Help me answer EU challenge from professor, please?

[Michael V]

Sparky,

I guess we could say that "aether effects" are the basic nature of matter?

Are you trying to confuse me or yourself?

If we take matter to be electrons and protons and that which they form (i.e. neutrons and atoms) and we take aether to be everything else, then the answer is no. All that we may say about matter is that it has material substance, which is mass, and that it may have motion, both linear and spin. Beyond this all "force effects" are due to the interaction of matter with the aether, such that the aether also mediates force effects between matter.

I find advantageous, for the most part, not to think in atom world (our normal everyday world), but instead to think in electron and quantum world. As I rantingly pointed out recently, there is much to gleaned from contemplating the proposition that "There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment." To make best use of this you must take it as literally as possible. Matter may interact with the aethereal field, and the measure of interaction is called mass. From here on, all force effects are due to the mass and the motion of matter interacting with, and mediated by, the aethereal field. Inertia, gravity and charge, the three "fundamental" force effects, are all due to matter interaction with and mediated by the aethereal field. By assigning effects of interaction as properties of matter we immediately tend towards a ptolemaic-like system which must be stitched together with ugly and progressively more complex maths.

Michael

[Sparky]

Sparky,

I guess we could say that "aether effects" are the basic nature of matter?

Are you trying to confuse me or yourself?

If my growing confusion has become contagious, I am sorry. But i seriously doubt that I could confuse you.

If we take matter to be electrons and protons and that which they form (i.e. neutrons and atoms) and we take aether to be everything else, then the answer is no. All that we may say about matter is that it has material substance, which is mass, and that it may have motion, both linear and spin. Beyond this all "force effects" are due to the interaction of matter with the aether, such that the aether also mediates force effects between matter.

Why isn't quantum aether matter? Didn't you say it had mass? Why can't electrons and protons be higher states (phases) of aether matter, just as molecules are higher states/phases of atoms? To differentiate between aether and electrons may be pragmatically useful in understanding kinetic and magnetic forces, but there is a strong relationship between the aether, electrons, magnetism, and gravity, which I do not understand completely. And the relationship points strongly toward the aether as being source, for me.

Have I gone too far?

I find advantageous, for the most part, not to think in atom world (our normal everyday world), but instead to think in electron and quantum world. As I rantingly pointed out recently, there is much to gleaned from contemplating the proposition that "There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment." To make best use of this you must take it as literally as possible. Matter may interact with the aethereal field, and the measure of interaction is called mass. From here on, all force effects are due to the mass and the motion of matter interacting with, and mediated by, the aethereal field. Inertia, gravity and charge, the three "fundamental" force effects, are all due to matter interaction with and mediated by the aethereal field. By assigning effects of interaction as properties of matter we immediately tend towards a ptolemaic-like system which must be stitched together with ugly and progressively more complex maths.
Michael

""There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment." To make best use of this you must take it as literally as possible.""

So, I literally took that down to the aether level...too far?

Could "mass" be just a phenomenon of aether matter and higher states of matter interactions.?

idonno..

[jacmac]

This is, I think, from Tesla.

"There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment."

I take it to mean that it has happened when matter is formed, and not necessarily all the time.

Got to go now, sorry.
Jack

[jacmac]

One Electric Universe idea is that matter is "put together" by the very large electromagnetic forces of "Z pinching" electric plasma currents. Protons and electrons (and neutrons ?) are combined to form matter into the many forms we call elements.

I suggest that Weber was correct when he said that once protons were forced very close together the natural repulsion of the positive charges was reversed; that the so called strong force is the electromagnetic force sort of turned inside out.

I remember as a child the story of the monkey that gets his(her) hand stuck in a tight hole while clutching food that it will not let go of; sort of like that.

In this sense the environment(the collapsing currents) has put the energy into matter by this initial creative force.

Jack

[saul]

Sparky,

If we take matter to be electrons and protons and that which they form (i.e. neutrons and atoms) and we take aether to be everything else, then the answer is no. All that we may say about matter is that it has material substance, which is mass, and that it may have motion, both linear and spin. Beyond this all "force effects" are due to the interaction of matter with the aether, such that the aether also mediates force effects between matter

Michael

Usually the baryonic matter is not considered to be "something else" from the space-time aether. Rather, e.g, the proton is a disturbance of this space-time. This is called field theory. For example in the vicinity of a proton we say there is a non-zero mass density, or rather a non-vanishing stress-energy tensor, which also disturbs the space-time metric of the space around it.

Can you say that we have tornadoes and hurricanes, and everything else is the atmosphere? No, these structures are made of the atmosphere.

[Michael V]

saul,

nice to "hear" from you again.

Usually the baryonic matter is not considered to be "something else" from the space-time aether. Rather, e.g, the proton is a disturbance of this space-time. This is called field theory. For example in the vicinity of a proton we say there is a non-zero mass density, or rather a non-vanishing stress-energy tensor, which also disturbs the space-time metric of the space around it.

Can you say that we have tornadoes and hurricanes, and everything else is the atmosphere? No, these structures are made of the atmosphere.

When something cannot be seen it may seem prudent to describe it only by its affects, and this is a perfectly reasonable scientific scepticism. The problem arises that this leads to the object being referred to and treated as its affects, which is to ignore cause and effect. This also rules out the possibility of even asking the question: how and why do these effects manifest?.

Rather than attempting to define a model where protons and electrons are treated as real discrete objects that interact with an aethereal field, they are treated as only as associated numerical variables. There are obvious advantages to the mathematical construct approach. However, I am of the firm opinion that the universe is in no way magical and that therefore it is purely and completely physical (some may declare this to be a belief system, I view as an absence of belief system and a sound basis for objectivity). A physical universe must operate by mechanical rules, so probability functions are not a way of describing an object or process, they are a way of avoiding describing an object or process. Do we assume that the proton is an object with physical and interactional properties or do we take it to be the sum of its affects.

Of course we may get ourselves into all sorts of semantic definitional tangles when trying to define the fundamental physical difference between a spoon and the invisible undetectable objects that cause the spoon to experience gravity or magnetism: material/immaterial, matter/aether, etc.. Recently on another thread I used the analogy of a sand castle on a beach of sand to compare to an aether particle "photon structure" in an aether particle field. Your tornado/atmosphere analogy is interestingly similar. But is it a valid analogy to describe a proton, does the tornado does not have a stable lifetime of at least 1029 years.

I am very interested in any further thoughts you may have.

Michael

[Bengt Nyman]

I remember as a child the story of the monkey that gets his(her) hand stuck in a tight hole while clutching food that it will not let go of; sort of like that.
Jack

You are right about the fence and the monkey hand. Let us say that the fence is negatively charged, and so is the monkey's hand, but not the rest of the monkey. At first the fence repels the monkey's hand. However, once the monkey gets his hand through the fence the repulsion force reverses direction, making it appear as if the monkey is held by the fence. Strong force works the same way.
http://www.dipole.se

[saul]

saul,

nice to "hear" from you again.

When something cannot be seen it may seem prudent to describe it only by its affects, and this is a perfectly reasonable scientific scepticism. The problem arises that this leads to the object being referred to and treated as its affects, which is to ignore cause and effect. This also rules out the possibility of even asking the question: how and why do these effects manifest?.

Rather than attempting to define a model where protons and electrons are treated as real discrete objects that interact with an aethereal field, they are treated as only as associated numerical variables. There are obvious advantages to the mathematical construct approach. However, I am of the firm opinion that the universe is in no way magical and that therefore it is purely and completely physical (some may declare this to be a belief system, I view as an absence of belief system and a sound basis for objectivity). A physical universe must operate by mechanical rules, so probability functions are not a way of describing an object or process, they are a way of avoiding describing an object or process. Do we assume that the proton is an object with physical and interactional properties or do we take it to be the sum of its affects.

Of course we may get ourselves into all sorts of semantic definitional tangles when trying to define the fundamental physical difference between a spoon and the invisible undetectable objects that cause the spoon to experience gravity or magnetism: material/immaterial, matter/aether, etc.. Recently on another thread I used the analogy of a sand castle on a beach of sand to compare to an aether particle "photon structure" in an aether particle field. Your tornado/atmosphere analogy is interestingly similar. But is it a valid analogy to describe a proton, does the tornado does not have a stable lifetime of at least 1029 years.

I am very interested in any further thoughts you may have.

Michael

Greetings Michael.

I am merely repeating what appears from my reading to be the purpose of introducing a space-time fluid.
The idea basically goes back to Democritus and Leucippus, and further back of course

This space-time, I will use your terminology and call it "aether", is the only thing that exists. There is nothing else. All observed reality can be explained by differing states of this aether at different locations. That's how I understand the theory at least.

Of course at this level it is just hand waving, to make this useful we need to describe some details. What properties of the aether are those we describe as mass? What properties of the aether are those we describe as an electric field? How do they relate, change with time, etc? This is what maxwell's equations and einstein's GR describe.

Perhaps you are looking for a hybrid theory, one in which the electromagnetic aether is a different substance from massive particles which travel through it? Such ideas were voiced by physicists such as Maxwell, and mostly are incompatible with observations such as stellar aberration and the Michelson Morley experiment.

Cheers -

[Sparky]

This space-time, I will use your terminology and call it "aether"

I've never understood how time could be associated with space as an integral part. To me, it is not logical.

What properties of the aether are those we describe as mass? What properties of the aether are those we describe as an electric field? How do they relate, change with time, etc?

Must there be an electric effect with an aether of mass?

electromagnetic aether is a different substance from massive particles which travel through it?

How do you arrive at the conclusion that aether is EM?

thank you.....

[Farsight]

...This space-time, I will use your terminology and call it "aether", is the only thing that exists. There is nothing else. All observed reality can be explained by differing states of this aether at different locations. That's how I understand the theory at least.

This sounds interesting. Check out Einstein's 1920 Leyden Address where he talks about the aether of General Relativity. IMHO it's best to think of this as space rather than space-time though.

Of course at this level it is just hand waving, to make this useful we need to describe some details. What properties of the aether are those we describe as mass?

A pulse of energy-momentum displaced by itself into a closed path. Inertia is just the flip side of momentum.

What properties of the aether are those we describe as an electric field?

The electromagnetic field is three-dimensional frame dragging. You can see a two-dimensional version in the gravitomagnetic field, have a read of this NASA article on gravity probe B.

Perhaps you are looking for a hybrid theory, one in which the electromagnetic aether is a different substance from massive particles which travel through it? Such ideas were voiced by physicists such as Maxwell, and mostly are incompatible with observations such as stellar aberration and the Michelson Morley experiment.

Maxwell kind of got it back to front in On Physical Lines of Force. That's where he talked about molecular vortices, but showed the particles as little balls in a "honeycomb" of vortices, see fig 2 here. The vortexes are the particles. Have a read of On Vortex Particles by David St John.

Gravity has an underlying electromagnetic nature by the way. It's really simple once you join the dots.

[saul]

I've never understood how time could be associated with space as an integral part. To me, it is not logical.

Can you find a way to define a base unit of time or space without reference to one another?

What properties of the aether are those we describe as mass? What properties of the aether are those we describe as an electric field? How do they relate, change with time, etc?

Must there be an electric effect with an aether of mass?
How do you arrive at the conclusion that aether is EM?

thank you.....

Interesting, an aether of mass? Perhaps you could define a separate fluid / field for mass, note that for a single electron the mass density is non-zero everywhere (even at great distances from the center of mass). However it is more appealing to start with a single fluid model just based on simplicity.

I am using the word as that substance through which light can travel. The electromagnetic fluid, that's what the word means to me. This is just definitions of words, no physics here sorry One could easily make the argument that the word has lost popular appeal and using "electromagnetic field" is more appropriate. Can you think of some better terminology?

Thanks for your reply -

[Sparky]

I really can't argue points, being math deficient . But defining is not the same as reality is it.? Of course we need to use abstract ideas in defining some things, but that is not to say they are really part of that which we are defining. Does that make sense?

I agree that "simplicity" is what we need, and all that I can begin to understand. You lost me with , "-a single electron - mass density is non-zero everywhere-"...sorry... But, I see mass everywhere, so am inclined to expect mass at the aether level, which would account for "waves", would it not?

"-electromagnetic fluid-", another of my many areas of ignorance...
I don't know if an eather of particles, masses, are EM or not....Or if it could be described as a fluid. Though fluid sounds better than a "fabric".
My intuition leads me to think that EM is built upon/from the aether; that the aether is neutral, from our perspective. A purely kinetic medium that imparts energy that we describe as electrical. idono.

thanks

[Michael V]

Sparky, Saul, Farsight,

I've never understood how time could be associated with space as an integral part. To me, it is not logical.

Can you find a way to define a base unit of time or space without reference to one another?

It is my understanding that "space-time" is a description of the observational experience of cosmic reality. The "space" part is rather obvious, being 3-dimensional Euclidean/Cartesian space. The "time" part involves the necessity to acknowledge that information about said 3-dimensional space can only be received at c, no faster and no slower. So that knowledge of the position of an object at the moment of observation carries with it an uncertainty since it is not the object that is being observed, but merely the light from the object. Therefore the position of the object in "space-time" is described as a "cone", since depending on its relative motion the object may actually be anywhere within the space-time cone at the instant that the information carrying light reaches the observer. As such it should be rather obvious that "space-time" does not actually exist for the universe at large. Space-time is only of interest to sentient observers. For example, any given electron is not attempting to make any prediction about the future position or motion of objects or any analysis of the past position or motion of objects. It reacts only to the momentum that it receives at any given instant. "Space-time" is the invention of and for observers. It is a mathematical tool not a description of reality.

Observers attempting to observe/measure/predict need to establish simultaneity to make true and accurate spatial and motional comparison between objects whilst taking account of the speed of light. That simultaneity cannot be established for separated objects, is entirely irrelevant to those objects. Although we may say that time ticks by on a universal absolute basis, the objects themselves exist only in space, each in their own separate time frame that lacks any need or requirement for synchronisation or simultaneity comparison. "Space-time" and simultaneity are purely observational concerns. Both of Einstein's SR postulates are human observer centric.

Sparky, your intuitive doubts regarding the association of space with time are well placed.

....it's best to think of this as space rather than space-time though.

Agreed.

I am merely repeating what appears from my reading to be the purpose of introducing a space-time fluid.....

This space-time, I will use your terminology and call it "aether", is the only thing that exists. There is nothing else. All observed reality can be explained by differing states of this aether at different locations.

See above for my definition of "observational/mathematical space-time". The aether, on the other hand, refers to a physical property of space.

I think it is clear to everyone, that the "aether" is responsible is some way or other for gravity, electromagnetism and light. For some people the term "aether" carries a very specific meaning and I think it is important to be able to keep separate one's own specific ideas and also to think of the aethereal field in a more general sense. For example, I think the term "quantum vacuum" is equally valid, even though it might normally be associated to other less desirable baggage.

The idea that electrons and protons are lumps or clumps or swirls of aether is in some regard appealing. However, it seems clear enough that these objects exist and operate as distinct and "permanent". That electrons and protons might be aethereal constructions seems philosophically inevitable, but in my opinion, from an analytical standpoint, this theoretical appeal must give way to considering them as separate entities existing within the aethereal field.

Perhaps you are looking for a hybrid theory, one in which the electromagnetic aether is a different substance from massive particles which travel through it? Such ideas were voiced by physicists such as Maxwell, and mostly are incompatible with observations such as stellar aberration and the Michelson Morley experiment.

So yes, my analysis indicates that the universe is constructed from three different particles: electrons, protons, aether particles. It seems that your statement above contains within it some implied meaning or knowledge, which differs from my personal conceptual image. The "electromagnetic aether" seems to me to be a bold statement; what then of the gravitational aether?. After all, gravity is stronger and more pervasive than electromagnetism.
The MM experiment, if it gave any result at all, showed that there was no "light waving medium". This would only be of interest if light were a wave, if it were a wave in a medium, and if it were electromagnetic. Since it is none of those I see no particular interest in that experiment.
As for your mention of stellar aberration, I am at a loss to understand the relevance, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain further.

A purely kinetic medium that imparts energy that we describe as electrical.

Permission to plagiarise please. May I also point out that the word "electrical" might easily be replaced with the word "gravitational".

This has become a most interesting and stimulating discussion. I hope that you will all continue to contribute.

Michael

[saul]

So yes, my analysis indicates that the universe is constructed from three different particles: electrons, protons, aether particles.

Sorry, that analysis is philosophically and physically untenable. If you are discussing particles on the level of electrons and protons (which are not permanent and interact to become light, neutrinos, neutrons, and other particles) , you will need muons, tauons, positrons, antiprotons, pions, and the whole hadron zoo. The "aethrons" or "atoms of space-time" are generally considered to be MUCH smaller, such that there are on the order of 10^100 or so per cubic centimeter in a vacuum. See an article in scientific american called "atoms of space" by Lee Smolin for one such analysis. Your analysis is like saying there are two kind of particles: protons and galaxies.

http://www.phys.lsu.edu/faculty/pullin/sciam.pdf

The MM experiment, if it gave any result at all, showed that there was no "light waving medium".

You are forgiven for this incorrect summary, as it is so often repeated as such in popular media. Their conclusion (read the paper) was NOT THIS AT ALL! The conclusion is that they were unable to measure a speed of the earth through this medium. The language of their papers and talks indicated they maintained their belief in a light propagation medium, and in the ability of man to eventually measure a relative motion despite Lorentz contraction and gauge invariance, and their own failure to do so.

http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys314/im ... mm_all.pdf

This would only be of interest if light were a wave, if it were a wave in a medium, and if it were electromagnetic. Since it is none of those I see no particular interest in that experiment.

If you don't believe light to be electromagnetic I see no further reason to continue the discussion with you. An elementary text on electromagnetism and electromagnetic radiation (light) should cure you of this. Your suggestion that light is not a wave I can only interpret as trolling. When I move an electric charge up and down regularly, radiation is emitted, called light. The properties of this radiation obey more than any other phenomena I know of, the linear wave equation.

As for your mention of stellar aberration, I am at a loss to understand the relevance, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain further.

This wikipedia article on the subject seems pretty good:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis

cheers - saul

[Sparky]

saul,

If you don't believe light to be electromagnetic I see no further reason to continue the discussion with you.

Well, if things outside of your indoctrination make you that uncomfortable, then there are sites where you can join in on such cybercirclejerks, and message each others mutual, cultish delusions.

An elementary text on electromagnetism and electromagnetic radiation (light) should cure you of this. Your suggestion that light is not a wave I can only interpret as trolling.

Trolling? Are we communicating with a precocious preteen high priest of the standard model cult? Or is that the standard accusation from a fundamentalist high priest of said cult, who's dogmatic teachings are questioned or ignored?

I don't know if "light" is EM or not, but lean toward NOT. Does that make me a "troll", that I question your "bible's" almighty word.?

Well, thump your collection of "bibles" (texts) as much as you wish, and take their teachings as "gospel", but do understand that, outside of your cult, you are no longer a high priest.