| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Laurent" |
| Date: |
15 Sep 2005 01:09:01 PM |
| Object: |
About Einstein's aether |
Einstein's aether - which the aether I mostly talk about - isn't bound by
time , but by topolgical properties, a set of ratios determined at the
aether scale; frame independent constants. A very small number of fixed laws
by which all matter and space must abide. Physical (real) but non-material
quantities (topological). Time independent continuity and connectedness. We
can also call it topological space, inertial space, or even momentum space.
Aether is what allows EPR (non-local communication) type phenomena to take
place.
Lorentz invariant values originate at the aether level, they are real but
non-material ratios which often help determine Lorentz invariant geometrical
properties of objects. Take the fine structure constant for example, change
its value and you get a totally different universe.
Quantum phenomena are caused by fractal topological defects embedded in and
forming a growing three-dimensional fractal process-space, which is
essentially a quantum foam.
"Topological space (aether) can be defined as a set with a collection of
subsets satisfying the conditions that both the empty set and the set itself
belong to the collection, the union of any number of the subsets is also an
element of the collection, and the intersection of any finite number of the
subsets is an element of the collection." -- Webster dictionary
Even Einstein's non-material aether of 1920 even comforms to topological
quantum field theory.
" But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an
intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that of the
ether of the mechanical ondulatory theory of light. The ether of the general
theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical
and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and
electromagnetic) events. "
" Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of
relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense,
therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of
relativity space without ether 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 ether 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. " ------ Albert Einstein
[This are excerpts from a John Baez essay "Higher-dimensional algebra and
Planck scale physics", published in the book "Physics Meets Philosophy at
the Planck Scale"]
***" ...in topological quantum field theory we cannot measure time in
seconds, because there is no background metric available to let us count the
passage of time! We can only keep track of topological change. "***
" The topology of spacetime is arbitrary and there is no background metric.
"
" Quantum topology is very technical, as anything involving mathematical
physicists inevitably becomes. But if we stand back a moment, it should be
perfectly obvious that differential topology and quantum theory must merge
if we are to understand background-free quantum field theories. In physics
that ignores general relativity, we treat space as a background on which the
process of change occurs. But these are idealizations which we must overcome
in a background-free theory. In fact, the concepts of 'space' and 'state'
are two aspects of a unified whole, and likewise for the concepts of
'spacetime' and 'process'. It is a challenge, not just for mathematical
physicists, but also for philosophers, to understand this more deeply.
" -------- John Baez
"When theorizing about an all-inclusive reality, the first and most
important principle is containment, which simply tells us what we should and
should not be considering. Containment principles, already well known in
cosmology, generally take the form of tautologies; e.g., "The physical
universe contains all and only that which is physical." The predicate
"physical", like all predicates, here corresponds to a structured set, "the
physical universe" (because the universe has structure and contains objects,
it is a structured set). But this usage of tautology is somewhat loose, for
it technically amounts to a predicate-logical equivalent of propositional
tautology called autology, meaning self-description. Specifically, the
predicate physical is being defined on topological containment in the
physical universe, which is tacitly defined on and descriptively contained
in the predicate physical, so that the self-definition of "physical" is a
two-step operation involving both topological and descriptive containment.
While this principle, which we might regard as a statement of "physicalism",
is often confused with materialism on the grounds that "physical" equals
"material", the material may in fact be only a part of what makes up the
physical. Similarly, the physical may only be a part of what makes up the
real. Because the content of reality is a matter of science as opposed to
mere semantics, this issue can be resolved only by rational or empirical
evidence, not by assumption alone." -------- Christopher Michael Langan
http://www.ctmu.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.html
---------------------------------------------------------
There isn't a change in the incoming flux of quantum matter (ZPR, material
space, Guth's 'false vacuum') as much as there is a change in the
information processing, or more simply said, a change in process speed.
Since the speed of light, hence, the propagation speed of fields, must
remain constant for all the other constants to continue to be proportianally
the same, process (mass) has to increase in order to keep up... to a point,
once you go over the speed limit and fields can't keep up, matter
disintegrates.
To measure aether drag all you need to do is measure the momentum of a
moving object.
--
Laurent
--------------------------------------------------------
Some say the aether concept was already discredited, but they are wrong,
please read carefully:
Einstein and the Ether - by Ludwik Kostro
(Apeiron, Montreal, 2000)
"Whether gravitational, electrical, and nuclear interactions can be
encompassed within a unified theoretical structure, and whether such a
structure will be conceived as a plenary space with physical properties,
remains to be seen. But if the history of the successive dynasties of aether
is any guide, we can eventually proclaim:
The luminiferous aether is dead!
Long live the aether!" --- Owen Gingerich
Nowadays, nobody talks any longer about the ether in scientific ortohodox
books, in higher school or university classes, etc., yet this concept has
been one of the corner stones of many rational interpretation of natural
phenomena for a great long time - to such an extent that a good physicist
recently wrote to us that all XIXth century physics tried to "prove the
existence of the ether which was later proved not to exist".
If we ask why the ether has disappeared from the major scenes of our
knowledge of Nature, everybody will answer that Einstein has proved, with
his celebrated theory of relativity, that the ether does not exist. This was
one of those concepts that old physicists were accustomed to use in their
"primitive" speculations, but today, luckily, it has been completely
overthrown, together with other similar relics of "superstition", by XXth
century scientists. It was in that time that mankind has realized the
greatest achievements of ever in science and technology, which can be
interpreted as the goal of a long walk, that began thanks to such men like
Copernic, Galilei, Descartes, Newton,... just sprung out from the darkness
of Middle Ages.
"common people", and even the "common scientist", would be surprised in
reading this book (about 240 pp.), written by the physicist and philosopher
Ludwik Kostro, and intended for physicists as well as for historians of
science, philosophers, or in general for any people interested in the
development of scientific culture. As a matter of fact, it is entirely
dedicated to the troublesome relationships between the greatest scientist of
all times - or at least many people think so! - and the elusive ether.
Let us see the question with the author's own words (Introduction):
"In the eyes of most physicists and philosophers, Albert Einstein has
acquired a reputation for abolishing the concept of the ether as a medium
filling space (or identified with it), which was responsible for carrying
electromagnetic, gravitational and other interactions. Today, this notion is
echoed in textbooks, encyclopaedias, and scientific reviews. However, it
does not fully reflect the historical truth, and in a sense even represents
a distortion [...] Einstein denied the existence of the ether for only 11
years - from 1905 to 1916. Thereafter, he recognized that his attitude was
too radical and even regretted that his works published before 1916 had so
definitely and absolutely rejected the existence of the ether."
The author proves this assertion directly referring to the opinions which
Einstein himself expressed during his life, in a book which is therefore
full of quotations and precise bibliographical references (up to the point
of quoting even the original Deutsch passages in a special appendix). Here
they are some examples of Einstein's thoughts:
"It would have been more correct if I had limited myself, in my earlier
publications, to emphasizing only the nonexistence of an ether velocity,
instead of arguing the total nonexistence of the ether, for I can see that
with the word ether we say nothing else than that space has to be viewed as
a carrier of physical qualities."
Moreover:
" [...] in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak
about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical, as we
will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity. It does
remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to
assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states.
[...] once again 'empty' space appears as endowed with physical properties,
i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to
special relativity [...] ".
And again:
"This word ether has changed its meaning many times in the development if
science [...] Its story, by no means finished, is continued by relativity
theory."
It seems interesting to quote even the following passages by Einstein, where
he somehow admits the rational necessity of the ether, that is to say, the
necessity of conceiving a space which cannot be thought of but endowed with
physical properties:
"There is an important argument in favour of the hypothesis of the ether. To
deny the existence of the ether means, in the last analysis, denying all
physical properties to empty space."
"The ether hypothesis was bound always to play a part even if it is mostly a
latent one at first in the thinking of physicists."
----------------------------------------------------------------
From - ETHER AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY by A.Einstein (1920)
" But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour
of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that
empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of
mechanics do not harmonize with this view. --- *For the mechanical behaviour
of a corporeal system hovering freely in empty space depends not only on
relative positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also on its
state of rotation, which physically may be taken as a characteristic not
appertaining to the system in itself.* --- In order to be able to look upon
the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton
objectivises space. --- * Since he classes his absolute space together with
real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also
something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space
"Ether"; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, ---
*another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real,* ---
to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real.
It is true that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as real something which
is not observable by endeavouring to substitute in mechanics a mean
acceleration with reference to the totality of the masses in the universe in
place of an acceleration with reference to absolute space. But inertial
resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant masses presupposes
action at a distance; and as the modern physicist does not believe that he
may accept this action at a distance, he comes back once more, if he follows
Mach, to the ether, which has to serve as medium for the effects of inertia.
But this conception of the ether to which we are led by Mach's way of
thinking differs essentially from the ether as conceived by Newton, by
Fresnel, and by Lorentz. Mach's ether not only conditions the behaviour of
inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.
Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of
relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum
of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time,
and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory
under consideration.
(Which means that all points in space are interconnected) -- Laurent
This spacetime variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of
space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that " empty space
" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling
us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials
g[greek subscript mu, nu]), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that
space is physically empty. But therewith the conception of the ether has
again acquired an intelligible content, although this content differs widely
from that of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. ---
*The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself
devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine
mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.*
What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity
as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, --- *that the state of
the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and
the state of the ether in neighbouring places,* --- which are amenable to
law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the
Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by
nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same. The ether of the general
theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if
we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the
former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also
say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the
outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation. "
[...]
" ...when H. A. Lorentz entered upon the scene. He brought theory into
harmony with experience by means of a wonderful simplification of
theoretical principles. He achieved this, the most important advance in the
theory of electricity since Maxwell, by taking from ether its mechanical,
and from matter its electromagnetic qualities. As in empty space, so too in
the interior of material bodies, the ether, and not matter viewed
atomistically, was exclusively the seat of electromagnetic fields. According
to Lorentz the elementary particles of matter alone are capable of carrying
out movements; their electromagnetic activity is entirely confined to the
carrying of electric charges. Thus Lorentz succeeded in reducing all
electromagnetic happenings to Maxwell's equations for free space.
As to the mechanical nature of the Lorentzian ether, it may be said of it,
in a somewhat playful spirit, that immobility is the only mechanical
property of which it has not been deprived by H, A. Lorentz. It may be added
that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special
theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether
its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility. " ---- Albert Einstein
----------------------------------------------------
Sir Edmund T. Whittaker in the preface to his scholarly and scientific "A
history of the Theories of Aether and Electricity" published in 1951 said:
"As everyone knows, the aether played a great part in the physics of the
nineteenth century; but in the first decade of the twentieth, chiefly as
result of the failure of attempts to observe the earth's motion relative to
the aether, and the acceptance of the principle that such attempts must
always fail, the word "aether" fell out of favour, and it became customary
to refer to the interplanetary spaces as "vacuous"; the vacuum being
conceived as mere emptiness, having no properties except that of propagating
electromagnetic waves. But with the development of quantum electrodynamics,
the vacuum has come to be regarded as the seat of the "zero-point"
oscillations of the electromagnetic field, of the "zero-point" fluctuations
of electric charge and current, and of a "polarisation" corresponding to a
dielectric constant different from unity. It seems absurd to retain the name
"vacuum" for an entity so rich in physical properties, and the historical
word "aether" may fitly be retained." ----- Sir Edmund T. Whittaker
-----------------------------------
In 1954 P.A.M. Dirac, a Nobel Prize winner in physics in 1933, said -
"The aetherless basis of physical theory may have reached the end of its
capabilities and we see in the aether a new hope for the future." --- P.
Dirac
-----------------------------------
The science popularizer Zukav writes -
"Quantum field theory resurrects a new kind of ether, e.g. particles are
excited states of the featureless ground state of the field (the vacuum
state). The vacuum state is so featureless and has such high symmetry that
we cannot assign a velocity to it experimentally." ---- G. Zukav
-----------------------------------
The very well known Tao of Physics by Capra states -
"This [quantum field] is indeed an entirely new concept which has been
extended to describe all subatomic particles and their interactions, each
type of particle corresponding to a different field. In these 'quantum field
theories', the classical contrast between the solid particles and the space
surrounding them is completely overcome. The quantum field is seen as the
fundamental physical entity; a continuous medium which is present everywhere
in space. Particles are merely local condensations of the field;
concentrations of energy which come and go, thereby losing their individual
character and dissolving into the underlying field. In the words of Albert
Einstein:
" We may therefore regard matter as being constituted by the regions of
space in which the field is extremely intense ... There is no place in this
new kind of physics both for the field and matter, for the field is the only
reality. " (page 210)
--------------------------------------------------------
And they allowed Apollonius to ask questions; ...and he asked them of what
they thought the cosmos was composed; but they replied:
"Of elements."
"Are there then four" he asked.
"Not four," said Iarchas, "but five."
"And how can there be a fifth," said Apollonius, "alongside of water and air
and earth and fire?"
"There is the ether", replied the other, "which we must regard as the stuff
of which gods are made; for just as all mortal creatures inhale the air, so
do immortal and divine natures inhale the ether."
Apollonius again asked which was the first of the elements, and Iarchas
answered:
"All are simultaneous, for a living creature is not born bit by bit."
"Am I," said Apollonius, "to regard the universe as a living creature?"
"Yes," said the other, "if you have a sound knowledge of it, for it
engenders all living things."
- The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, Philostratus, 220AD.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Physical knowledge has advanced much since 1905, notably by the arrival of
quantum mechanics, and the situation [about the scientific plausibility of
aether] has again changed. If one examines the question in the light of
present-day knowledge, one finds that the aether is no longer ruled out by
relativity, and good reasons can now be advanced for postulating an aether.
.. . .
We can now see that we may very well have an aether, subject to quantum
mechanics and conformable to relativity, provided we are willing to consider
a perfect vacuum as an idealized state, not attainable in practice. From the
experimental point of view there does not seem to be any objection to this.
We must make some profound alterations to the theoretical idea of the
vacuum. . . . Thus, with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather
forced to have an aether."
---- P. A. M. Dirac,
"Is There an Aether?"
Nature 168 (1951): 906-7.
----------------------------------------------------------
"...that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum,
without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action
and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an
absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a
competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused
by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this
agent be material or immaterial I have left to the consideration of my
readers." --- Isaac Newton
.
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: About Einstein's aether |
15 Sep 2005 04:40:48 PM |
|
|
"Laurent" <el-jefe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1NiWe.252797$5N3.50172@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Einstein's aether - which the aether I mostly talk about - isn't bound by
time , but by topolgical properties, a set of ratios determined at the
aether scale; frame independent constants. A very small number of fixed
laws
by which all matter and space must abide. Physical (real) but non-material
quantities (topological). Time independent continuity and connectedness.
We
can also call it topological space, inertial space, or even momentum
space.
Aether is what allows EPR (non-local communication) type phenomena to take
place.
I see Laurent is up to his usual tricks of sprouting buzzwords he does not
understand and trying to fob it off as physical insight. It has been
explained time and time again EPR experiments disprove local realism not
locality.
Rest in same vein mercifully snipped.
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "beda pietanza" |
|
| Title: Re: About Einstein's aether |
16 Sep 2005 06:49:45 AM |
|
|
Since the speed of light, hence, the propagation speed of fields, must
remain constant for all the other constants to continue to be proportianally
the same, process (mass) has to increase in order to keep up... to a point,
once you go over the speed limit and fields can't keep up, matter
disintegrates.
To measure aether drag all you need to do is measure the momentum of a
moving object.
--
Laurent
See if you can help me:
( you may read my other posts on the subject).
I have proposed that there is a speed limit to macroscopic bodies,
faster than which the body would melt in to plasma.
The reason, IMO, is on the weakening of the interatomic bounding
forces while the interaction with the ether gets stronger.
What are these speed limits for bodies ????, what for particles????
Thanks in any cases.
Regards
Beda pietanza
.
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: About Einstein's aether |
16 Sep 2005 07:33:15 AM |
|
|
"beda pietanza" <beda-pietanza@libero.it> wrote in message =
news:1126871385.000679.185020@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Since the speed of light, hence, the propagation speed of fields, =
must
remain constant for all the other constants to continue to be =
proportianally
the same, process (mass) has to increase in order to keep up... to a =
point,
once you go over the speed limit and fields can't keep up, matter
disintegrates.
To measure aether drag all you need to do is measure the momentum of =
a
moving object.
--
Laurent
=20
See if you can help me:
( you may read my other posts on the subject).
=20
I have proposed that there is a speed limit to macroscopic bodies,
faster than which the body would melt in to plasma.
=20
The reason, IMO, is on the weakening of the interatomic bounding
forces while the interaction with the ether gets stronger.
=20
What are these speed limits for bodies ????, what for particles????
=20
Thanks in any cases.
=20
Regards=20
=20
Beda pietanza
As you know, the faster we move, the slower existence becomes, this is =
more noticeable when near the speed of light [c]. Clocks slow down and =
measuring sticks shrink. For a space traveler going across the universe =
to the farthest galaxies the trip would feel as long as the blink of an =
eye, almost intantaneous - I say 'almost' because reaching [c] is =
physically impossible - You can't reach the speed limit because as you =
reach [c], mass and energy tend towards infinity, making it a physical =
impossibility. Also, when you reach [c], time is supposed to stop, =
making it impossible to have any process, and a particle devoid of any =
internal process or time can't exist.
Gold is massive because it contains a lot of matter, therefore making it =
more susceptible (heavier) to drag caused by flowing space, not because =
it's being accelerated, but because, as you say, the weakening of the =
interatomic binding forces as interaction with the ether gets stronger. =
Mass augments as objects accelerate because their internal fields need =
to move faster, increasing information processing intensity, slowing =
down time and shrinking the space between components as a necessity or a =
requirement, however you want to call it, not because of caused of =
friction caused by particles as space flows down to earth, as many =
contend.
--
Laurent
---------------------------------------
Gravitation as a pressure force: a scalar ether theory
Proc. 5th International Conference " Physical Interpretations of =
Relativity Theory" (London, 1996), Supplementary
Papers Volume (M.C. Duffy, ed.), British Soc. Philos. Sci./ University =
of Sunderland, 1998, pp. 1-27. Part 1
By Mayeul Arminjon
Laboratoire "Sols, Solides, Structures", Institut de M=E9canique de =
Grenoble
B.P. 53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France
1. Introduction and summary
The concept of an ether means primarily that empty space does not really =
exist. We may believe this, for instance, because electromagnetic waves, =
that go accross intergalactical space, ought to wave in some medium. We =
may also believe this, because quantum phenomena, such as the Casimir =
effect, suggest that "vacuum" actually has physical properties. It has =
been established by Builder [10-11], J=E1nossy [20- 21], Prokhovnik =
[33-34], and others, that the concept of the ether as an inertial frame =
which should be the carrier of the electromagnetic waves (the =
Lorentz-Poincar=E9 ether), is fully compatible with Special Relativity =
(SR). In connection with this, Zhang [41] has recently reestablished, =
against contrary statements, that the one-way velocity of light cannot =
be consistently measured - in the absence of any faster information =
carrier. As emphasized by Duffy [17], the Builder-Prokhovnik =
reconstruction of standard SR from the Lorentz-Poincar=E9 ether concept =
may be criticized on the ground that this construction makes =
undetectable the absolute reference frame and its velocity, which are =
the physical entities with which the construction starts. It would not =
be an appropriate answer to recall that, after all, this is the way in =
which Lorentz, Larmor and Poincar=E9 themselves derived the major part =
of SR: indeed, this methodological oddness - which is not a logical =
fault, however - contributed to bring discredit on the ether concept for =
a long time. Another possible answer would be to insist that, beyond =
physical concepts, one may still introduce metaphysical ones.
http://geo.hmg.inpg.fr/arminjon/PIR96_1B.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------
Vacuum Energy by Mark D. Roberts,
117 Queen's Road, Wimbledon, London SW19 8NS, Email:mdr@ic.ac.uk
http://cosmology.mth.uct.ac.za/~roberts
August 22, 2005
Abstract
There appears to be three, perhaps related, ways of approaching the =
nature of vacuum energy. The first is to say that it is just the lowest =
energy state of a given, usually quantum, system. The second is to =
equate vacuum energy with the Casimir energy. The third is to note that =
an energy difference from a complete vacuum might have some long range =
effect, typically this energy difference is interpreted as the =
cosmological constant. All three approaches are reviewed, with an =
emphasis on recent work. It is hoped that this review is comprehensive =
in scope. There is a discussion on whether there is a relation between =
vacuum energy and inertia. The solution suggested here to the nature of =
the vacuum is that Casimir energy can produce short range effects =
because of boundary conditions, but that at long range there is no =
overall effect of vacuum energy, unless one considers lagrangians of =
higher order than Einstein's as vacuum induced. No original calculations =
are presented in support of this position.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0012/0012062.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------
General Relativity and Spatial Flows: I. Absolute Relativistic Dynamics
Author: Tom Martin
Comments: 26 pages
Report-no: GRI-000607
Subj-class: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology; Classical Physics
Abstract
Two complementary and equally important approaches to relativistic =
physics are explained. One is the standard approach, and the other is =
based on a study of the flows of an underlying physical substratum. =
Previous results concerning the substratum flow approach are reviewed, =
expanded, and more closely related to the formalism of General =
Relativity. An absolute relativistic dynamics is derived in which energy =
and momentum take on absolute significance with respect to the =
substratum. Possible new effects on satellites are described.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0006029
-----------------------------------------------------------
THE ETHER, QUANTUM MECHANICS & MODELS OF MATTER=20
M. C. DUFFY, School of Engineering & Advanced Technology, University of =
Sunderland, Chester Road, Sunderland, Great Britain, SR1 3SD, Tel: 0191 =
515 2856; FAX: 0191 515 2703=20
The first part of this review of the ether concept in present-day =
physics began with stressing the fundamental role of the relativistic =
world-ether, as found in the later papers of Einstein. This ether, is =
best thought of as a unique fundamental continuum of events, into which =
space, time, matter, and fields - as separate entities - are fused. An =
account of the historical development of this concept is given in the =
papers of Dr. Kostro, especially those which summarise his researches =
into the archives of Einstein's later, and often unpublished notes. The =
history of the ether is a very complex one - more so that the well-known =
history of Whittaker suggests - and during any period, there have been =
several concepts, rivalling each other for acceptance. However, one can =
generalise and say that before the period 1916-1920, matter was regarded =
as separate from and prior to space, ether and fields. The ether was =
usually thought of as a medium filling a separate space, and matter =
(ponderable and particulate), moved through ether and space rather like =
an airship through the atmosphere. With the acceptance of general =
relativity, and the geometrised formulations of it, physical space =
becomes to be regarded as prior to matter. As Dr Kostro has quoted, in =
1930 Einstein was to write that "in the new theory (General Relativity), =
the metrical facts cannot be separated from the 'properly' physical =
ones, therefore the notion of 'space' and the notion of 'ether' fuse =
together." At this time, Einstein regarded space (or ether) as the total =
field from which elementary particles were created. The "creation" of =
elementary particles from the physical vacuum is a feature of the =
theories reviewed below. This notion of Einstein was forshadowed by =
earlier theories in which matter was a configuration in a =
universe-filling ether, usually defined as a perfect fluid with =
particles represented by sources and sinks: the theories of Riemann, =
Pearson ("Ether Squirts" - a remarkable paper) and Maclaren are =
examples. The rise of electron theory in the 1890s, and the development =
of a comprehensive electromagnetic worldview, in the period 19001920, =
encouraged physicists to interpret particulate, ponderable matter in =
terms of something more fundamental. The failure to develop adequate =
ether analogues of matter in the period when relativity became =
established, together with the failure to detect the ether associated =
with the Lorentz theory of electrons, and the success of the Special =
Theory of Relativity in 1905, favoured the interpretation of matter in =
terms of geometry. This was not the first time this had been done, =
Clifford in the 1870s had suggested a topological theory of space-time, =
but the Einstein-Minkowski exposition of Relativity resulted in a =
widespread belief that the ether concept was incompatible with =
relativity, and the term fell into disfavour between about 1920 and the =
1960s, though a minority of physicists - some of them eminent, like =
Ives, or Dirac - continued to use it. In recent years, a better =
understanding of the history of this concept, plus the study of the =
physical vacuum, the zero point field, and a revived interest in the =
Poincare-Lorentz exposition of relativity and its use in cosmology, and =
quantum mechanics, has brought the ether back into fundamental physics, =
sometimes under another name. It would be most unfortunate, however, if =
too much stress on the Poincare-Lorentz exposition perpetuated the very =
misconception which the present-day ether theorist wishes to remove. The =
ether concept is not incompatible with General Relativity and the =
geometrised approach to any department of physics. The Poincare-Lorentz =
programme is seen, today, as a physical interpretation in terms of rods =
and clocks, and sometimes using analogues of the physical vacuum, of a =
formal structure which can be given a geometrised expression following =
Einstein, blinkowski, Freundlich, Weyl, and more recent geometers. In =
fact, starting with the relativistic world ether of Einstein is probably =
the best way of introducing any review of the ether in present day =
physics.
[...]
http://www.cet.sunderland.ac.uk/webedit/allweb/news/Philosophy_of_Science=
/quantum.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
In a letter to Lorentz of 17 June 1916, Einstein wrote: "I agree with =
you that the general relativity theory admits of an ether hypothesis as =
does the special relativity theory. But this new ether theory would not =
violate the principle of relativity. The reason is that the state =
[...metric tensor] =3D Aether is not that of a rigid body in an =
independent state of motion, but a state of motion which is a function =
of position determined through the metrical phenomena."
http://www.hollywood.org/cosmology/einstein.html
------------------------------------------------------
Flowing Space by Henry H. Lindner=20
Abstract=20
A simple theory of Cosmic space and motion explains the experimental =
results, unifies our understanding of the effects of motion and of =
gravity, produces no paradoxes, and makes more predictions than =
Relativity.=20
http://www.geocities.com/hlindner1/Writings/Space/Physics.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: About Einstein's aether |
17 Sep 2005 05:34:43 PM |
|
|
Laurent ha scritto:
"beda pietanza" <beda-pietanza@libero.it> wrote in message news:112687138=
5=2E000679.185020@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Since the speed of light, hence, the propagation speed of fields, must
remain constant for all the other constants to continue to be proporti=
anally
the same, process (mass) has to increase in order to keep up... to a p=
oint,
once you go over the speed limit and fields can't keep up, matter
disintegrates.
To measure aether drag all you need to do is measure the momentum of a
moving object.
--
Laurent
See if you can help me:
( you may read my other posts on the subject).
I have proposed that there is a speed limit to macroscopic bodies,
faster than which the body would melt in to plasma.
The reason, IMO, is on the weakening of the interatomic bounding
forces while the interaction with the ether gets stronger.
What are these speed limits for bodies ????, what for particles????
Thanks in any cases.
Regards
Beda pietanza
As you know, the faster we move, the slower existence becomes, this is mo=
re noticeable when near the speed of light [c]. Clocks slow down and measur=
ing sticks shrink. For a space traveler going across the universe to the fa=
rthest galaxies the trip would feel as long as the blink of an eye, almost =
intantaneous - I say 'almost' because reaching [c] is physically impossible=
- You can't reach the speed limit because as you reach [c], mass and energ=
y tend towards infinity, making it a physical impossibility. Also, when you=
reach [c], time is supposed to stop, making it impossible to have any proc=
ess, and a particle devoid of any internal process or time can't exist.
Gold is massive because it contains a lot of matter, therefore making it =
more susceptible (heavier) to drag caused by flowing space, not because it'=
s being accelerated, but because, as you say, the weakening of the interato=
mic binding forces as interaction with the ether gets stronger. Mass augme=
nts as objects accelerate because their internal fields need to move faster=
, increasing information processing intensity, slowing down time and shrink=
ing the space between components as a necessity or a requirement, however y=
ou want to call it, not because of caused of friction caused by particles a=
s space flows down to earth, as many contend.
--
Laurent
---------------------------------------
Gravitation as a pressure force: a scalar ether theory
Proc. 5th International Conference " Physical Interpretations of Relativi=
ty Theory" (London, 1996), Supplementary
Papers Volume (M.C. Duffy, ed.), British Soc. Philos. Sci./ University of=
Sunderland, 1998, pp. 1-27. Part 1
By Mayeul Arminjon
Laboratoire "Sols, Solides, Structures", Institut de M=E9canique de Greno=
ble
B.P. 53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France
1. Introduction and summary
The concept of an ether means primarily that empty space does not really =
exist. We may believe this, for instance, because electromagnetic waves, th=
at go accross intergalactical space, ought to wave in some medium. We may a=
lso believe this, because quantum phenomena, such as the Casimir effect, su=
ggest that "vacuum" actually has physical properties. It has been establish=
ed by Builder [10-11], J=E1nossy [20- 21], Prokhovnik [33-34], and others, =
that the concept of the ether as an inertial frame which should be the carr=
ier of the electromagnetic waves (the Lorentz-Poincar=E9 ether), is fully c=
ompatible with Special Relativity (SR). In connection with this, Zhang [41]=
has recently reestablished, against contrary statements, that the one-way =
velocity of light cannot be consistently measured - in the absence of any f=
aster information carrier. As emphasized by Duffy [17], the Builder-Prokhov=
nik reconstruction of standard SR from the Lorentz-Poincar=E9 ether concept=
may be criticized on the ground that this construction makes undetectable =
the absolute reference frame and its velocity, which are the physical entit=
ies with which the construction starts. It would not be an appropriate answ=
er to recall that, after all, this is the way in which Lorentz, Larmor and =
Poincar=E9 themselves derived the major part of SR: indeed, this methodolog=
ical oddness - which is not a logical fault, however - contributed to bring=
discredit on the ether concept for a long time. Another possible answer wo=
uld be to insist that, beyond physical concepts, one may still introduce me=
taphysical ones.
http://geo.hmg.inpg.fr/arminjon/PIR96_1B.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------
Vacuum Energy by Mark D. Roberts,
117 Queen's Road, Wimbledon, London SW19 8NS, Email:mdr@ic.ac.uk
http://cosmology.mth.uct.ac.za/~roberts
August 22, 2005
Abstract
There appears to be three, perhaps related, ways of approaching the natur=
e of vacuum energy. The first is to say that it is just the lowest energy s=
tate of a given, usually quantum, system. The second is to equate vacuum en=
ergy with the Casimir energy. The third is to note that an energy differenc=
e from a complete vacuum might have some long range effect, typically this =
energy difference is interpreted as the cosmological constant. All three ap=
proaches are reviewed, with an emphasis on recent work. It is hoped that th=
is review is comprehensive in scope. There is a discussion on whether there=
is a relation between vacuum energy and inertia. The solution suggested he=
re to the nature of the vacuum is that Casimir energy can produce short ran=
ge effects because of boundary conditions, but that at long range there is =
no overall effect of vacuum energy, unless one considers lagrangians of hig=
her order than Einstein's as vacuum induced. No original calculations are p=
resented in support of this position.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0012/0012062.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------
General Relativity and Spatial Flows: I. Absolute Relativistic Dynamics
Author: Tom Martin
Comments: 26 pages
Report-no: GRI-000607
Subj-class: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology; Classical Physics
Abstract
Two complementary and equally important approaches to relativistic physic=
s are explained. One is the standard approach, and the other is based on a =
study of the flows of an underlying physical substratum. Previous results c=
oncerning the substratum flow approach are reviewed, expanded, and more clo=
sely related to the formalism of General Relativity. An absolute relativist=
ic dynamics is derived in which energy and momentum take on absolute signif=
icance with respect to the substratum. Possible new effects on satellites a=
re described.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0006029
-----------------------------------------------------------
THE ETHER, QUANTUM MECHANICS & MODELS OF MATTER
M. C. DUFFY, School of Engineering & Advanced Technology, University of S=
underland, Chester Road, Sunderland, Great Britain, SR1 3SD, Tel: 0191 515 =
2856; FAX: 0191 515 2703
The first part of this review of the ether concept in present-day physics=
began with stressing the fundamental role of the relativistic world-ether,=
as found in the later papers of Einstein. This ether, is best thought of a=
s a unique fundamental continuum of events, into which space, time, matter,=
and fields - as separate entities - are fused. An account of the historica=
l development of this concept is given in the papers of Dr. Kostro, especia=
lly those which summarise his researches into the archives of Einstein's la=
ter, and often unpublished notes. The history of the ether is a very comple=
x one - more so that the well-known history of Whittaker suggests - and dur=
ing any period, there have been several concepts, rivalling each other for =
acceptance. However, one can generalise and say that before the period 1916=
-1920, matter was regarded as separate from and prior to space, ether and f=
ields. The ether was usually thought of as a medium filling a separate spac=
e, and matter (ponderable and particulate), moved through ether and space r=
ather like an airship through the atmosphere. With the acceptance of genera=
l relativity, and the geometrised formulations of it, physical space become=
s to be regarded as prior to matter. As Dr Kostro has quoted, in 1930 Einst=
ein was to write that "in the new theory (General Relativity), the metrical=
facts cannot be separated from the 'properly' physical ones, therefore the=
notion of 'space' and the notion of 'ether' fuse together." At this time, =
Einstein regarded space (or ether) as the total field from which elementary=
particles were created. The "creation" of elementary particles from the ph=
ysical vacuum is a feature of the theories reviewed below. This notion of E=
instein was forshadowed by earlier theories in which matter was a configura=
tion in a universe-filling ether, usually defined as a perfect fluid with p=
articles represented by sources and sinks: the theories of Riemann, Pearson=
("Ether Squirts" - a remarkable paper) and Maclaren are examples. The rise=
of electron theory in the 1890s, and the development of a comprehensive el=
ectromagnetic worldview, in the period 19001920, encouraged physicists to i=
nterpret particulate, ponderable matter in terms of something more fundamen=
tal. The failure to develop adequate ether analogues of matter in the perio=
d when relativity became established, together with the failure to detect t=
he ether associated with the Lorentz theory of electrons, and the success o=
f the Special Theory of Relativity in 1905, favoured the interpretation of =
matter in terms of geometry. This was not the first time this had been done=
, Clifford in the 1870s had suggested a topological theory of space-time, b=
ut the Einstein-Minkowski exposition of Relativity resulted in a widespread=
belief that the ether concept was incompatible with relativity, and the te=
rm fell into disfavour between about 1920 and the 1960s, though a minority =
of physicists - some of them eminent, like Ives, or Dirac - continued to us=
e it. In recent years, a better understanding of the history of this concep=
t, plus the study of the physical vacuum, the zero point field, and a reviv=
ed interest in the Poincare-Lorentz exposition of relativity and its use in=
cosmology, and quantum mechanics, has brought the ether back into fundamen=
tal physics, sometimes under another name. It would be most unfortunate, ho=
wever, if too much stress on the Poincare-Lorentz exposition perpetuated th=
e very misconception which the present-day ether theorist wishes to remove.=
The ether concept is not incompatible with General Relativity and the geom=
etrised approach to any department of physics. The Poincare-Lorentz program=
me is seen, today, as a physical interpretation in terms of rods and clocks=
, and sometimes using analogues of the physical vacuum, of a formal structu=
re which can be given a geometrised expression following Einstein, blinkows=
ki, Freundlich, Weyl, and more recent geometers. In fact, starting with the=
relativistic world ether of Einstein is probably the best way of introduci=
ng any review of the ether in present day physics.
[...]
http://www.cet.sunderland.ac.uk/webedit/allweb/news/Philosophy_of_Science=
/quantum.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
In a letter to Lorentz of 17 June 1916, Einstein wrote: "I agree with you=
that the general relativity theory admits of an ether hypothesis as does t=
he special relativity theory. But this new ether theory would not violate t=
he principle of relativity. The reason is that the state [...metric tensor]=
=3D Aether is not that of a rigid body in an independent state of motion, =
but a state of motion which is a function of position determined through th=
e metrical phenomena."
http://www.hollywood.org/cosmology/einstein.html
------------------------------------------------------
Flowing Space by Henry H. Lindner
Abstract
A simple theory of Cosmic space and motion explains the experimental resu=
lts, unifies our understanding of the effects of motion and of gravity, pro=
duces no paradoxes, and makes more predictions than Relativity.
http://www.geocities.com/hlindner1/Writings/Space/Physics.htm
Well, that is just too much for me, I will spent some time to digest
your writings.
If the ether is prior to matter, or coexistent with matter, or a
emanation of matter I don't know, surely though, the ether plays the
part of fixing the local speed of light.
Since SR works even at turtle speed (fixing a adequately low signal
speed, and fixing manually the shortening of rulers and the dilated
time rate of clocks).
Since GR is reproducible substituting the curvature of space-time with
the trivial attractive gravity force in a 3D space.
SR and GR are just geometrical model, nothing physical.
All comes back to straight common sense and I am happy.
Thank you again for your great help,
May I repeat my original question??: what is the maximum reachable
speed for macroscopic bodies conserving their structures, what speed we
reached in labs ? And what are the
maximum speed of celestial macroscopic bodies we have yet detected??
Best regards=20
Beda pietanza
.
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: About Einstein's aether |
18 Sep 2005 11:58:43 AM |
|
|
<beda-pietanza@libero.it> wrote in message =
news:1126996483.381175.24440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Laurent ha scritto:
"beda pietanza" <beda-pietanza@libero.it> wrote in message =
news:1126871385.000679.185020@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Since the speed of light, hence, the propagation speed of fields, =
must
remain constant for all the other constants to continue to be =
proportianally
the same, process (mass) has to increase in order to keep up... to =
a point,
once you go over the speed limit and fields can't keep up, matter
disintegrates.
To measure aether drag all you need to do is measure the momentum =
of a
moving object.
--
Laurent
See if you can help me:
( you may read my other posts on the subject).
I have proposed that there is a speed limit to macroscopic bodies,
faster than which the body would melt in to plasma.
The reason, IMO, is on the weakening of the interatomic bounding
forces while the interaction with the ether gets stronger.
What are these speed limits for bodies ????, what for particles????
Thanks in any cases.
Regards
Beda pietanza
As you know, the faster we move, the slower existence becomes, this is =
more noticeable when near the speed of light [c]. Clocks slow down and =
measuring sticks shrink. For a space traveler going across the universe =
to the farthest galaxies the trip would feel as long as the blink of an =
eye, almost intantaneous - I say 'almost' because reaching [c] is =
physically impossible - You can't reach the speed limit because as you =
reach [c], mass and energy tend towards infinity, making it a physical =
impossibility. Also, when you reach [c], time is supposed to stop, =
making it impossible to have any process, and a particle devoid of any =
internal process or time can't exist.
Gold is massive because it contains a lot of matter, therefore making =
it more susceptible (heavier) to drag caused by flowing space, not =
because it's being accelerated, but because, as you say, the weakening =
of the interatomic binding forces as interaction with the ether gets =
stronger. Mass augments as objects accelerate because their internal =
fields need to move faster, increasing information processing intensity, =
slowing down time and shrinking the space between components as a =
necessity or a requirement, however you want to call it, not because of =
caused of friction caused by particles as space flows down to earth, as =
many contend.
--
Laurent
---------------------------------------
Gravitation as a pressure force: a scalar ether theory
Proc. 5th International Conference " Physical Interpretations of =
Relativity Theory" (London, 1996), Supplementary
Papers Volume (M.C. Duffy, ed.), British Soc. Philos. Sci./ University =
of Sunderland, 1998, pp. 1-27. Part 1
By Mayeul Arminjon
Laboratoire "Sols, Solides, Structures", Institut de M=E9canique de =
Grenoble
B.P. 53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France
1. Introduction and summary
The concept of an ether means primarily that empty space does not =
really exist. We may believe this, for instance, because electromagnetic =
waves, that go accross intergalactical space, ought to wave in some =
medium. We may also believe this, because quantum phenomena, such as the =
Casimir effect, suggest that "vacuum" actually has physical properties. =
It has been established by Builder [10-11], J=E1nossy [20- 21], =
Prokhovnik [33-34], and others, that the concept of the ether as an =
inertial frame which should be the carrier of the electromagnetic waves =
(the Lorentz-Poincar=E9 ether), is fully compatible with Special =
Relativity (SR). In connection with this, Zhang [41] has recently =
reestablished, against contrary statements, that the one-way velocity of =
light cannot be consistently measured - in the absence of any faster =
information carrier. As emphasized by Duffy [17], the Builder-Prokhovnik =
reconstruction of standard SR from the Lorentz-Poincar=E9 ether concept =
may be criticized on the ground that this construction makes =
undetectable the absolute reference frame and its velocity, which are =
the physical entities with which the construction starts. It would not =
be an appropriate answer to recall that, after all, this is the way in =
which Lorentz, Larmor and Poincar=E9 themselves derived the major part =
of SR: indeed, this methodological oddness - which is not a logical =
fault, however - contributed to bring discredit on the ether concept for =
a long time. Another possible answer would be to insist that, beyond =
physical concepts, one may still introduce metaphysical ones.
http://geo.hmg.inpg.fr/arminjon/PIR96_1B.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------
Vacuum Energy by Mark D. Roberts,
117 Queen's Road, Wimbledon, London SW19 8NS, Email:mdr@ic.ac.uk
http://cosmology.mth.uct.ac.za/~roberts
August 22, 2005
Abstract
There appears to be three, perhaps related, ways of approaching the =
nature of vacuum energy. The first is to say that it is just the lowest =
energy state of a given, usually quantum, system. The second is to =
equate vacuum energy with the Casimir energy. The third is to note that =
an energy difference from a complete vacuum might have some long range =
effect, typically this energy difference is interpreted as the =
cosmological constant. All three approaches are reviewed, with an =
emphasis on recent work. It is hoped that this review is comprehensive =
in scope. There is a discussion on whether there is a relation between =
vacuum energy and inertia. The solution suggested here to the nature of =
the vacuum is that Casimir energy can produce short range effects =
because of boundary conditions, but that at long range there is no =
overall effect of vacuum energy, unless one considers lagrangians of =
higher order than Einstein's as vacuum induced. No original calculations =
are presented in support of this position.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0012/0012062.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------
General Relativity and Spatial Flows: I. Absolute Relativistic =
Dynamics
Author: Tom Martin
Comments: 26 pages
Report-no: GRI-000607
Subj-class: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology; Classical =
Physics
Abstract
Two complementary and equally important approaches to relativistic =
physics are explained. One is the standard approach, and the other is =
based on a study of the flows of an underlying physical substratum. =
Previous results concerning the substratum flow approach are reviewed, =
expanded, and more closely related to the formalism of General =
Relativity. An absolute relativistic dynamics is derived in which energy =
and momentum take on absolute significance with respect to the =
substratum. Possible new effects on satellites are described.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0006029
-----------------------------------------------------------
THE ETHER, QUANTUM MECHANICS & MODELS OF MATTER
M. C. DUFFY, School of Engineering & Advanced Technology, University =
of Sunderland, Chester Road, Sunderland, Great Britain, SR1 3SD, Tel: =
0191 515 2856; FAX: 0191 515 2703
The first part of this review of the ether concept in present-day =
physics began with stressing the fundamental role of the relativistic =
world-ether, as found in the later papers of Einstein. This ether, is =
best thought of as a unique fundamental continuum of events, into which =
space, time, matter, and fields - as separate entities - are fused. An =
account of the historical development of this concept is given in the =
papers of Dr. Kostro, especially those which summarise his researches =
into the archives of Einstein's later, and often unpublished notes. The =
history of the ether is a very complex one - more so that the well-known =
history of Whittaker suggests - and during any period, there have been =
several concepts, rivalling each other for acceptance. However, one can =
generalise and say that before the period 1916-1920, matter was regarded =
as separate from and prior to space, ether and fields. The ether was =
usually thought of as a medium filling a separate space, and matter =
(ponderable and particulate), moved through ether and space rather like =
an airship through the atmosphere. With the acceptance of general =
relativity, and the geometrised formulations of it, physical space =
becomes to be regarded as prior to matter. As Dr Kostro has quoted, in =
1930 Einstein was to write that "in the new theory (General Relativity), =
the metrical facts cannot be separated from the 'properly' physical =
ones, therefore the notion of 'space' and the notion of 'ether' fuse =
together." At this time, Einstein regarded space (or ether) as the total =
field from which elementary particles were created. The "creation" of =
elementary particles from the physical vacuum is a feature of the =
theories reviewed below. This notion of Einstein was forshadowed by =
earlier theories in which matter was a configuration in a =
universe-filling ether, usually defined as a perfect fluid with =
particles represented by sources and sinks: the theories of Riemann, =
Pearson ("Ether Squirts" - a remarkable paper) and Maclaren are =
examples. The rise of electron theory in the 1890s, and the development =
of a comprehensive electromagnetic worldview, in the period 19001920, =
encouraged physicists to interpret particulate, ponderable matter in =
terms of something more fundamental. The failure to develop adequate =
ether analogues of matter in the period when relativity became =
established, together with the failure to detect the ether associated =
with the Lorentz theory of electrons, and the success of the Special =
Theory of Relativity in 1905, favoured the interpretation of matter in =
terms of geometry. This was not the first time this had been done, =
Clifford in the 1870s had suggested a topological theory of space-time, =
but the Einstein-Minkowski exposition of Relativity resulted in a =
widespread belief that the ether concept was incompatible with =
relativity, and the term fell into disfavour between about 1920 and the =
1960s, though a minority of physicists - some of them eminent, like =
Ives, or Dirac - continued to use it. In recent years, a better =
understanding of the history of this concept, plus the study of the =
physical vacuum, the zero point field, and a revived interest in the =
Poincare-Lorentz exposition of relativity and its use in cosmology, and =
quantum mechanics, has brought the ether back into fundamental physics, =
sometimes under another name. It would be most unfortunate, however, if =
too much stress on the Poincare-Lorentz exposition perpetuated the very =
misconception which the present-day ether theorist wishes to remove. The =
ether concept is not incompatible with General Relativity and the =
geometrised approach to any department of physics. The Poincare-Lorentz =
programme is seen, today, as a physical interpretation in terms of rods =
and clocks, and sometimes using analogues of the physical vacuum, of a =
formal structure which can be given a geometrised expression following =
Einstein, blinkowski, Freundlich, Weyl, and more recent geometers. In =
fact, starting with the relativistic world ether of Einstein is probably =
the best way of introducing any review of the ether in present day =
physics.
[...]
=
http://www.cet.sunderland.ac.uk/webedit/allweb/news/Philosophy_of_Science=
/quantum.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
In a letter to Lorentz of 17 June 1916, Einstein wrote: "I agree with =
you that the general relativity theory admits of an ether hypothesis as =
does the special relativity theory. But this new ether theory would not =
violate the principle of relativity. The reason is that the state =
[...metric tensor] =3D Aether is not that of a rigid body in an =
independent state of motion, but a state of motion which is a function =
of position determined through the metrical phenomena."
http://www.hollywood.org/cosmology/einstein.html
------------------------------------------------------
Flowing Space by Henry H. Lindner
Abstract
A simple theory of Cosmic space and motion explains the experimental =
results, unifies our understanding of the effects of motion and of =
gravity, produces no paradoxes, and makes more predictions than =
Relativity.
http://www.geocities.com/hlindner1/Writings/Space/Physics.htm
Well, that is just too much for me, I will spent some time to digest
your writings.
If the ether is prior to matter, or coexistent with matter, or a
emanation of matter I don't know, surely though, the ether plays the
part of fixing the local speed of light.
Since SR works even at turtle speed (fixing a adequately low signal
speed, and fixing manually the shortening of rulers and the dilated
time rate of clocks).
Since GR is reproducible substituting the curvature of space-time with
the trivial attractive gravity force in a 3D space.
SR and GR are just geometrical model, nothing physical.
All comes back to straight common sense and I am happy.
Thank you again for your great help,
May I repeat my original question??: what is the maximum reachable
speed for macroscopic bodies conserving their structures, what speed we
reached in labs ? And what are the
maximum speed of celestial macroscopic bodies we have yet detected??
Best regards=20
Beda pietanza
---------------------------------------------
"May I repeat my original question??: what is the maximum reachable =
speed for macroscopic bodies conserving their structures, what speed we =
reached in labs ? And what are the maximum speed of celestial =
macroscopic bodies we have yet detected??"
I don't know, but I'm sure these are all answered in several text books =
and websites, search it.
The reason there is covariance is because the speed of fields must =
remain constant for proportions to remain constant. As objects =
accelerate, their internal fields need to move faster, increasing =
information processing intensity (mass), slowing down time and shrinking =
the space between components as a necessity, or a requirement, however =
you want to call it.
--
Laurent
--------------------------------------------------------
"c =3D 1/sqr(Uo*Ep)... where Uo is the permeability and Ep is the
permittivity for free space" --- Michael Wales
--------------------------------------------------------
[quote from " Higher-dimensional algebra and Planck scale physics "
by John C. Baez, as it appeared on the book " Physics Meets
Philosophy at the Planck Scale " by Craig Callender and Nick Nugget]
"...quantum field theory says that associated with any mass m there
is a length called its Compton wavelength, lc, such that determining
the position of a particle of mass m to within one Compton
wavelength requires enough energy to create another particle of that
mass. Particle creation is a quintessentially
quantum-field-theoretic phenomenon. Thus, we may say that the
Compton wavelength sets the distance scale at which quantum field
theory becomes crucial for understanding the behaviour of a particle
of a given mass. On the other hand, general relativity says that
associated to any mass m there is a length called the Schwarzschild
radius, ls, such that compressing an object of mass m to a size
smaller than this results in the formation of a black hole. The
Schwarzschild radius is roughly the distance scale at which general
relativity becomes crucial for understanding the behaviour of a
given mass. Now, ignoring some numerical factors, we have:
lc =3D hbar/mc
and
ls =3D Gm/c^2
These two lengths become equal when m is the Planck mass. And when
this happens, they both equal the Planck length! " --- John C. Baez
.
|
|
|
| User: "beda pietanza" |
|
| Title: Re: About Einstein's aether |
20 Sep 2005 09:48:44 AM |
|
|
Laurent ha scritto:
<beda-pietanza@libero.it> wrote in message news:1126996483.381175.24440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Laurent ha scritto:
"beda pietanza" <beda-pietanza@libero.it> wrote in message news:1126871385.000679.185020@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Since the speed of light, hence, the propagation speed of fields, must
remain constant for all the other constants to continue to be proportianally
the same, process (mass) has to increase in order to keep up... to a point,
once you go over the speed limit and fields can't keep up, matter
disintegrates.
"May I repeat my original question??: what is the maximum reachable speed for macroscopic bodies conserving their structures, what speed we reached in labs ? And what are the maximum speed of celestial macroscopic bodies we have yet detected??"
I don't know, but I'm sure these are all answered in several text books and websites, search it.
I'll keep searching, I got a answer about a plastic object been shot
at the speed of 90 miles/s.
The reason there is covariance is because the speed of fields must remain constant for proportions to remain constant. As objects accelerate, their internal fields need to move faster, increasing information processing intensity (mass), slowing down time and shrinking the space between components as a necessity, or a requirement, however you want to call it.
I agree on your explanation of the "real physical" shortening of
material rulers and dilating of time rate of clocks.
When I mention macroscopic bodies conserving their structure, I don't
mean their conserving their apparent physical dimensions, I mean,
instead, the inter atomic structure which, I am proposing the
hypothesis, would be destroyed once the macroscopic body reach a speed
limit (a small fraction of C).
Anyways from what you wrote previously :
Since the speed of light, hence, the propagation speed of fields, must
remain constant for all the other constants to continue to be proportianally
the same, process (mass) has to increase in order to keep up... to a point,
once you go over the speed limit and fields can't keep up, matter
disintegrates.
We seem to agree, also, on the on the (far lower than C) speed limit
for macroscopic bodies hypothesis, yet we may never know what these
limits are.
Regards
Beda pietanza
Regards
Beda pietanza
--
Laurent
--------------------------------------------------------
"c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep)... where Uo is the permeability and Ep is the
permittivity for free space" --- Michael Wales
--------------------------------------------------------
[quote from " Higher-dimensional algebra and Planck scale physics "
by John C. Baez, as it appeared on the book " Physics Meets
Philosophy at the Planck Scale " by Craig Callender and Nick Nugget]
"...quantum field theory says that associated with any mass m there
is a length called its Compton wavelength, lc, such that determining
the position of a particle of mass m to within one Compton
wavelength requires enough energy to create another particle of that
mass. Particle creation is a quintessentially
quantum-field-theoretic phenomenon. Thus, we may say that the
Compton wavelength sets the distance scale at which quantum field
theory becomes crucial for understanding the behaviour of a particle
of a given mass. On the other hand, general relativity says that
associated to any mass m there is a length called the Schwarzschild
radius, ls, such that compressing an object of mass m to a size
smaller than this results in the formation of a black hole. The
Schwarzschild radius is roughly the distance scale at which general
relativity becomes crucial for understanding the behaviour of a
given mass. Now, ignoring some numerical factors, we have:
lc = hbar/mc
and
ls = Gm/c^2
These two lengths become equal when m is the Planck mass. And when
this happens, they both equal the Planck length! " --- John C. Baez
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ole D. Rughede" |
|
| Title: Re: About Einstein's aether |
17 Sep 2005 07:12:41 PM |
|
|
May I suggest you have a look at Einstein's lambda-term, which is
neither cosmologic, since GTR can be applied only to a final space, nor
a constant, since it represents the aether parameters of black body
radiation (filling all of the final space in consideration). Hence
lambda is a variable depending on the energy density of the
aether-space, thereby of the local temperature T(Aether), thus being the
real salvation for any solution to be derived by GTR.
The lambda-term therefore rightly should be named and discussed as "The
Aether-Variable of GTR".
Ole D. Rughede
<beda-pietanza@libero.it> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1126996483.381175.24440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Laurent ha scritto:
"beda pietanza" <beda-pietanza@libero.it> wrote in message
news:1126871385.000679.185020@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Since the speed of light, hence, the propagation speed of fields,
must
remain constant for all the other constants to continue to be
proportianally
the same, process (mass) has to increase in order to keep up... to
a point,
once you go over the speed limit and fields can't keep up, matter
disintegrates.
To measure aether drag all you need to do is measure the momentum
of a
moving object.
--
Laurent
See if you can help me:
( you may read my other posts on the subject).
I have proposed that there is a speed limit to macroscopic bodies,
faster than which the body would melt in to plasma.
The reason, IMO, is on the weakening of the interatomic bounding
forces while the interaction with the ether gets stronger.
What are these speed limits for bodies ????, what for particles????
Thanks in any cases.
Regards
Beda pietanza
As you know, the faster we move, the slower existence becomes, this is
more noticeable when near the speed of light [c]. Clocks slow down and
measuring sticks shrink. For a space traveler going across the universe
to the farthest galaxies the trip would feel as long as the blink of an
eye, almost intantaneous - I say 'almost' because reaching [c] is
physically impossible - You can't reach the speed limit because as you
reach [c], mass and energy tend towards infinity, making it a physical
impossibility. Also, when you reach [c], time is supposed to stop,
making it impossible to have any process, and a particle devoid of any
internal process or time can't exist.
Gold is massive because it contains a lot of matter, therefore making
it more susceptible (heavier) to drag caused by flowing space, not
because it's being accelerated, but because, as you say, the weakening
of the interatomic binding forces as interaction with the ether gets
stronger. Mass augments as objects accelerate because their internal
fields need to move faster, increasing information processing intensity,
slowing down time and shrinking the space between components as a
necessity or a requirement, however you want to call it, not because of
caused of friction caused by particles as space flows down to earth, as
many contend.
--
Laurent
---------------------------------------
Gravitation as a pressure force: a scalar ether theory
Proc. 5th International Conference " Physical Interpretations of
Relativity Theory" (London, 1996), Supplementary
Papers Volume (M.C. Duffy, ed.), British Soc. Philos. Sci./ University
of Sunderland, 1998, pp. 1-27. Part 1
By Mayeul Arminjon
Laboratoire "Sols, Solides, Structures", Institut de Mécanique de
Grenoble
B.P. 53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France
1. Introduction and summary
The concept of an ether means primarily that empty space does not
really exist. We may believe this, for instance, because electromagnetic
waves, that go accross intergalactical space, ought to wave in some
medium. We may also believe this, because quantum phenomena, such as the
Casimir effect, suggest that "vacuum" actually has physical properties.
It has been established by Builder [10-11], Jánossy [20- 21], Prokhovnik
[33-34], and others, that the concept of the ether as an inertial frame
which should be the carrier of the electromagnetic waves (the
Lorentz-Poincaré ether), is fully compatible with Special Relativity
(SR). In connection with this, Zhang [41] has recently reestablished,
against contrary statements, that the one-way velocity of light cannot
be consistently measured - in the absence of any faster information
carrier. As emphasized by Duffy [17], the Builder-Prokhovnik
reconstruction of standard SR from the Lorentz-Poincaré ether concept
may be criticized on the ground that this construction makes
undetectable the absolute reference frame and its velocity, which are
the physical entities with which the construction starts. It would not
be an appropriate answer to recall that, after all, this is the way in
which Lorentz, Larmor and Poincaré themselves derived the major part of
SR: indeed, this methodological oddness - which is not a logical fault,
however - contributed to bring discredit on the ether concept for a long
time. Another possible answer would be to insist that, beyond physical
concepts, one may still introduce metaphysical ones.
http://geo.hmg.inpg.fr/arminjon/PIR96_1B.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------
Vacuum Energy by Mark D. Roberts,
117 Queen's Road, Wimbledon, London SW19 8NS, Email:mdr@ic.ac.uk
http://cosmology.mth.uct.ac.za/~roberts
August 22, 2005
Abstract
There appears to be three, perhaps related, ways of approaching the
nature of vacuum energy. The first is to say that it is just the lowest
energy state of a given, usually quantum, system. The second is to
equate vacuum energy with the Casimir energy. The third is to note that
an energy difference from a complete vacuum might have some long range
effect, typically this energy difference is interpreted as the
cosmological constant. All three approaches are reviewed, with an
emphasis on recent work. It is hoped that this review is comprehensive
in scope. There is a discussion on whether there is a relation between
vacuum energy and inertia. The solution suggested here to the nature of
the vacuum is that Casimir energy can produce short range effects
because of boundary conditions, but that at long range there is no
overall effect of vacuum energy, unless one considers lagrangians of
higher order than Einstein's as vacuum induced. No original calculations
are presented in support of this position.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0012/0012062.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------
General Relativity and Spatial Flows: I. Absolute Relativistic
Dynamics
Author: Tom Martin
Comments: 26 pages
Report-no: GRI-000607
Subj-class: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology; Classical
Physics
Abstract
Two complementary and equally important approaches to relativistic
physics are explained. One is the standard approach, and the other is
based on a study of the flows of an underlying physical substratum.
Previous results concerning the substratum flow approach are reviewed,
expanded, and more closely related to the formalism of General
Relativity. An absolute relativistic dynamics is derived in which energy
and momentum take on absolute significance with respect to the
substratum. Possible new effects on satellites are described.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0006029
-----------------------------------------------------------
THE ETHER, QUANTUM MECHANICS & MODELS OF MATTER
M. C. DUFFY, School of Engineering & Advanced Technology, University
of Sunderland, Chester Road, Sunderland, Great Britain, SR1 3SD, Tel:
0191 515 2856; FAX: 0191 515 2703
The first part of this review of the ether concept in present-day
physics began with stressing the fundamental role of the relativistic
world-ether, as found in the later papers of Einstein. This ether, is
best thought of as a unique fundamental continuum of events, into which
space, time, matter, and fields - as separate entities - are fused. An
account of the historical development of this concept is given in the
papers of Dr. Kostro, especially those which summarise his researches
into the archives of Einstein's later, and often unpublished notes. The
history of the ether is a very complex one - more so that the well-known
history of Whittaker suggests - and during any period, there have been
several concepts, rivalling each other for acceptance. However, one can
generalise and say that before the period 1916-1920, matter was regarded
as separate from and prior to space, ether and fields. The ether was
usually thought of as a medium filling a separate space, and matter
(ponderable and particulate), moved through ether and space rather like
an airship through the atmosphere. With the acceptance of general
relativity, and the geometrised formulations of it, physical space
becomes to be regarded as prior to matter. As Dr Kostro has quoted, in
1930 Einstein was to write that "in the new theory (General Relativity),
the metrical facts cannot be separated from the 'properly' physical
ones, therefore the notion of 'space' and the notion of 'ether' fuse
together." At this time, Einstein regarded space (or ether) as the total
field from which elementary particles were created. The "creation" of
elementary particles from the physical vacuum is a feature of the
theories reviewed below. This notion of Einstein was forshadowed by
earlier theories in which matter was a configuration in a
universe-filling ether, usually defined as a perfect fluid with
particles represented by sources and sinks: the theories of Riemann,
Pearson ("Ether Squirts" - a remarkable paper) and Maclaren are
examples. The rise of electron theory in the 1890s, and the development
of a comprehensive electromagnetic worldview, in the period 19001920,
encouraged physicists to interpret particulate, ponderable matter in
terms of something more fundamental. The failure to develop adequate
ether analogues of matter in the period when relativity became
established, together with the failure to detect the ether associated
with the Lorentz theory of electrons, and the success of the Special
Theory of Relativity in 1905, favoured the interpretation of matter in
terms of geometry. This was not the first time this had been done,
Clifford in the 1870s had suggested a topological theory of space-time,
but the Einstein-Minkowski exposition of Relativity resulted in a
widespread belief that the ether concept was incompatible with
relativity, and the term fell into disfavour between about 1920 and the
1960s, though a minority of physicists - some of them eminent, like
Ives, or Dirac - continued to use it. In recent years, a better
understanding of the history of this concept, plus the study of the
physical vacuum, the zero point field, and a revived interest in the
Poincare-Lorentz exposition of relativity and its use in cosmology, and
quantum mechanics, has brought the ether back into fundamental physics,
sometimes under another name. It would be most unfortunate, however, if
too much stress on the Poincare-Lorentz exposition perpetuated the very
misconception which the present-day ether theorist wishes to remove. The
ether concept is not incompatible with General Relativity and the
geometrised approach to any department of physics. The Poincare-Lorentz
programme is seen, today, as a physical interpretation in terms of rods
and clocks, and sometimes using analogues of the physical vacuum, of a
formal structure which can be given a geometrised expression following
Einstein, blinkowski, Freundlich, Weyl, and more recent geometers. In
fact, starting with the relativistic world ether of Einstein is probably
the best way of introducing any review of the ether in present day
physics.
[...]
http://www.cet.sunderland.ac.uk/webedit/allweb/news/Philosophy_of_Science/quantum.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
In a letter to Lorentz of 17 June 1916, Einstein wrote: "I agree with
you that the general relativity theory admits of an ether hypothesis as
does the special relativity theory. But this new ether theory would not
violate the principle of relativity. The reason is that the state
[...metric tensor] = Aether is not that of a rigid body in an
independent state of motion, but a state of motion which is a function
of position determined through the metrical phenomena."
http://www.hollywood.org/cosmology/einstein.html
------------------------------------------------------
Flowing Space by Henry H. Lindner
Abstract
A simple theory of Cosmic space and motion explains the experimental
results, unifies our understanding of the effects of motion and of
gravity, produces no paradoxes, and makes more predictions than
Relativity.
http://www.geocities.com/hlindner1/Writings/Space/Physics.htm
Well, that is just too much for me, I will spent some time to digest
your writings.
If the ether is prior to matter, or coexistent with matter, or a
emanation of matter I don't know, surely though, the ether plays the
part of fixing the local speed of light.
Since SR works even at turtle speed (fixing a adequately low signal
speed, and fixing manually the shortening of rulers and the dilated
time rate of clocks).
Since GR is reproducible substituting the curvature of space-time with
the trivial attractive gravity force in a 3D space.
SR and GR are just geometrical model, nothing physical.
All comes back to straight common sense and I am happy.
Thank you again for your great help,
May I repeat my original question??: what is the maximum reachable
speed for macroscopic bodies conserving their structures, what speed we
reached in labs ? And what are the
maximum speed of celestial macroscopic bodies we have yet detected??
Best regards
Beda pietanza
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: About Einstein's aether |
16 Sep 2005 07:44:05 AM |
|
|
The deal is that Einstein's Theories of Relativity only come into play
at extreme conditions: high relative velocites, extreme gravitational
fields, etc. For ordinary life for us mortals it's cybernetics that
fuel the day: communication and control between systems and within a
system. You do expeience high velocites, but it's in the information
carrier - photons, not in the systems themselves. Cybernetcists have
discovered the real General Theory of Relativity - how any two systems
relate to each other, not just a few physical parameters of the
Universe, such as mass and inertial and gravity.
Fences up toward the Frost Building need fixing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ole D. Rughede" |
|
| Title: Re: About Einstein's aether |
16 Sep 2005 08:30:01 AM |
|
|
Excellent presentation. Thank you Laurent!
To deny the aether is a refusal of facts.
The aether is radiant energi. More specific:
The Aether is the radiant energy filling all of space, enduringly
supplied as radiation from all astrophysical objects. The aether
is characterized by its specific energy U erg and energy density
u = U/V erg/cm^3 of temperature T(Aether) Kelvin. It exerts
a pressure p = u/3 dyn, and its entropy is S = 4U/3T erg/K.
Since u/T^4 is constant, neither the energy U varies isotermic,
nor the temperature T adiabatic. The aether therefore is a pure
bosongas of Gibbs potential = 0 and chemical potential my = 0.
Because the distant observational limit i astrophysics radiates
isotropic in all directions as the inside cavity of a black body
at temperature T(CMBR) = 2.735 +/- 0.06 K, T(CMBR) is
lowest possible natural temperature to ever be observed in the
universe. To reach the absolute temperature T = 0 K would
cost all the mass-energy in the universe. But since T(CMBR)
indicates that the universe is immeasurable, and of a magnitude
far beyond the observational limit, meaning in fact infinite, and
therefore eternal, we have to restrict ourselves to the physics
of final space according to the physical laws which have been
in existence long before the appearance of mankind.
Hence the laws of physics rightly may be considered given by
God as eternal Creator and Maintainant of all created and all
creatures. A concept completely outside the physical sciences,
why any speculation and ridicule hypothesis about the creation
of the universe is out of scientific question and must be left to
the considerations of philosophers and theologians.
When further these physical concepts regarding the aether
lead to simple and consistent physical descriptions, such as
in my latest communication, Aetherphysics, Quantumgravity,
to these newsgroups *), it is only a question of time before
we will see the convenience and the full acceptance thereof.
*) sci.physics, sci.physics.electromag, sci.physics.relativity.
The historic ideas and the remarkable scientific achievements,
which led to our present view, are, though most interesting, not
relevant to the theoretical sciences at present level, but may at
best serve to some critical and perhaps fruitful thoughts about
the so hard needed physics of the aether, which is necessesary
to the understanding and description of the ongoing creation
we observe, for instance in formation of new stars and galaxies.
When the 2. law of Thermodynamics refers only to finite systems
and irreversible processes - but galactic space is infinite, and the
radiant processes of aether energy exchance are reversible - we
seem to need some augmentations in thermodynamics to fully
describe the observed astrophysical processes of phase-shifts
of matter and radiation in the eternal creations of the universe.
As seen to me, we may speak of a multitude of created worlds,
where worlds and galaxies would be synonyms in cosmology.
The aether, however, of only one single eternally persiting entity
mediating all physical fields, forces, and processes.
Speaking of space, we in fact mean the not empty aether-space
of every thinkable geometry and dynamics, where local energy
density and local aether temperature is of greatest importance.
Best regards, Ole
"Laurent" <el-jefe@yahoo.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1NiWe.252797$5N3.50172@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Einstein's aether - which the aether I mostly talk about - isn't bound
by
time , but by topolgical properties, a set of ratios determined at the
aether scale; frame independent constants. A very small number of
fixed laws
by which all matter and space must abide. Physical (real) but
non-material
quantities (topological). Time independent continuity and
connectedness. We
can also call it topological space, inertial space, or even momentum
space.
Aether is what allows EPR (non-local communication) type phenomena to
take
place.
Lorentz invariant values originate at the aether level, they are real
but
non-material ratios which often help determine Lorentz invariant
geometrical
properties of objects. Take the fine structure constant for example,
change
its value and you get a totally different universe.
Quantum phenomena are caused by fractal topological defects embedded
in and
forming a growing three-dimensional fractal process-space, which is
essentially a quantum foam.
"Topological space (aether) can be defined as a set with a collection
of
subsets satisfying the conditions that both the empty set and the set
itself
belong to the collection, the union of any number of the subsets is
also an
element of the collection, and the intersection of any finite number
of the
subsets is an element of the collection." -- Webster dictionary
Even Einstein's non-material aether of 1920 even comforms to
topological
quantum field theory.
" But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an
intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that
of the
ether of the mechanical ondulatory theory of light. The ether of the
general
theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all
mechanical
and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and
electromagnetic) events. "
" Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of
relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense,
therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of
relativity space without ether 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 ether 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. " ------ Albert Einstein
[This are excerpts from a John Baez essay "Higher-dimensional algebra
and
Planck scale physics", published in the book "Physics Meets Philosophy
at
the Planck Scale"]
***" ...in topological quantum field theory we cannot measure time in
seconds, because there is no background metric available to let us
count the
passage of time! We can only keep track of topological change. "***
" The topology of spacetime is arbitrary and there is no background
metric.
"
" Quantum topology is very technical, as anything involving
mathematical
physicists inevitably becomes. But if we stand back a moment, it
should be
perfectly obvious that differential topology and quantum theory must
merge
if we are to understand background-free quantum field theories. In
physics
that ignores general relativity, we treat space as a background on
which the
process of change occurs. But these are idealizations which we must
overcome
in a background-free theory. In fact, the concepts of 'space' and
'state'
are two aspects of a unified whole, and likewise for the concepts of
'spacetime' and 'process'. It is a challenge, not just for
mathematical
physicists, but also for philosophers, to understand this more deeply.
" -------- John Baez
"When theorizing about an all-inclusive reality, the first and most
important principle is containment, which simply tells us what we
should and
should not be considering. Containment principles, already well known
in
cosmology, generally take the form of tautologies; e.g., "The physical
universe contains all and only that which is physical." The predicate
"physical", like all predicates, here corresponds to a structured set,
"the
physical universe" (because the universe has structure and contains
objects,
it is a structured set). But this usage of tautology is somewhat
loose, for
it technically amounts to a predicate-logical equivalent of
propositional
tautology called autology, meaning self-description. Specifically, the
predicate physical is being defined on topological containment in the
physical universe, which is tacitly defined on and descriptively
contained
in the predicate physical, so that the self-definition of "physical"
is a
two-step operation involving both topological and descriptive
containment.
While this principle, which we might regard as a statement of
"physicalism",
is often confused with materialism on the grounds that "physical"
equals
"material", the material may in fact be only a part of what makes up
the
physical. Similarly, the physical may only be a part of what makes up
the
real. Because the content of reality is a matter of science as opposed
to
mere semantics, this issue can be resolved only by rational or
empirical
evidence, not by assumption alone." -------- Christopher Michael
Langan
http://www.ctmu.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.html
---------------------------------------------------------
There isn't a change in the incoming flux of quantum matter (ZPR,
material
space, Guth's 'false vacuum') as much as there is a change in the
information processing, or more simply said, a change in process
speed.
Since the speed of light, hence, the propagation speed of fields, must
remain constant for all the other constants to continue to be
proportianally
the same, process (mass) has to increase in order to keep up... to a
point,
once you go over the speed limit and fields can't keep up, matter
disintegrates.
To measure aether drag all you need to do is measure the momentum of a
moving object.
--
Laurent
--------------------------------------------------------
Some say the aether concept was already discredited, but they are
wrong,
please read carefully:
Einstein and the Ether - by Ludwik Kostro
(Apeiron, Montreal, 2000)
"Whether gravitational, electrical, and nuclear interactions can be
encompassed within a unified theoretical structure, and whether such a
structure will be conceived as a plenary space with physical
properties,
remains to be seen. But if the history of the successive dynasties of
aether
is any guide, we can eventually proclaim:
The luminiferous aether is dead!
Long live the aether!" --- Owen Gingerich
Nowadays, nobody talks any longer about the ether in scientific
ortohodox
books, in higher school or university classes, etc., yet this concept
has
been one of the corner stones of many rational interpretation of
natural
| |
