Why is the aether appealing?

[Nasor]

Originally posted by sir Mojo Loren
A wave is a propagating effect in a medium. Probability is not a medium and neither is the void.

Sorry but I don't have the time to entertain you further. If you really want to know the theory then email me and I can send you a pdf book.

I think you need to brush up on your basic quantum physics. The 'probability wave' associated with an object is not a wave in the traditional sense; the wave function of an object describes the probability of the object existing at any particular location, but it's not a wave in the same sense as waves in water. The probability waves of objects are not propagating effects in a medium.

I'd suggest you read something like this http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_6/002-0127364-3778456?v=glance&s=books before you post further on the subject.

 

[sir Mojo Loren]

Originally posted by Nasor
I think you need to brush up on your basic quantum physics. The 'probability wave' associated with an object is not a wave in the traditional sense; the wave function of an object describes the probability of the object existing at any particular location, but it's not a wave in the same sense as waves in water. The probability waves of objects are not propagating effects in a medium.

I'd suggest you read something like this http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_6/002-0127364-3778456?v=glance&s=books before you post further on the subject.

I know what quantum physics says, thanks.

 

[Canute]

Sir Mojo - A word of support. You are wasting your time talking such lucid common sense to people who cannot or will not think for themselves, who seem to entirely lack even the small amount of imagination needed to understand what you are actually talking about, and would rather arrogantly patronise you than read what you are saying.

You present a simple and plausible hypothesis to be considered and nobody even wants to discuss it, it's depressing.

My own very simple wireframe model of physical existence is in direct agreement with the Buddhist model, (which I didn't know until recently). Now I find that it is also in direct agreement with your superfluid ether theory, (thanks for the explanation and the references). Have you explored the links with philosophies of consciousness and the notion of non-duality? It seems to me that if there is any truth at all in Eastern philosophy or in Western science (as seems certain in both cases) then the ether, if there is one, must be the level at which these very different explanations can finally be reconciled, and thus synthesised into an explanation for everything else.

 

[sir Mojo Loren]

Originally posted by Canute
Sir Mojo - A word of support. You are wasting your time talking such lucid common sense to people who cannot or will not think for themselves, who seem to entirely lack even the small amount of imagination needed to understand what you are actually talking about, and would rather arrogantly patronise you than read what you are saying.

Thank you, yes I am casting pearls before swine, but not for the swine themselves who keep dumping their load on them.

My own very simple wireframe model of physical existence is in direct agreement with the Buddhist model, (which I didn't know until recently). Now I find that it is also in direct agreement with your superfluid ether theory, (thanks for the explanation and the references). Have you explored the links with philosophies of consciousness and the notion of non-duality? It seems to me that if there is any truth at all in Eastern philosophy or in Western science (as seems certain in both cases) then the ether, if there is one, must be the level at which these very different explanations can finally be reconciled, and thus synthesised into an explanation for everything else.

I am a student of Spinoza whose philosophy operates as a foundational layer to Sorce Theory. It does resonate with eastern thought because it says that the fundamental unit of matter (or reality or causality) is the universe itself, as an infinite and continuous whole.

 

[cyberdyno]

What is the difference between vacuum and nothing?

Like Einstein said, there is no absolute space, space is an extension of matter. Space is not primary, nor fundamental, it does not exist by itself, it is a product, just as matter and time are products. Space is dynamic, it fluctuates, it tells matter where to go and matter tells it how to curve, remember? Empty space, on the other hand, is primary. You see, there is empty space and then there is material space, a mix of ZPR and CMBR particles. Einstein' spacetime is packed full of photons, that is where Inflation, the time cone, the time arrow, the Big Bang, 'false vacuum', etc., all come from. This why we now say space is grainy.

Locality, in spacetime, is a relation. Objects are relative to other objects, not to empty space.

The field is not to be seen as the ultimate irreducible reality, empty space is. But information starts with the field... with first quantum of action.

When we think about empty space we should stay away from notions that imply motion. Terms like infinity or velocity, size or duration... are not applicable. In this realm, we must think in terms of state, not in terms of process. Process happens in spacetime.

Because the aether is not composed of parts that follow a time line and the idea of motion is not applicable, we can safely say that the aether is one. Because it is one, there is no need for motion, there is no space or distance to cover, this is where non-locality and EPR phenomena come from. State, not knowledge, is registered throughout the Universe instantaneously, Mach was right.

---------

"...in topological quantum field theory we cannot measure time in seconds, because there is no background metric available to let us count the passage of time! We can only keep track of topological change."

"The topology of spacetime is arbitrary and there is no background metric."

"Quantum topology is very technical, as anything involving mathematical physicists inevitably becomes. But if we stand back a moment, it should be perfectly obvious that differential topology and quantum theory must merge if we are to understand background-free quantum field theories. In physics that ignores general relativity, we treat space as a background on which the process of change occurs. But these are idealizations which we must overcome in a background-free theory. In fact, the concepts of 'space' and 'state' are two aspects of a unified whole, and likewise for the concepts of 'spacetime' and 'process'. It is a challenge, not just for mathematical physicists, but also for philosophers, to understand this more deeply." ------ John C. Baez (from "Higher-dimensional algebra and Planck scale physics", as it appeared on the book "Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale" by Craig Callender and Nick Hugget)