Is there a medium "in space", a medium "of space", neither, or both?

[quantum_wave]

The answer depends upon from where you approach the question. Personally, from what I imagine you are asking, I have no absolute answer....

If you accept that within the context of QM space is empty, you could say that ZPE or the associated ZPF, fill that empty space and may act as a medium in some circumstances. But, while there may be some connection between the ZPF and inertia and gravitation, it would not be the light conveying medium associated with the aether of the pre-Einstein, world of physics.

Then given the stipulation that what ever fills space is not the particulate luminiferous aether that would have been detected by MM, you would not be comfortable saying that nothing fills all space, even in the light of the current QM interpretation that space is empty? Would you go so far as to say you are not entirely in agreement with the Copenhagen interpretation, and would leave open some possibility that the Hidden Variables interpretation where waves and particles might still exist and have specific momentum and location in space even if they are not observed?

Note, I said pre-Einstein rather than pre-Michelson and Morley, because without our interpretation of Einstein's special relativity the M&M experiments returned nothing but null results.., they failed to detect, rather than proved the existence or non-existence of the luminiferous aether, they were attempting to measure.

They failed to detect the particulate aether, but did not rule out a medium "in" space or a medium "of" space, so those are still possibilities in your view?

2nd Note, notice that I said "our interpretation" of special relativity.., I did so because as special relativity was introduced it only claimed there was no need to use the Aether to explain observation. It did not claim there was none, we or subsequent interpretation interpreted the inability to detect something, as a proof that it did not exist.

That is how I understand it, too.

That should be enough to stimulate some controversy, no?

Not really, unless you were to take a stance by selecting one of the options in the OP, lol. Then you might be subject to differences of opinion, but that is always healthy, as long as you are willing to defend your stance or consider other's arguments.

 

[OnlyMe]

Then given the stipulation that what ever fills space is not the particulate luminiferous aether that would have been detected by MM, you would not be comfortable saying that nothing fills all space, even in the light of the current QM interpretation that space is empty? Would you go so far as to say you are not entirely in agreement with the Copenhagen interpretation, and would leave open some possibility that the Hidden Variables interpretation where waves and particles might still exist and have specific momentum and location in space even if they are not observed?

GR generally treats space as having some pseudo physical reality through which it interacts with mass. QM treats space as an empty box, filled with energy, as in zero-point energy. I'm pretty sure that something along that line was my earlier intent. Given this clarification, I do not understand you above response.

To be clear......, I don't know if there is some smallest massive particle that can be called matter or if all matter is a macroscopic view of fundamental fields, that just look like solid particles to "us" (that is the royal us not me specifically). I also don't for certain if space does have some intangible substance that allows it to interact with mass (whatever mass is) or if it truly is a Newtonian box and the relativistic aspects we observe of what we call space are emergent from the interaction of what we call mass with ZPE. IOW, I don't know that the space, described within the context of GR is not a hybrid of Newtonian space filled with a zero-point field that interacts with mass, or something else entirely.

They failed to detect the particulate aether, but did not rule out a medium "in" space or a medium "of" space, so those are still possibilities in your view?

Almost anything is possible, except the existence of the luminiferous aether as it was defined prior to the early 1900s. We have moved beyond that concept for more reasons than the results of M&M like experiments. Beyond that I'll just remain agnostic on the issue and say I don't know.

 

[quantum_wave]

GR generally treats space as having some pseudo physical reality through which it interacts with mass. QM treats space as an empty box, filled with energy, as in zero-point energy. I'm pretty sure that something along that line was my earlier intent. Given this clarification, I do not understand your above response.

I reread it and agree, it is undecipherable. I guess I mistook your statement, "If you accept that within the context of QM space is empty," as being a particular interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. That simply triggered a conditioned response on my part to compare the two major groupings of QM interpretations, the Copenhagen group, and the Hidden Variables group. Within each group there are a variety of choices, and there are other ways to interpret QM outside of the two main groups, so I just thought you were pointing out one of them, and then saying why it could be disputed. Moving along ...

To be clear......, I don't know if there is some smallest massive particle that can be called matter or if all matter is a macroscopic view of fundamental fields, that just look like solid particles to "us" (that is the royal us not me specifically).

Agreed, that is an open question that distinguishes GR vs. QM in the sense that GR works fine if the answer is that there is some smallest massive particle of matter, though I don't think I recall that being part of GR, while QM would say there isn't a particle that has a presence in some location at all times.

I also don't [know] for certain if space does have some intangible substance that allows it to interact with mass (whatever mass is) or if it truly is a Newtonian box and the relativistic aspects we observe of what we call space are emergent from the interaction of what we call mass with ZPE. IOW, I don't know that the space, described within the context of GR is not a hybrid of Newtonian space filled with a zero-point field that interacts with mass, or something else entirely.

If you thought the question in the OP meant, "are you certain one way or the other", it didn't. Not everyone is decided or has a particular model that they prefer, and I appreciate your thoughts on the topic.

Almost anything is possible, except the existence of the luminiferous aether as it was defined prior to the early 1900s. We have moved beyond that concept for more reasons than the results of M&M like experiments. Beyond that I'll just remain agnostic on the issue and say I don't know.

 

[cav755]

"The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

"any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium ... If a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its nature would seem desirable. It certainly is of quite complex character. It could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be contrary to relativity theory." - Louis de Broglie, Nobel Laureate in Physics

"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." - Albert Einstein, Nobel Laureate in Physics

The relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin is the hidden sub-quantum medium referred to by de Broglie is the ether which propagates light referred to by Einstein.

 

[quantum_wave]

"The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

"any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium ... If a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its nature would seem desirable. It certainly is of quite complex character. It could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be contrary to relativity theory." - Louis de Broglie, Nobel Laureate in Physics

"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." - Albert Einstein, Nobel Laureate in Physics

The relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin is the hidden sub-quantum medium referred to by de Broglie is the ether which propagates light referred to by Einstein.

Thank you; well said. And let me be the first to welcome you to SciForums.
Q_W

 

[cav755]

Thank you; well said. And let me be the first to welcome you to SciForums.
Q_W

Thanks, good to be here.

'Einstein: Ether and Relativity'

"Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."

if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

 

[quantum_wave]

Thanks, good to be here.

'Einstein: Ether and Relativity'

"Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."

if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

I'm guessing, but can we put you in the "medium of space" camp, in regard to the opening post?

 

[cav755]

I'm guessing, but can we put you in the "medium of space" camp, in regard to the opening post?

I'm not exactly sure what the categories mean.

'Empty' space has mass.

'[1305.5759] Comment on higher derivative Lagrangians in relativistic theory'
arxiv.org/abs/1305.5759

"The relativistic theory of an Aether was discussed several time, see for e.g. [8], [9]. In this paper, our hypothesis is different and gives a relativistic theory of the deformation of continuous media (for which the geometry is described by the metric field)."

The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of continuous media.

The Milky Way's halo is curved spacetime.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

Aether has mass and is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

What is referred to geometrically as the curvature of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.

 

[quantum_wave]

I'm not exactly sure what the categories mean.

'Empty' space has mass.

'[1305.5759] Comment on higher derivative Lagrangians in relativistic theory'
arxiv.org/abs/1305.5759

"The relativistic theory of an Aether was discussed several time, see for e.g. [8], [9]. In this paper, our hypothesis is different and gives a relativistic theory of the deformation of continuous media (for which the geometry is described by the metric field)."

The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of continuous media.

The Milky Way's halo is curved spacetime.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

Aether has mass and is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

What is referred to geometrically as the curvature of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.

The meaning of "medium" is in the OP. The question then is simply, do you take a position on the question, "Is there a medium in space, a medium of space, neither, or both?"

I'm not sure if the medium that you describe carries waves or can form high density spots in the medium, but I will give you a little inside perespective, since I wrote the definition. Matter froms from and is composed of the high density spots described in the definition. The concept of matterrt displacing the medium is not in line with the "medium" as defined in the OP.

 

[cav755]

The meaning of "medium" is in the OP. The question then is simply, do you take a position on the question, "Is there a medium in space, a medium of space, neither, or both?"

I'm not sure if the medium that you describe carries waves or can form high density spots in the medium, but I will give you a little inside perespective, since I wrote the definition.

"... only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry ... Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

Matter, a piece of window glass and stuff have mass.

In a double slit experiment it is the stuff which waves.

"any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium" - Louis de Broglie, Nobel Laureate in Physics

The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether. The "energetic contact" is the state of displacement of the aether.

In a double slit experiment it is the hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics which waves.

"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" - Albert Einstein, Nobel Laureate in Physics

Light waves are waves in the ether of relativity.

Matter froms from and is composed of the high density spots described in the definition. The concept of matterrt displacing the medium is not in line with the "medium" as defined in the OP.

Then the definition of medium as defined in the OP is incorrect.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'

"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field"

The electromagnetic field is a state of the aether. Particles of matter are condensations of aether.

Particles of matter are discrete mass and the aether is continuous mass.

Particles of matter exist in, move through and displace the aether.

'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A. EINSTEIN
fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf

"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2."

The mass of the body does diminish. However, the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished; it still exists, as aether. Matter evaporates into aether. As matter evaporates into aether it expands into neighboring places; which is energy. Mass is conserved.

When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether. The evaporation is energy. Mass is conserved.

 

[quantum_wave]

"... only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry ... Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

Matter, a piece of window glass and stuff have mass.

In a double slit experiment it is the stuff which waves.

"any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium" - Louis de Broglie, Nobel Laureate in Physics

The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether. The "energetic contact" is the state of displacement of the aether.

In a double slit experiment it is the hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics which waves.

"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" - Albert Einstein, Nobel Laureate in Physics

Light waves are waves in the ether of relativity.



Then the definition of medium as defined in the OP is incorrect.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'

"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field"

The electromagnetic field is a state of the aether. Particles of matter are condensations of aether.

Particles of matter are discrete mass and the aether is continuous mass.

Particles of matter exist in, move through and displace the aether.

'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A. EINSTEIN
fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf

"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2."
Y
The mass of the body does diminish. However, the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished; it still exists, as aether. Matter evaporates into aether. As matter evaporates into aether it expands into neighboring places; which is energy. Mass is conserved.

When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether. The evaporation is energy. Mass is conserved.

You open up several topics of interest. Jumping off into discussion of them in a thread that is only intended to ask the members their view on the OP question might inspire disparaging posts, and though I would ignore them, they could get so aggravating to the moderators that the conclusion might be to end this thread. You are new, so why not start a thread in alternative theories. I'm pretty familiar with that territory . I'll look for it and post a link to it for you here.

 

[dav57]

Cav, I can relate to what you are saying. It appears reasonable to me that if an aether was to exist, which i think it does, it would be of variable density, particularly where it surrounds mass. There must be an action between mass and an aether, and I think it is a repelling force. An extention to the thinking would propose that all energy/data/information transfer propagates via an aether and is directly affected by the dynamics of the variable density aether.

The event horizon of a black hole is an interesting place whereby information/energy transfer breaks down and cannot transfer as it does at a point in space where density is smooth. What goes on inside a black hole is anyones guess but we do know that light becomes completely wave-shifted at the event horizon. Time also appears to stop and I can understand why if an aether-like substance responsible for information exchange became compressed beyond functionality like it does at the event horizon.

My take on things is that the substance permeating space is affected by mass, is of variable density, and is of a nodal form which carries energy and information such that particles are connected. In my mind there must surely be an aether regardless of what the textbooks say.

 

[cav755]

Cav, I can relate to what you are saying. It appears reasonable to me that if an aether was to exist, which i think it does, it would be of variable density, particularly where it surrounds mass.

I don't think the aether has a variable density. Not one that could be measured anyways. Aether has mass, so saying "particularly where it surrounds mass" is not quite accurate. It is more accurate to say "particularly where it surrounds matter".

The following articles describe the aether as an incompressible fluid.

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid, which is described in the following article as the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. The article describes a 'back reaction' associated with the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. This is the displaced aether 'displacing back'.

'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction'
arxiv.org/abs/1208.3458

"We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide further evidence of the “fluidic” nature of space itself. This "back-reaction" is quantified by the tendency of angular momentum flux threading across a surface."

The following article describes the aether as that which produces resistance to acceleration and is responsible for the increase in mass of an object with velocity and describes the "space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."

'Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and fluidic inertia'
arxiv.org/abs/1202.4611

"It is shown that the force exerted on a particle by an ideal fluid produces two effects: i) resistance to acceleration and, ii) an increase of mass with velocity. ... The interaction between the particle and the entrained space flow gives rise to the observed properties of inertia and the relativistic increase of mass. ... Accordingly, in this framework the non resistance of a particle in uniform motion through an ideal fluid (D’Alembert’s paradox) corresponds to Newton’s first law. The law of inertia suggests that the physical vacuum can be modeled as an ideal fluid, agreeing with the space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."

The relativistic mass of an object is the mass of the object and the mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the object which is displaced by the object. The faster an object moves with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists the greater the displacement of the aether by the object the greater the relativistic mass of the object.

'Comment on the higher derivative Lagrangians in relativistic theory'
arxiv.org/pdf/1305.5759.pdf

"Einstein theory of gravitational fields and this gives a new perspective on the Mach principle revisiting the “absolute” acceleration concept as a natural motion in space-time deformed by the matter-energy contained therein. We refer the reader to the paper of Einstein on a related topic [9]. The relativistic theory of an Aether was discussed several time, see for e.g. [8], [9]. In this paper, our hypothesis is different and gives a relativistic theory of the deformation of continuous media (for which the geometry is described by the metric field)."

The deformation of continuous media is the state of displacement of the aether.

The geometrical representation of gravity as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

The incompressible fluid described in the following article is the gravitational aether which "the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."

'Empty Black Holes, Firewalls, and the Origin of Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy'
arxiv.org/abs/1212.4176

"But why an incompressible fluid? The reason comes from an attempt to solve the (old) cosmological constant problem, which is arguably the most puzzling aspect of coupling gravity to relativistic quantum mechanics [13]. Given that the natural expectation value for the vacuum of the standard model of particle physics is ∼ 60 orders of magnitude heavier than the gravitational measurements of vacuum density, it is reasonable to entertain an alternative theory of gravity where the standard model vacuum decouples from gravity. Such a theory could be realized by coupling gravity to the traceless part of the quantum mechanical energy-momentum tensor. However, the consistency/covariance of gravitational field equations then requires introducing an auxiliary fluid, the so-called gravitational aether [14]. The simplest model for gravitational aether is an incompressible fluid (with vanishing energy density, but non-vanishing pressure), which is currently consistent with all cosmological, astrophysical, and precision tests of gravity [15, 16]:

__3__
32πGN Gμν = Tμν − Tα gμν + Tμν ,
Tμν = p (uμ uν + gμν ), T μν;ν = 0,

where GN is Newton’s constant, Tμν is the matter energy momentum tensor and Tμν is the incompressible gravitational aether fluid. In vacuum, the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."

The following article describes the aether as an incompressible fluid resulting in what the article refers to as gravitational aether caused by pressure (or vorticity).

'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old Cosmological Constant Problem'
arxiv.org/abs/1106.3955

"One proposal to address this puzzle at the semi-classical level is to decouple quantum vacuum from space-time geometry via a modification of gravity that includes an incompressible fluid, known as Gravitational Aether. In this paper, we discuss classical predictions of this theory along with its compatibility with cosmological and experimental tests of gravity. We argue that deviations from General Relativity (GR) in this theory are sourced by pressure or vorticity."

 

[quantum_wave]

"... only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry ... Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

Matter, a piece of window glass and stuff have mass.

In a double slit experiment it is the stuff which waves.

"any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium" - Louis de Broglie, Nobel Laureate in Physics

The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether. The "energetic contact" is the state of displacement of the aether.

In a double slit experiment it is the hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics which waves.

"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" - Albert Einstein, Nobel Laureate in Physics

Light waves are waves in the ether of relativity.

So the "stuff" is the medium? Would it be asking too much to ask you to convey your thoughts about it in your own words, instead of quoting, out of context, people who you represent as authorities?

Then the definition of medium as defined in the OP is incorrect.

Of course it is, but it is the definition I'm asking you to say yes or no to. Would you call space a medium, and does the medium carry waves?

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'

"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field"

The electromagnetic field is a state of the aether. Particles of matter are condensations of aether.

Particles of matter are discrete mass and the aether is continuous mass.

Particles of matter exist in, move through and displace the aether.

These quotes, out of context, are not very helpful to me in grasping what you are saying. The concept of particles being a state of the aether, and condensations of the EM field is fine, but that is not descriptive in terms of the mechanics of what causes the presence of particles, or how an EM field is mass, or what you mean by continuous mass. Also, I find it a stretch of the concept of a "medium of space" to refer to it as mass and then refer to matter as condensations of it. It is also not supported that particles are condensed EM fields, when particles are the source of the fields. Have I got that wrong?

'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A. EINSTEIN
fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf

"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2."

Equivalence and conservation; good.

The mass of the body does diminish. However, the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished; it still exists, as aether. Matter evaporates into aether. As matter evaporates into aether it expands into neighboring places; which is energy. Mass is conserved.

Matter evaporating and expanding into neighboring places sounds an awful lot like the flow of energy waves that are emitted by particles and that traverse the medium of space. Is the evaporation in the form of wave energy in that scenario?

When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether. The evaporation is energy. Mass is conserved.

When you use italics, are those direct quotes? When you don't use italics is that you speaking?

You have concluded that post with. "Mass is conserved", which is an acknowledgement of equivalence. It does seem to me that if you must refer to the medium of space as having mass, and then distinguishing matter from it as being condensed out of the medium of space, you should be mentioning that there are mechanics to go along with it. Are there?

Starting your own thread was just a suggestion.

 

[origin]

I'm not exactly sure what the categories mean.

'Empty' space has mass.

'[1305.5759] Comment on higher derivative Lagrangians in relativistic theory'
arxiv.org/abs/1305.5759

"The relativistic theory of an Aether was discussed several time, see for e.g. [8], [9]. In this paper, our hypothesis is different and gives a relativistic theory of the deformation of continuous media (for which the geometry is described by the metric field)."

The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of continuous media.

The Milky Way's halo is curved spacetime.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

Aether has mass and is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

What is referred to geometrically as the curvature of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.

My goodness this sound very familiar, are you related to Pincho Paxton?

 

[quantum_wave]

Cav, I can relate to what you are saying. It appears reasonable to me that if an aether was to exist, which i think it does, it would be of variable density, particularly where it surrounds mass. There must be an action between mass and an aether

Here we have some common ground. A "medium" "of" or "in" space, as defined in the OP, is probably quite similar to what you refer to as aether. The phrase "variable density" could equate to the concept in that definition of "compressibility". If a wave traversing the "medium" of space moves energy by compressing the medium, and if multiple waves can traverse the same point in space from various directions, then the medium must compress significantly and the density then must be variable.

and I think it is a repelling force.

In the mechanics that I find best supports the quantum action that establishes the presence of particles and gravity in a foundational medium, there are two simple forces at work that oppose each other in varying degrees under varying conditions of wave energy density. One is the force of energy density equalization that makes the density in any given patch of space trend toward equalization with the wave energy density of the medium surrounding it. Equalization is the natural result of there being patches of the medium which have higher wave energy density than in the surrounding medium. The other force is gravity or the motion of objects in the direction of the highest net wave energy density flowing toward it from the surrounding medium.

An extention to the thinking would propose that all energy/data/information transfer propagates via an aether and is directly affected by the dynamics of the variable density aether.

I think that is a reasonable proposal.

The event horizon of a black hole is an interesting place whereby information/energy transfer breaks down and cannot transfer as it does at a point in space where density is smooth. What goes on inside a black hole is anyones guess but we do know that light becomes completely wave-shifted at the event horizon. Time also appears to stop and I can understand why if an aether-like substance responsible for information exchange became compressed beyond functionality like it does at the event horizon.

That seems mostly reasonable and compatible with the definition of "medium" in the OP, but I do take exception to the concept that time stops. The way I characterize it is that we measure the passing of time on a clock, and clocks are composed of particles. As the clock (and its particles) approaches a massive object like a black hole, the particles slow to a stop as they cease to function properly, and so the measurement of time passing stops, but time itself is not a physical thing that can stop.

My take on things is that the substance permeating space is affected by mass, is of variable density, and is of a nodal form which carries energy and information such that particles are connected. In my mind there must surely be an aether regardless of what the textbooks say.

Yes, we essentially agree. Would you define in more detail the phrase "nodal form" as you use it in that context?

 

[cav755]

So the "stuff" is the medium? Would it be asking too much to ask you to convey your thoughts about it in your own words, instead of quoting, out of context, people who you represent as authorities?

Aether has mass. Aether is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

 

[cav755]

My goodness this sound very familiar, are you related to Pincho Paxton?

Not that I am aware of.

 

[origin]

My goodness this sound very familiar, are you related to Pincho Paxton?

Not that I am aware of.

Opps my mistake!!

What I meant to say is:

My goodness this sounds very familiar, are you related to gravitational_aether?

It is hard to keep you guys straight!

 

[cav755]

Opps my mistake!!

What I meant to say is:

My goodness this sounds very familiar, are you related to gravitational_aether?

It is hard to keep you guys straight!

I'm gravitational_aether.