It is appealing because it enables causality to be placed back at the root level. The equations of physics directly model fundamental physical reality (the "quantum vacuum") as a zero-energy superfluid. These equations were formulated with direct contact with reality. They can't be entirely wrong. The quantum vacuum MUST be a frictionless fluid.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why is the aether appealing?
- Thread starter Beercules
- Start date
It is appealing because it enables causality to be placed back at the root level. The equations of physics directly model fundamental physical reality (the "quantum vacuum") as a zero-energy superfluid. These equations were formulated with direct contact with reality. They can't be entirely wrong. The quantum vacuum MUST be a frictionless fluid.
Originally posted by Beercules
Do you know the equations, before we go any further?
What difference does it make?
Whether I can perform the grunt-work calculations or not I know what the equations model:
Einstein himself said that the ether was absolutely essential to understand what his "curved space" physically means.
In “The Big Bang Never Happened” , Eric J. Lerner writes,
“... since the nineteenth century it’s been recognized that the equations of electromagnetism are almost identical with the equations of hydrodynamics, the equations governing fluid flow. Even more curious, Schrödinger’s equation, the basic equation of quantum mechanics, is also closely related to equations of fluid flow. Since 1954 many scientists have shown that a particle moving under the influence of random impacts from irregularities in a fluid will obey Schrödinger’s equation.
“More recently, in the late seventies, researchers found another curious correspondence while developing mathematical laws that govern the motion of line vortices—the hydrodynamic analogs of the plasma filaments .... The governing equation turns out to be a modified form of Schrödinger’s equation, called the nonlinear Schrödinger equation. [This equation is a central part of the study of ‘quantum liquids’ as well. The interesting coincidence is that it is a modified form of the equation describing the shell structure of an atom. How this fluid-dynamic shell gets quantized into the known electronic “orbits” is a key concept illustrated in Sorce Theory.]
“Generally in science when two different phenomena obey the same or very similar mathematical laws, it means that in all probability they are somehow related. Thus it seems likely that both electromagnetism and quantum phenomena generally may be connected to some sort of hydrodynamics on a microscopic level. But this clue, vague as it is, leaves entirely open the key question of what the nuclear particles are. And what keeps them together? How can fluids generate particles? [Sorce Theory fills in these crucial gaps as well.]
“But the idea of particles formed from vortices in some fluid is certainly worth investigating. (This is a real return to Ionian ideas: the idea of reality being formed out of vortices was first raised by Anaxagoras 2,500 years ago!) …However, I think there are additional clues, some developed from my own work, which indicate that plasma processes and quantum mechanical processes are in some way related.
“First and foremost are Krisch’s experimental results on spin-aligned protons. Qualitatively, the results clearly imply that protons are actually some form of vortex, like a plasmoid. Such vortices interact far more strongly when they are spinning in the same direction-which is certainly the behavior Krisch observed in proton collisions. Because vortex behavior would become evident only in near-collisions, the effects should be more pronounced at higher energies and in more head-on interactions—again, in accordance with Krisch’s results.
“A second clue lies in particle asymmetry …. Particles act as if they have a “handedness,” and the simplest dynamic process or object that exhibits an inherent orientation is a vortex. Moreover, right-and left-handed vortices annihilate each other, just as particles and antiparticles do.”
And from G.E. Volovik in “The Universe in a Helium Droplet” .
“According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons, neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century. The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum.
“Among the existing condensed matter systems, the particular quantum liquid—superfluid 3He-A—most closely resembles the quantum vacuum of the Standard Model.
There is a unified field theory that uses a continuum of frictionless, compressible, fluid-dynamic matter to unify the forces of physics and place causality at the root level. These fundamental properties ascribed to the "quantum vacuum" in Sorce Theory are exactly what is missing in the standard model (once some crucial errors are deleted).
Last edited:
Quite so - they're just answering it instead.Originally posted by Beercules
Physicists who claim the universe literally came into being are not asking the illogical question of how existence came to be.
I still don't know what you are arguing for here, although I've asked a couple of times. If the physical universe is eternal then spacetime is eternal. If the physical universe is finite then spacetime is finite and nothing physical existed prior to its beginning (as per current scientific orthodoxy). Which is it that you believe?[The asumption here is that spacetime is not fundemental, and the laws that govern quantum physics are. So these laws pre-exist the universe (spacetime at least) and bring our spacetime into existence from a fluctuation in this state. I don't think a lot of physicists buy into that.
If by universe you mean physical universe then A and B are illogical (which is why physics gives up and calls the problem 'metaphysical'). I presume that C is the 'block' universe of some theories - this seems to be just a variation on A or B. If you tell me which you believe is most logical it would help focus the discussion.[No, I am saying that fields are a holistic explanation of the physical universe. The reductionist "atoms in a void" worldview has been replaced by something that can potentially explain everything in a very elegant and simple way. It is not suggest that fields pre exist the big bang in standard cosmology. But no one seriously thinks the standard model is fully correct, since we don't have an acurate description of quantum spacetime to know what happened when the universe was very dense. Here are the option:
A. The universe has existed forever.
B. The universe had a beginning, but this is merely a first event.
C. The universe exists as a static 4D universe, along the lines of the no boundary proposal.
Either are logically consistent, but no one really knows which is correct.
If as you say 'nothing' cannot exist then there must be something everywhere and at all times.[Doesn't follow. It could also be finite.
The concept of the cosmic substratum (widely accepted in cosmology) postulates that on the large scales (and on all scales in the very ealy universe) the universe can be thought of as an idealised fluid. It's not a big leap to imagine that an idealised fluid underlies it. Anyway I'm not arguing for a physical aether, I'm arguing for a cosmic substratum that isn't physical (in our normal sense of the word). Call it a field if you like, or quantum vaccuum, whatever. As Sir Mojo says the idea makes perfect sense.[Err, why? My argument is that any appeal in the aether is surely made redundant by field theory. No fluid like substance is needed.
Could you explain more about how something that is purely geometry can actually exist - I can't see what the idea means. Is it a vindication of Plato's notion of ideal Forms? Or do you mean that all universes must be logical (esp. geometrically) so logic must exist seperate to all of them and thus preceed them (which is pretty much Plato's thought also).[Lee Smolin has a fairly good comparison of local fields and spacetime itself. I'll see if he has anything online. In the meantime, know that while an aether is often a fluid like substance, a unified field is expected to be pure geometry. [/B]
Last edited:
Originally posted by sir Mojo Loren
What difference does it make?
Whether I can perform the grunt-work calculations or not I know what the equations model:
All right then. No sense in arguing what quantum theory says and what it doesn't.
The question here is why such an aether in the classic sense, is appealing from a ontological viewpoint. As you've seen from above, my argument is that field theory makes such an aether completely redudant. Oddly enough, there are similarities between the old aether and the fundemental field of spacetime, but there are some key differences as well. Namely, the field does not represent an absolute frame of reference, and is not composed of a substance (fluids, etc.).
Einstein himself said that the ether was absolutely essential to understand what his "curved space" physically means.
Quite a different aether! See above. The gravitational field has properties that include a metric, gravitational energy and a dynamic, evolving Non Euclidean geometry that would make it a "thing" in it's own right and a substance according to the ontological meaning of the word, but not the kind of substance we use to classify between different materials (gasses, liquids, solids, plasma, etc.).
I think the Greek atomists were close with their guess that everyday "substances" are mere results of atoms. But they made an important mistake in assuming that the void and the atoms themselves are somehow fundementally different. From GR, we can toss away this notion, with matter itself being curvature of spacetime itself. Current attempts at a quantum theory of spacetime keep this notion in tact, where different kinds of matter are mere results of the differing geometry of the fundemental gravitational field.
Filling it up with a substance does nothing ontologically. In quantum theory, the vacuum is filled with virtual particles, but that doesn't mean the vacuum itself is somehow made of these particles. In fact, all quantum interactions *require* a pre-existing background of spacetime in the first place. The same applies to the other forces of nature, so any additional substance is redundant.
Originally posted by Canute
Quite so - they're just answering it instead.
No they aren't, because as I said such theories pressume a set of pre-existing laws of physics. No attempts are made to explain the origin of those laws.
I still don't know what you are arguing for here, although I've asked a couple of times. If the physical universe is eternal then spacetime is eternal.
I thought I was clear. Eternal or finite are both consistent, and I'm not going to cling to one belief over the other like a religion. I will say that because of the infinities that show up in nature, I think an infinite universe is likely.
If the physical universe is finite then spacetime is finite and nothing physical existed prior to its beginning (as per current scientific orthodoxy). Which is it that you believe?
The current view is not that there was nothing physical prior. It is that there was no "prior" at all. Quite a difference.
If by universe you mean physical universe then A and B are illogical (which is why physics gives up and calls the problem 'metaphysical'). I presume that C is the 'block' universe of some theories - this seems to be just a variation on A or B. If you tell me which you believe is most logical it would help focus the discussion.
You know the deal. If A or B are illogical, you must show where the law of non contradiction is violated. Hint: Show how the premises of either A or B lead to self contradiction.
Maybe you're expecting more from logic than is available. But that is as far as it goes. There is no such thing as a theory that is more logical than another. Either a theory is logically consistent, or it's not. There is no in between. Now a theory can be "more" of an asset in explaining the available evidence and can seem "more" elegant and so on. Right now, there is insufficient data to know whether A or B can be ruled out. C can never be ruled out.
If as you say 'nothing' cannot exist then there must be something everywhere and at all times.
Yes, and the physical universe has existed at all times and all places, since spacetime is the very thing that defines notions of time and space in the first place.
The concept of the cosmic substratum (widely accepted in cosmology) postulates that on the large scales (and on all scales in the very ealy universe) the universe can be thought of as an idealised fluid. It's not a big leap to imagine that an idealised fluid underlies it. Anyway I'm not arguing for a physical aether, I'm arguing for a cosmic substratum that isn't physical (in our normal sense of the word). Call it a field if you like, or quantum vaccuum, whatever. As Sir Mojo says the idea makes perfect sense.
Yes, that would fit the definition of a "substance" in the ontological sense, meaning that it is an entity in it's own right. I'm comparing modern field theory to the classic notion of a physical substance (as in gasses and liquids) based aether.
Could you explain more about how something that is purely geometry can actually exist - I can't see what the idea means. Is it a vindication of Plato's notion of ideal Forms?
Geometry is just space. Every physical object you can think of has size. Now normally the volume of that object can be described by the rules of Euclidean geometry. Emtpy space can be described this way as well, and that is what cosmologists mean when they say space is flat. But if this volume of space were to be curved, it could no longer be described by that geometry. The space of a Euclidean geometry and space with a Non Euclidean geometry would be very different, and anything interacting with such curved space would behave different than an object in flat spaces. This difference in geometry is enough to give us the difference between empty space and filled space.
Originally posted by Beercules
All right then. No sense in arguing what quantum theory says and what it doesn't.
Why not? Do you really believe that one must be a quantum accountant to understand what quantum theory says and what it doesn't say? I have heard this elitist argument before and it only serves the purpose of an attempt to disqualify any answers I may make. The fact is that we do not need to talk about the actual equations to discuss what the math says on a more global level. Nor do we need the math to discuss where the Quantum Theory went wrong.
The question here is why such an aether in the classic sense, is appealing from a ontological viewpoint. As you've seen from above, my argument is that field theory makes such an aether completely redudant.
It replaces it with a mathematical abstraction that is insufficient in its properties to unify the forces and form a coherent whole. Instead we are left with paradox, duality and a lack of understanding of core-level reality. Postulating substance at the core level (providing that it has the correct properties) enables the "field" to becme a unified field.
Oddly enough, there are similarities between the old aether and the fundemental field of spacetime, but there are some key differences as well. Namely, the field does not represent an absolute frame of reference, and is not composed of a substance (fluids, etc.).
The frame of reference is fluid and not solid as classical physics supposed. It is known today that superfluids can transmit transverse waves. Had this fact been known at the time of the Michelson Morely experiment, there would have been no reason to assume a solid ether with the sheer modulus of elasticity no less than that of steel. The ether would have naturally been asumed to be a fluid and the MM null results would have only proved the existence of this fluid frame of reference. Einsteins relativity would have been totally unnecessary and we all know that necessity is the mother of invention.
Quite a different aether! See above. The gravitational field has properties that include a metric, gravitational energy and a dynamic, evolving Non Euclidean geometry that would make it a "thing" in it's own right and a substance according to the ontological meaning of the word, but not the kind of substance we use to classify between different materials (gasses, liquids, solids, plasma, etc.).
Yes, quite a different ether indeed! The G-field is simply mapped by non-euclidean geometry. It is not made out of it as geometry is a product of the imagination of mankind.
I think the Greek atomists were close with their guess that everyday "substances" are mere results of atoms. But they made an important mistake in assuming that the void and the atoms themselves are somehow fundementally different.
Exactly. The mistake was in the assumption that the void and the atom dichotomy actually exists. You must realize that if the duality does not exist then what we are left with is a continuum not a quantum field.
From GR, we can toss away this notion, with matter itself being curvature of spacetime itself.
How does GR define that matter is made out of the curvature of space (or ether as Einstein stated)? Can you describe the causality behind this notion?
Filling it up with a substance does nothing ontologically.
Nothing for someone ignorant of the unified field theory that I am talking about...and nothing for someone ignorant of the demands of metaphysics for a causal substrate, as Einstein was aware.
In quantum theory, the vacuum is filled with virtual particles, but that doesn't mean the vacuum itself is somehow made of these particles. In fact, all quantum interactions *require* a pre-existing background of spacetime in the first place. The same applies to the other forces of nature, so any additional substance is redundant.
Additional? I am not talking about a duality or multiplicity of substances, and yes that would be redundant. I am talking about the unified field itself that must physically exist. You can call this the ether or not, it does not make a difference so long as we ascribe the proper physical and causal properties to this substance.
Last edited:
OK. But the laws are being used to explain the existence of matter, and 'laws' are not physical things.Originally posted by Beercules
No they aren't, because as I said such theories pressume a set of pre-existing laws of physics. No attempts are made to explain the origin of those laws.
Yet time came into existence with the BB according to many.[I thought I was clear. Eternal or finite are both consistent, and I'm not going to cling to one belief over the other like a religion. I will say that because of the infinities that show up in nature, I think an infinite universe is likely.[/B]
I know this - but it asserts that something can come from nothing which I cannot accept. It is an avoidance of the question rather than an answer to it.[The current view is not that there was nothing physical prior. It is that there was no "prior" at all. Quite a difference. [/B]
The answer to this relates to a question I'm about to post in Philosophy. See what you think. In my opinion the finite/eternal question is undecidable.[You know the deal. If A or B are illogical, you must show where the law of non contradiction is violated. Hint: Show how the premises of either A or B lead to self contradiction.[/B]
Agreed. However for logical reasons I don't believe that the data will ever be available. (I don't fully understand your option C).[Maybe you're expecting more from logic than is available. But that is as far as it goes. There is no such thing as a theory that is more logical than another. Either a theory is logically consistent, or it's not. There is no in between. Now a theory can be "more" of an asset in explaining the available evidence and can seem "more" elegant and so on. Right now, there is insufficient data to know whether A or B can be ruled out. C can never be ruled out.[/B]
OK - but only OK for science (in which this is true by definition).[Yes, and the physical universe has existed at all times and all places, since spacetime is the very thing that defines notions of time and space in the first place.[/B]
The logical/ontological question is still begged.
Fine. I didn't know that you were defining the aether in this strict way. In that case the reason that the aether is still a popular (not yet disproved) notion is that there are many different concepts of it besides the classical one.[Yes, that would fit the definition of a "substance" in the ontological sense, meaning that it is an entity in it's own right. I'm comparing modern field theory to the classic notion of a physical substance (as in gasses and liquids) based aether. [/B]
Do you mean that flat space can exist - space with no matter in it at all? (When you say that every physical object you can think of has size THAT is what I meant by saying all phsyical entities have dual properties - nothing to do with mind and matter, although they are another example).[Geometry is just space. Every physical object you can think of has size. Now normally the volume of that object can be described by the rules of Euclidean geometry. Emtpy space can be described this way as well, and that is what cosmologists mean when they say space is flat. But if this volume of space were to be curved, it could no longer be described by that geometry. The space of a Euclidean geometry and space with a Non Euclidean geometry would be very different, and anything interacting with such curved space would behave different than an object in flat spaces. This difference in geometry is enough to give us the difference between empty space and filled space. [/B]
As far as I can tell I have not said anything that disagrees with your main ideas, (although I know you think I am saying things that I am not - which is a language problem), But in your strictly scientific view you are left with one unanswered question (is A or B true) whereas by my theory it is unanswerable and thus not the right question. If I am right about this then the real question is not which is the right answer, it is why is it undecidable.
If you define aether as you have here then I agree that it is a daft idea.
Originally posted by sir Mojo Loren
Why not? Do you really believe that one must be a quantum accountant to understand what quantum theory says and what it doesn't say?
Actually, Quantum field theory is a mathematical model with a very poor conceptual basis. You probably can't find 2 physicists who would agree entirely if you asked them to describe what the theory describes conceptually, and there really isn't a consensus on what the hell it all means. So you can see how it's rather pointless to argue what the correct interpretation of this mathematical model is without the math. Fortunately, it's not an important issue here.
It replaces it with a mathematical abstraction that is insufficient in its properties to unify the forces and form a coherent whole. Instead we are left with paradox, duality and a lack of understanding of core-level reality. Postulating substance at the core level (providing that it has the correct properties) enables the "field" to becme a unified field.
And this is what it all comes down to, along with:
Yes, quite a different ether indeed! The G-field is simply mapped by non-euclidean geometry. It is not made out of it as geometry is a product of the imagination of mankind.
Why do you consider the gravitational field to be an abstraction, and the aether to be more concrete? See the thought experiment I posted above, and see what we get. If we list the properties of the gravitational field, we can compare them to the properties of the aether you have in mind. The idea is to find a certain property that qualifies the aether as being non-abstract, a property the field must be missing.
So to start, can you list the properties of the aether in mind? I will do the same for the gravitational field.
Exactly. The mistake was in the assumption that the void and the atom dichotomy actually exists. You must realize that if the duality does not exist then what we are left with is a continuum not a quantum field.
I'm not sure what you mean. Quantum fields are continuous.
How does GR define that matter is made out of the curvature of space (or ether as Einstein stated)? Can you describe the causality behind this notion?
GR merely takes Newton's theory of gravity (with the inverse square law) and says, "aha, now here is an associated geometric explanation for why bodies are attracted to each other in such a way". It's a philosophical notion to say that matter has no other structural existence than the curvature itself. But certain TOE candidates have taken this approach, where matter is just curvature of the field.
Originally posted by Canute
OK. But the laws are being used to explain the existence of matter, and 'laws' are not physical things.
The claim by this physicists is that the very nature of physical existence is reducible to a few quantum laws.
I know this - but it asserts that something can come from nothing which I cannot accept. It is an avoidance of the question rather than an answer to it.
No, it does not assert that at all. An primordial event does not say there was nothingness before.
Fine. I didn't know that you were defining the aether in this strict way. In that case the reason that the aether is still a popular (not yet disproved) notion is that there are many different concepts of it besides the classical one.
Most aether theories feature a fluid like substance. I've seen countless posts on the web from authors of many ground breaking, revolutionary aether theories, and the basic idea is usually the same. Of course, scientists around the world are conspiring to keep the aether theorists out of the scientific community.
Do you mean that flat space can exist - space with no matter in it at all?
Yes. Matter is space with different geometry than empty space.
(When you say that every physical object you can think of has size THAT is what I meant by saying all phsyical entities have dual properties - nothing to do with mind and matter, although they are another example).
How is that dual?
Here's something else to think about. It is known that Newton once considered the aether, trying to give an substance based explanation for space. What is lesser known, is that also put some consideration into giving matter a space explanation. Instead of thinking of an aethery space, he considered a pure vacuum where matter was just regions of vacuum that had somehow gained solidity.
And that is really a variation of the same old problem dealing with motion through space. If we take a 4m of vacuum, and compare it to 4m of a solid, what can say is fundementally different about the solid? In other words, it again comes down to being able to find a property the empty space doesn't have. In the past 100 years, it was discovered that the concept of solids, liquids and gasses are really an illusion. The reason we can't walk through solid objects is because we are prevented by the force of the electrons in the object. Physicists have stopped using the word substance ever since.
And that is really a variation of the same old problem dealing with motion through space. If we take a 4m of vacuum, and compare it to 4m of a solid, what can say is fundementally different about the solid? In other words, it again comes down to being able to find a property the empty space doesn't have. In the past 100 years, it was discovered that the concept of solids, liquids and gasses are really an illusion. The reason we can't walk through solid objects is because we are prevented by the force of the electrons in the object. Physicists have stopped using the word substance ever since.
Originally posted by Beercules
Actually, Quantum field theory is a mathematical model with a very poor conceptual basis. You probably can't find 2 physicists who would agree entirely if you asked them to describe what the theory describes conceptually, and there really isn't a consensus on what the hell it all means. So you can see how it's rather pointless to argue what the correct interpretation of this mathematical model is without the math. Fortunately, it's not an important issue here.
Exactly. Quantum field theory is lacking in a conceptual, causal basis. This is the whole point of the ether. When the correct properties are ascribed to the “field” (as stated below) the field becomes a unified field because it is then able to give causal descriptions and mechanisms of how this field can exhibit the manifestations of all the forces, tangible matter and energy, particles etc..
Why do you consider the gravitational field to be an abstraction, and the aether to be more concrete?
Because the GR does not and cannot give a causal mechanism for the force of gravitation or how mass “warps space”.
The correct model of the ether, on the other hand, CAN give a causal mechanism for all the forces and fields as arising from a single force in a single substance or “field”—a simple continuous fluid-dynamic substance and a basic level pressure.
See the thought experiment I posted above, and see what we get. If we list the properties of the gravitational field, we can compare them to the properties of the aether you have in mind. The idea is to find a certain property that qualifies the aether as being non-abstract, a property the field must be missing.
So to start, can you list the properties of the aether in mind? I will do the same for the gravitational field.
Substance: A physical substance giving rise to physical causes and effects.
Fluid-dynamic: The fluid nature of the basic substance explains the MM null results as a consequence of a fluid frame of space. It is now known that a superfluid can transmit transverse waves. Had this been known at the time of the MM results there would have been no reason to postulate that the ether was a solid with the sheer modulus of elasticity no less than that of steel. The MM results would merely have proved the fluid nature of the ether.
Compressible: This attribute is a key element of the unifying ether. This attribute explains the nature of e=mc2 as a consequence of the extreme pressurization of the atom as it is formed from concentrated ether.
Continuous: This key property explains how there can be waves and a minimum level of complexity at every observable scale.
I'm not sure what you mean. Quantum fields are continuous.
Not so. Quantum fields are quantized not continuous. It is only classical fields that are continuous, such as GR curved space. This discrepancy is the main reason for the incompatibility between these two compartments of physics.
GR merely takes Newton's theory of gravity (with the inverse square law) and says, "aha, now here is an associated geometric explanation for why bodies are attracted to each other in such a way".
It does not explain why or how gravitation or the g-field is caused. It merely gives a shape to the field and a causeless description of the effect at a high level of abstraction.
It's a philosophical notion to say that matter has no other structural existence than the curvature itself. But certain TOE candidates have taken this approach, where matter is just curvature of the field.
Yes and they have so-far (for 30 or so years) failed to unify the forces. This is because they are operating blindly by pure mathematics alone. They have no recourse to causality thus they don’t know what the equations actually mean. It is time to bring causality and understanding back into the picture so the theorists can see the proper path to take.
If they get the properties of the unified field correct and model it successfully on a super-computer then they will have a set of unified field equations.
Originally posted by Canute
Sir Mojo - Are these your thoughts or are they widespread? I am mightily impressed. I've never seen the issues put so clearly.
Thank you canute. I have gleaned these concepts and facts from many sources. There is a unified theory which rigorously codifies and explains these concepts and mechanisms. It is called Sorce Theory. see www.anpheon.org for an intro and I can email you a copy of the book if you wish.
Originally posted by sir Mojo Loren
Exactly. Quantum field theory is lacking in a conceptual, causal basis. This is the whole point of the ether. When the correct properties are ascribed to the “field” (as stated below) the field becomes a unified field because it is then able to give causal descriptions and mechanisms of how this field can exhibit the manifestations of all the forces, tangible matter and energy, particles etc..
Quantum field theory is just a theory of energy distribution. It's not about spaces, structure or anything like that.
Because the GR does not and cannot give a causal mechanism for the force of gravitation or how mass “warps space”.
So? How does that make the field an abstraction?
Substance: A physical substance giving rise to physical causes and effects.
Fluid-dynamic: The fluid nature of the basic substance explains the MM null results as a consequence of a fluid frame of space. It is now known that a superfluid can transmit transverse waves. Had this been known at the time of the MM results there would have been no reason to postulate that the ether was a solid with the sheer modulus of elasticity no less than that of steel. The MM results would merely have proved the fluid nature of the ether.
Compressible: This attribute is a key element of the unifying ether. This attribute explains the nature of e=mc2 as a consequence of the extreme pressurization of the atom as it is formed from concentrated ether.
Continuous: This key property explains how there can be waves and a minimum level of complexity at every observable scale.
Ok, so here are the properties we have for the aether. Feel free to add anything I missed. So...
Properties of the aether
1. Fluid like properties (this needs to be more precise)
2. It is compressible.
3. It is continuous
4. Volume (I'm assuming you're not going to claim the aether has no size)
Properties of the Gravitational field
1. A metric (dynamic, which can be curved or flat)
2. Gravitational energy
3. Elasticty, it can expand and contract.
4. It is continuous
Now, do tell which property the gravitational field is missing the makes it an abstraction.
Not so. Quantum fields are quantized not continuous. It is only classical fields that are continuous, such as GR curved space. This discrepancy is the main reason for the incompatibility between these two compartments of physics.
This is a common misconception. Energy levels are discrete, but the space is not. The quantum field is still a continuous distribution of energy through spacetime.
It does not explain why or how gravitation or the g-field is caused. It merely gives a shape to the field and a causeless description of the effect at a high level of abstraction.
How does not having an explanation for "why" make the field abstract or any less real? GR simply states the relation between energy and spacetime curvature. Why has nothing to do with whether or not the field or curvature is real.
Originally posted by Beercules
Quantum field theory is just a theory of energy distribution. It's not about spaces, structure or anything like that.
Hence its core problems...
So? How does that make the field an abstraction?
All theories are an abstraction. Some can unify the forces and others cannot.
Ok, so here are the properties we have for the aether. Feel free to add anything I missed. So...
Properties of the aether
1. Fluid like properties (this needs to be more precise)
2. It is compressible.
3. It is continuous
4. Volume (I'm assuming you're not going to claim the aether has no size)
Properties of the Gravitational field
1. A metric (dynamic, which can be curved or flat)
2. Gravitational energy
3. Elasticty, it can expand and contract.
4. It is continuous
You left out Substance, i.e. physical reality. This one is key. Also GR does not really contain compressibility nor fluid-dynamics. These are key as well. The ether, in unifying the forces, can account for gravitational energy and all forms of energy. Can GR do that? Obviously not because it does not contain causality.
Now, do tell which property the gravitational field is missing the makes it an abstraction.
causality
This is a common misconception. Energy levels are discrete, but the space is not. The quantum field is still a continuous distribution of energy through spacetime.
So tell me then what the problem of unification is. i was told by my physics professor that the main problem is that one is discrete and the other is continuous. What is the real problem here?
How does not having an explanation for "why" make the field abstract or any less real?
Because it is incorrect and incomplete.
GR simply states the relation between energy and spacetime curvature. Why has nothing to do with whether or not the field or curvature is real.
All theory is an abstraction and simplification of reality. GR is too simple and abstract to causally describe the force of gravitation and to unify the forces.
Originally posted by sir Mojo Loren
All theories are an abstraction. Some can unify the forces and others cannot.
That's not the issue. Either there really is an aether in reality, or there isn't. To claim that the aether can be real means that the curved spacetime of GR is likewise, since they are fundementally in the same ontological category.
You left out Substance, i.e. physical reality. This one is key.
And which property is that? Define it.
Also GR does not really contain compressibility nor fluid-dynamics. These are key as well.
Why? That sounds quite arbitrary. I don't see how compressibility or fluid dynamics makes something any more real.
causality
I don't know what you mean. Do you mean causality in the classic sense? GR hardly discards that.
So tell me then what the problem of unification is. i was told by my physics professor that the main problem is that one is discrete and the other is continuous. What is the real problem here?
Hmmm, there seem to be several problems, but the biggest is probably the curved spacetime as an explanation for gravity. In quantum theory, all interactions take place on a fixed background of flat spacetime. This dependence on a fixed and unchanging background works well enough for most quantum interactions, because the space plays no role in them. But from GR, we get the equation G=T which relates spacetime curvature to the amount of energy contained without a given region. Thus, any attempt to formulate a quantum version of GR, cannot use the fixed flat spacetime of other QFT's. The uncertainty of QM means that even in empty space there are violent fluctuations in the energy distribution, and this necessarily means fluctuations in the geometry of spacetime. The result is that the smooth curved spacetime that so nicely explains gravity is ripped to shreads, becoming a violent quantum foam where classic notions of geometry lose all meaning, and all kinds of nonsensical infinities start showing up.
Oddly enough, it seems that this quantum aether (I didn't come up with the name) is actually a stumbling block for unification. Theorists would like it to go away, but that obviously hasn't been accomplished as of yet. Many physicsts feel that theories that make space discrete (such as loop quantum gravity) are the right direction to go.
Originally posted by Beercules
That's not the issue. Either there really is an aether in reality, or there isn't. To claim that the aether can be real means that the curved spacetime of GR is likewise, since they are fundementally in the same ontological category.
Not really. GR simply maps density gradients of the ether. Entirely different ontological category. One is a real physical substance and the other is a map of a property of that substance.
And which property is that? Define it.
causality or physical reality
Do you really think it requires a definition?
Why? That sounds quite arbitrary. I don't see how compressibility or fluid dynamics makes something any more real.
It doesn't make it more real because it is already absolutely real independent of any models of it. The point is that compressibility and fluid-dynamics are indispensible for the unified field theory to model reality.
I don't know what you mean. Do you mean causality in the classic sense? GR hardly discards that.
Well the minkowski space-time actually does. GR maps the density gradients of the ether, but does not admit nor know what it actually maps. GR never had the causality of the force of gravity to ever discard.
Hmmm, there seem to be several problems, but the biggest is probably the curved spacetime as an explanation for gravity. In quantum theory, all interactions take place on a fixed background of flat spacetime. This dependence on a fixed and unchanging background works well enough for most quantum interactions, because the space plays no role in them. But from GR, we get the equation G=T which relates spacetime curvature to the amount of energy contained without a given region. Thus, any attempt to formulate a quantum version of GR, cannot use the fixed flat spacetime of other QFT's. The uncertainty of QM means that even in empty space there are violent fluctuations in the energy distribution, and this necessarily means fluctuations in the geometry of spacetime. The result is that the smooth curved spacetime that so nicely explains gravity is ripped to shreads, becoming a violent quantum foam where classic notions of geometry lose all meaning, and all kinds of nonsensical infinities start showing up.
Thank you very much for that fascinating peice of info.
Oddly enough, it seems that this quantum aether (I didn't come up with the name) is actually a stumbling block for unification. Theorists would like it to go away, but that obviously hasn't been accomplished as of yet. Many physicsts feel that theories that make space discrete (such as loop quantum gravity) are the right direction to go. [/B]
The problem is that they have modelled it incorrectly.
Originally posted by sir Mojo Loren
Not really. GR simply maps density gradients of the ether. Entirely different ontological category. One is a real physical substance and the other is a map of a property of that substance.
That has not been established. Recall that I'm looking for any properties that would classify any "aether" as being more real in an ontological sense than the gravitational field.
causality or physical reality
Do you really think it requires a definition?
And
Well the minkowski space-time actually does. GR maps the density gradients of the ether, but does not admit nor know what it actually maps. GR never had the causality of the force of gravity to ever discard.
Actually, density of the field is just another word for amount of curvature. If you refer back to old question possed by Newton and others (how is a substance any different than empty space?) GR is the only view that offers an answer.
Furthermore, GR does not discard causality, so you can attribute that property to the gravitational field as well. So there is still no "property" the aether has that the field does not which would change it's ontolgical classification. And that is my point, because there are no such properties that would justify one to claim the field is only abstract while an aether is real.