to the physics model of relativity, and mumble something about about how we observe this to be true. But nobody seems to understand how nature accomplishes such a clever trick. Why is the speed of light the same for all inertial observers?

Here is the answer. There really is a medium. This medium is made out of waves. These waves are moving at the speed of light. These waves measure all distances with their wavelengths. There is one wavelength for each frequency in the frequency spectrum: $v = \lambda f.$ Distance is measured with wavelengths from each of 10^27 separate frequencies from within the electromagnetic frequency band. Each inertial reference frame is made out of standing waves. There are more than 10^27 frequencies, each with its own wavelength, that measures distance in the inertial frame. Likewise, there are 10^27 clocks that measure time within each inertial frame. These waves are often mistaken for some kind of electromagnetic field that will go away if there is no energy at a given frequency. But these waves don't go away, even when there is no energy at any frequency. These waves calibrate distances from one end of the universe to the other, or as small as the quantum scale. These waves uphold the properties of the space-time continuum model. These waves also provide the vacuum values of permittivity and permeability of free space. When these waves are energized, we see see photons of light travel away at the speed of light. Remember: for any particular reference frame, all 10^27 waves are binded together in such a way that all waves move as a group.

Inertial reference frames are tethered together with accelerated frames. Scientists have the mistaken belief that time dilation causes frequency shift. But the reverse is actually true. Accelerated frames have 10^27 waves, each of which frequency shifts by the same amount; e.g. f to 2f, for each frequency. The net effect looks like time dilation and length contraction in the accelerated frame.

The existence of a medium made of waves traveling at the speed of light is the only way to ensure that the speed of light is invariant for all reference frames. It is these waves that perform all of nature's length and time measurements.

15. OnlyMeValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,914

First inertia is related to objects having mass. Not so much to EM radiation including light. Though there is some connection.

The constancy of the speed of light, in vacuum, is a locally observed fact.

Accepting the obseverved constancy of the speed of light, there have been attempts to explain inertia. There are many papers out there. Following is just the first one handy for reference, Inertia as reaction of the vacuum to accelerated motion.

Approaches along the lines described in the above paper may lead to an explanation of why massive objects and particles have inertia. They don't, at least, directly explain anything about why photons are limited to $c$. That remains for now a matter of experimental and observational fact.

BTW The whole concept of an ether replaces the idea of space. They become indistinguishable. Massive particles, objects, photons and virtual particles all exist within or in space. They are not theirselves space as we currently understand it. Inertia seems to be emergent from an interaction between things that exist in space, not a characteristic of space itself.

As I mentioned earlier, there are some similarities between aspects of both GR and QM and a relativistic ether, but there does not at present seem to be any proof that those similarities represent a description of space, rather than some characteristic of something, that exists in space.

16. MazuluBannedBanned

Messages:
3,090
So every inertial frame has its own unique set of wave frequencies. This set of wave frequencies is the frame's foundation, the medium available for
virtual photons so that Maxwell's equations phenomena can work; for virtual particles so that others force carriers can exist; and for energized photons so that electromagnetic radiation can exist.

The invariance of the speed of light c, for all inertial reference frames, is what opens the door to the question: does light perform all of nature's distance and time measurements?

The answer is: no, not light, but something that looks like light. Something with wavelength that can be used to measure length over huge distances. It has to look like the space-time continuum model for gravity. When it is energized, we see photons of light traveling through it. The only conclusion that really fits is some kind of medium made of waves.

Einstein's second postulate of SR refers to inertial reference frames. So it made sense to describe space as being organized into inertial reference frames. Since time dilation is such a precisely predictable phenomena, then the medium has to interconnect these inertial frames in such a way that the connection upholds the invariance of the speed of light, as well.

To move from one inertial frame to another, you have to accelerate. You have to pass through an accelerated reference frame that upholds the invariance of c. Nature constructs the inertial reference frame medium from the electromagnetic frequency bandwidth. Time dilation and length contraction are predicted and observed phenomena between inertial frames. It makes sense that an accelerated reference frame is created by the frequency shift of every frequency across the length of the accelerated frame.

If inertial frames are made of constant frequencies, and accelerated frames are made of frequency shifts, then what will happen if we try to generate a frequency shift? Nobody has modulated a sawtooth wave with an FM transmitter, and broadcasted it into the LIGO Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory. So there is no data to support, or dispute the idea that transmitted frequency shift can generate a gravity field. If the scientific community was willing to pursue the question (does generating a frequency shift produce an acceleration field?), then we might be able to stumble upon a new form of propulsion.

17. MazuluBannedBanned

Messages:
3,090
By incorporating a medium made of waves, I am in effect describing a ZPE quantum vacuum. Yes, I agree with the article that massive particles interact with the ZPE inertially. The best way I can describe it right now is that every quark and lepton has a frequency signature. When the particle is moved to another inertial frame, the particle's frequency signature has to frequency shift to it's new and proper frequency signature in the new frame.

The exact nature of how a particle is connected to the vacuum is being researched. But I just want to emphasize that inertial frames are made of waves, and that the quarks and leptons in those frames are, in some way, excitations of the inertial frames waves. The quantum vacuum of space, for a given inertial frame, is made of waves; particles are an excitation of these waves.

Last edited: Jun 20, 2012
18. MazuluBannedBanned

Messages:
3,090
The speed of light is invariant for all reference frames. How does nature do that without a medium? No, it's not magic.
Do you believe that the laws of nature are sacred? That we should not try to figure out how nature implements them?

By the way, Crunchy Cat is a cool name.

19. AlexGLike nailing Jello to a treeValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,304
Light does not need a medium to propagate.

But then, you've been told that dozens of times, but it makes no difference.:wallbang:

20. Crunchy CatF-in' *meow* baby!!!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
8,423
I can't answer the question because I don't think the speed of light is invariant for all reference frames. If you take a photon and send it through a rotating fiber ring, it will take longer for the photon to travel through the whole ring in the direction of the rotation than in the opposite direction. Weird huh?

This seems like an unrelated question. The answer is "no". The concept of sacred is subjective and not valuable to me.

*should*, *should not*, this is all subjective and not very relevant.

:3

21. MazuluBannedBanned

Messages:
3,090
Does gravity need a medium to propagate?

22. MazuluBannedBanned

Messages:
3,090
OK, I'm trying to give you guys a reasonable explanation for how the laws of physics are implemented. I'm trying to create a medium out of waves. But you don't want to play along, so fine.

The laws of physics were spoken into existence by the Creator, by God. The laws of physics are implemented by magic. Are you happy now?

23. MazuluBannedBanned

Messages:
3,090
Not only does nature employ a medium, but it uses that medium to measure distance and time. Nature measures distance and time by using the full electromagnetic frequency bandwidth. Every frequency has a corresponding wavelength. The speed of light, $c=\lambda f$ is invariant for all reference frames. Nature does this by measuring every distance and every segment of time using the speed of light. The medium is a built in support system for light. If this were not true, if there was no metric measuring medium, then why would Keppler's Laws be true?

If there is no medium, then there is only one alternative explanation: God did it!