That is correct.
The electromagnetic field is the thing that is propagating. It's not the space it propagates through.
Potential is a component of an electrical field.
At Rest with our Hubble view
- Thread starter quantum_wave
- Start date
That is correct.
The electromagnetic field is the thing that is propagating. It's not the space it propagates through.
Potential is a component of an electrical field.
This seems to be where the conflict creeps into the discussion. Aether enthusiasts seem to always claim that their detractors deny that space is something. I don't see that aether deniers are claiming that space is nothing. Space as a whole is a "thing" in the sense that it has attributes. Permittivity and permeability are good examples, but not the only attributes we assign to space. Space is something. The problem is that space was once thought to be an Aether in the sense that it was like a material substance similar to air or water. But over time we have removed attributes of aether and what we are now left with is what we call space. On the other hand, space was once thought to be an abstract geometrical construct that was an attribute of the aether. Over time, attributes have been added to space through mathematical study. The two terms were converging at the time Einstein made his aether quotes. I think Einstein might have been trying to make peace between the two sides. Obviously it did not work. "Space" seems to have been the winner probably because of the term "Outer Space" (rather than outer aether) being an up and coming subject of exploration and study.
So currently space is a thing and it is an interesting thing because it is not like anything else. It lacks many of the attributes that all other things have. Einstein remarked about it not having the attribute of movement. I think that might have been unfortunate because some believe that means that space is just an absolute reference frame. I am positive that is not what Einstein meant. Farsight, your point of view is that there is still some distance between the two terms. You claim that these are important differences but seem to be unable to convince any of the "space people". I don't know what to say to you other than maybe you should contact these other Einstein-Aether scientists and form a club. Maybe hire a publicist to promote your ideas in the press. Or better yet, offer some experimental evidence.
My own point of view is that the two terms have completely converged and that to get rid of the scientific back-sliders, that the better and more modern term "space" has been adopted. Aether still has a connotation that tends to give people the impression of space as a material substance which is wrong. That is why I mentioned Maxwell's discussion about electricity having been inappropriately called The Electric Fluid. Imagine if the physics books still used that term. Step into the 21st Century Farsight. The Aether died in 1887.
Not as ponderable media unless they've lost their marbles.
If aether had any merit it would be universally adopted instead of Maxwell's equations and relativity.
If you're going to rely on Einstein, then you have to toss out "ponderable media" which eliminates aether.
Meaning simply that mass interacts with spacetime, not that aetherdom solves anything.
If you mean Maxwell's equations are wrong, then you're articulating one of the more defective presumptions of aetherdom.
If first principles rule, then we need only start with the physics of the static field to render this moot.
As a first principle, we need only adopt the physics of energy quantization hν relinquished by the parent electron, and the rest is moot.
A spherical big bang arena with 200 billion galaxies converging with another spherical big bang arena with 200 billion galaxies. Maybe there would be some significant pass-through in the first galaxies that engage, but gravity would soon overtake separation momentum, and they would start to turn. Once there is some swirling rendezvous going on, the continuing wave of new galaxies entering the fray would slow faster and before long, at the center of gravity in the lens shaped overlap, the beginning of an accumulation of galactic material would be taking place. Once it starts there is no stopping it. Pass through is true for two galaxies in the otherwise uninterrupted setting, but even then, if you Google colliding galaxies, the swirling effect is obvious.
Are you talking about empty space. I agree completely. The space I am talking about is filled with billions of galaxies that are composed of matter and that will have their worlds turned upside down by a convergence of the magnitude of two big bang arenas converging. Gravity has a long reach and it gets stronger and stronger as the distance closes.
Simulate it mentally, and consider the description above, and if you don't think there would be an interruption of momentum in such a convergence, that is fine. It means you don't consider the "parent" arena scenario viable. Reading ahead, is see you do have a particular choice of your own for what preceded the big bang, but you haven't been interested enough to put some details to how it might work. I think you would find you need new physics at the quantum level to make sense of it, but different paths, you and I.
(22868)
Agreed. Generally I don't refer to aether, I refer to space.
I don't think Einstein was trying to make peace, I think "space" was the winner because most people think Einstein did away with "aether" and it was an outmoded idea. Note though that space isn't a substance. It isn't made of anything. Instead substance is made of it. Or should I say, of waves in it. Substance is matter, and the wave nature of matter is beyond doubt.Cheezle said:
I think he did mean that, but that he was wrong. When a seismic wave propagates through the Earth, the Earth waves. When a swell wave propagates through the ocean, the ocean waves. When a light wave propagates through space, space waves. Ditto for a gravitational wave. You might think phooey, but take a look at LIGO. OK it refers to spacetime instead of space, which is wrong, but nevermind. But note the length change. That's space waving.Cheezle said:
Cheezle, where did all that come from? Like I said, I refer to space. I don't think of space and aether as two different things. Because I've read the original Einstein material, I don't go ape when some guy says aether.Cheezle said:
Sorry Cheezle, but you're mistaken there. See this:Cheezle said:
"...but if you’ve heard Frank Close or John Ellis talk about the Higgs field as a kind of 'relativistic aether', you’d know that it’s anything but 'boring'..."
And just to muddy the waters more, check out the Higgs substance.
I'm afraid it isn't. The field is the electromagnetic field, the thing you call the "electric field" is one aspect of it, the thing you call the "magnetic field" is another. Take a look at this.
The photon is the thing that's propagating. Through space.
I'm sorry billvon, but it isn't. I'm not pulling your leg about this. The "electric field" is the spatial derivative of potential, the "magnetic field" is the time derivative. See derivation from electromagnetic field theory: "the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time". Also see the Aharonov-Bohm effect and note this:billvon said:
"In fact Richard Feynman complained [citation needed] that he had been taught electromagnetism from the perspective of electromagnetic fields, and he wished later in life he had been taught to think in terms of the electromagnetic potential instead, as this would be more fundamental".
Don't be so quick to judge. It's a medium in that light goes through it. And it's got its vacuum energy. That energy has a mass-equivalence. Ponderable means "considerable enough to be weighed or assessed".
See what Cheezle said, and just think of it as space. Also see what Maxwell thought.
See above. Einstein referred to aether, so did Maxwell, physicists refer to it on arXiv, so I don't have a big issue with the word. I just prefer to call it space.Aqueous Id said:
That's just wrong. Spacetime is a static "all times at once" mathematical space in which there is no motion. The stuff that's "out there" is space, not spacetime. People think of space as spacetime, but they aren't the same thing.Aqueous Id said:
Not me. I'm a big fan of Maxwell, and Einstein, and Feynman, and others.Aqueous Id said:
Follow my references and then do your own research. Check out electron magnetic dipole and spin angular momentum. You will find that the electron is dynamical. The "static field" is space, and potential really is more fundamental than field. You detect this in the Aharonov-Bohm effect where there's no electric or magnetic field outside the solenoid. There's no detectable field in space until a photon comes through, then we call it an electromagnetic field-variation. But when there is no variation, there seems to be no electromagnetic field there.Aqueous Id said:
Luckily, there is Duffield, the forum fraud, who can set Einstein right.
Yet, you don't understand an iota of their writings.
Relativistic aether. Now there is an oxymoron if I ever heard one. It does not help that it represents a nuanced view. It is a stupid term that probably started as a joke.
As I said start a club. But I doubt that Frank Close or John Ellis will want to join if you go talking about a variable speed of light. I might be wrong though. Send them an email with your gif in it an explain what it means.
Hey, quantum_wave and Farsight. I did an arxiv search for "sweet spot" and there are a lot of hits. I guess quantum_wave is onto something.
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+EXACT+sweet_spot/0/1/0/all/0/1
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+EXACT+sweet_spot/0/1/0/all/0/1
No, he's not, the "sweet spot" he's talking about (total BS) has nothing to do with the stuff you found on arxiv. Don't encourage the two cranks.
Yeah, point taken. I was just joking but you are correct. Best to not encourage them.
That's right, all judgment should be rest solely on the preponderance of evidence.
That neither defines a medium nor space. Space propagates waves by radiation which media are incapable of doing. Space gives every point source its attendant field, which has no parallel in any medium. It's therefore incorrect to associate them in any way.
That's just an attempt to insert "ponderable media" where there is none.
That's even more ponderable now, giving it mass.
Which is why Einstein made it clear that no amount of mass or energy associated with any medium can be applied to any of his references to aether.
Science isn't about thinking of things as other things, but as they actually are, through observation, and, when possible, by discovery of any physical laws that govern them. For this reason alone we have to reject aether.
We established that Einstein denies ponderable media. Maxwell spoke dubiously of molecular vortices and dispelled the notion through his laws of electromagnetics. As for any fringe stuff that has crept in arXiv, so be it, it doesn't change anything. You still have to repeal Maxwell's equations and/or SR/GR before you can stuff aether into the vacuum and make it work.
You've only redefined space. If anything that already works breaks as a result, then the definition is wrong.
Forget my reference to spacetime which you misunderstood. Change "stuff" to "physical space" and I'll agree with that last statement, which indicates you misunderstood me.
Even if I actually thought that way it would not be as bad as thinking of space as aether.
In that case you agree with them that Maxwell's equations and GR are sufficient for this level of physics and aether is dead.
That has no bearing on the fact that point sources are attended by fields. You can't get there from here with aether even by redefining the meaning of 'source.'
That's far worse than equating spacetime and space. If it were remotely true, objects could be bent merely by introducing and/or modulating a static field.
A charge has an attendant field. Nothing changes this.
Pseudoscience works a lot with metaphor. Science relies heavily on the stare decisis established by Natural Law. We need only address the core issue. Does aether repeal Maxwell's equations and/or SR/GR? I think the world at large answers with a resounding "Yes."
Cheezle, I'm afraid you're in denial here. Einstein referred to space as the aether of general relativity, and guys like Frank Close and John Ellis understood what he was on about. It isn't some stupid term that started as a joke, these are respected physicists. As for whether they'll be interested in an email from me, I suspect not, but plenty of other physicists have written papers concerning a variable speed of light. See arXiv:
http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/ti:+AND+light+AND+of+AND+varying+speed/0/1/0/all/0/1
http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/ti:+AND+light+AND+of+AND+variable+speed/0/1/0/all/0/1
http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/ti:+vsl/0/1/0/all/0/1
So please, don't go into denial about some popscience myth that is not in accord with genuine physics.
The electron is a spinor, not a point particle. The Schrodinger equation is a wave equation.
See above. We observe electron diffraction. Electrons aren't point particles.Aqueous Id said:
Dubiously? What do you think a spinor is? He spoke "dubiously" of aether too, as did Einstein. I'm sorry Aqueous, but you're just dismissing anything from anybody that doesn't fit with what you think you know. That's the wrong approach. And since you also dismiss me when I point you at this stuff, and you just don't listen, I just can't help you.Aqueous said:
Farsight
One question...What difference does it make what Einstein thought about aether when we now know no such thing exists? Einstein was really smart but he was not infallible(witness the Cosmological Constant and God's Dice). Believe it or not we now know more about the subject than Einstein ever did and there is no aether(MM showed that), lightspeed in vacuum is measured to be the same within all frames of reference(IE lightspeed is a constant, it does not vary in speed(it varies in frequency and time itself dilates but reddened light travels exactly as fast as all other light)in a gravity well. Your little gifs actually illustrate the change in frequency, the light would travelling in a vertical direction in both diagrams and the speed in an upward direction is the same in both, it is only the frequency(the speed of the side to side wave motion)that has changed. Your gifs are faulty as you have described them, your assertions are therefore wrong.
Grumpy
One question...What difference does it make what Einstein thought about aether when we now know no such thing exists? Einstein was really smart but he was not infallible(witness the Cosmological Constant and God's Dice). Believe it or not we now know more about the subject than Einstein ever did and there is no aether(MM showed that), lightspeed in vacuum is measured to be the same within all frames of reference(IE lightspeed is a constant, it does not vary in speed(it varies in frequency and time itself dilates but reddened light travels exactly as fast as all other light)in a gravity well. Your little gifs actually illustrate the change in frequency, the light would travelling in a vertical direction in both diagrams and the speed in an upward direction is the same in both, it is only the frequency(the speed of the side to side wave motion)that has changed. Your gifs are faulty as you have described them, your assertions are therefore wrong.
Grumpy
Grumpy, I don't see where Farsight has invoked the particulate luminiferous aether that was falsified by MM. Do you think that he is saying that? Do you see him say "the medium of space" is a particulate aether, or are you confused about what he says because you didn't read it for yourself and listened to the detractors, or is it purely and simply a straw man?Farsight
One question...What difference does it make what Einstein thought about aether when we now know no such thing exists? Einstein was really smart but he was not infallible(witness the Cosmological Constant and God's Dice). Believe it or not we now know more about the subject than Einstein ever did and there is no aether(MM showed that), lightspeed in vacuum is measured to be the same within all frames of reference(IE lightspeed is a constant, it does not vary in speed(it varies in frequency and time itself dilates but reddened light travels exactly as fast as all other light)in a gravity well. Your little gifs actually illustrate the change in frequency, the light would travelling in a vertical direction in both diagrams and the speed in an upward direction is the same in both, it is only the frequency(the speed of the side to side wave motion)that has changed. Your gifs are faulty as you have described them, your assertions are therefore wrong.
Grumpy
And can we get back on topic and address this: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-Hubble-view&p=3093182&viewfull=1#post3093182
I was addressing the static field insofar as it falsifies all aether theories. Neither statement is relevant to this operative fact.
See above.
More on point is why you think Maxwell even knew that word.
Admission noted. This is why we cannot rely on Maxwell as an authority for the existence of aether.
Admission noted. Einstein was adamant that there is no ponderable media, and this removes him from the list of authorities supporting aether as well.
What I know is irrelevant. All that's in play are the operative facts upon which any theory of aether turns. These facts have been shown to be false and incorrect. Further I've offered Coulomb's Law as the test case for falsifying all aether theories.
In science there is only one approach, which is preponderance of evidence.
You must first remove the cloud of aether from your own eye, so that you may see, in order to remove the particle from mine.
I've seen him moving on to refer to the medium of space, as if it had properties, i.e. wasn't empty, and isn't the old luminiferous aether either.I was addressing the static field insofar as it falsifies all aether theories. Neither statement is relevant to this operative fact.
See above.
More on point is why you think Maxwell even knew that word.
Admission noted. This is why we cannot rely on Maxwell as an authority for the existence of aether.
Admission noted. Einstein was adamant that there is no ponderable media, and this removes him from the list of authorities supporting aether as well.
What I know is irrelevant. All that's in play are the operative facts upon which any theory of aether turns. These facts have been shown to be false and incorrect. Further I've offered Coulomb's Law as the test case for falsifying all aether theories.
In science there is only one approach, which is preponderance of evidence.
You must first remove the cloud of aether from your own eye, so that you may see, in order to remove the particle from mine.