Aether push

[KickLaBuka]

This hardly belongs in a physics forum but i felt inclined to raise the question in a more respectful website. Can anyone describe aether in its form fit or function as a fundamental structure, which cannot be better described without it? warning. This is a loaded question.

 

[origin]

Re: Aether and the taliban

This hardly belongs in a physics forum but i felt inclined to raise the question in a more respectful website. Can anyone describe aether in its form fit or function as a fundamental structure, which cannot be better described without it?

Huh? Your question is worded rather strangely but I can tell you a bit about the luminferous aether, if that is what you are asking.

It is quite simply this. In the 1800's when the wave nature of light was discovered it was assumed that there must be some medium that the waves progegate through. Now as you probably know the denser a material is the faster sound waves will propegate through that material. In other words the speed of sound is slowest through air, it is faster in water and faster yet through steel.

So due to the high velocity of light a very dense material called aether was theorized as the medium through which the waves propegated. The aether had the rather unique properties of being extremely dense and yet undetectable.

The whole notion of the aether was of course abandoned with modern theories and experimentation with regard to light.

edited to change waves to sound waves in my third sentence.

 

[KickLaBuka]

that was a very nice description of the history of aether, and i'm glad it was discarded.

 

[undidly]

that was a very nice description of the history of aether, and i'm glad it was discarded.

The aether has not been discarded,it has been renamed as the HIGGS field.
The aether was never thought to be dense but instead very RIGID and not dense.
It is the rigidity or incompressability of matter that make sound go quickly.
The density makes it go more slowly.

 

[origin]

The aether was never thought to be dense but instead very RIGID and not dense.
It is the rigidity or incompressability of matter that make sound go quickly.
The density makes it go more slowly.

You are absolutely right on this. It is not the density. What I said was incorrect. So the aether had the rather unique properties of being very RIGID and yet undetectable.

The aether has not been discarded,it has been renamed as the HIGGS field.

This statement is not correct. The aether has been discarded and Higgs field is definitely not just another name for the aether. Remeber the aether was a theorized rigid medium that was necessary for light to propegate through. The Higgs field is a theorized field that gives particles mass or enertia. Not the same.

 

[darkmatter4brains]

This statement is not correct. The aether has been discarded and Higgs field is definitely not just another name for the aether. Remeber the aether was a theorized rigid medium that was necessary for light to propegate through. The Higgs field is a theorized field that gives particles mass or enertia. Not the same.

I've heard a number of people compare them as similar, but it's not along those lines. They believe the Higgs Field is just another concept of an "invisible" thing out there that science had to think up in order patch a hole in its currently flawed theories, and that in the end it will be shown to not actually exist (just like the ether). Perhaps, undidly, that's what you were saying too?

 

[undidly]

The aether was never thought to be dense but instead very RIGID and not dense.
It is the rigidity or incompressability of matter that make sound go quickly.
The density makes it go more slowly.

You are absolutely right on this. It is not the density. What I said was incorrect. So the aether had the rather unique properties of being very RIGID and yet undetectable.

The aether has not been discarded,it has been renamed as the HIGGS field.

This statement is not correct. The aether has been discarded and Higgs field is definitely not just another name for the aether. Remeber the aether was a theorized rigid medium that was necessary for light to propegate through. The Higgs field is a theorized field that gives particles mass or enertia. Not the same.

""You are absolutely right on this. It is not the density. What I said was incorrect. So the aether had the rather unique properties of being very RIGID and yet undetectable.""

The aether is easily detectable but it has the characteristic of what I must name as "rate of change rigidity" until
I find the correct name (if any).
A lump of steel has normal rigidity and resists changes in shape.
A lump of aether (it is everywhere) allows changes in shape(deformation) but resists changes in the RATE of
deformation.
Objects passing through the aether at constant speed are unimpeded but any CHANGE in speed is impeded.
This is called inertia and is an effect of the aether.The degree of the effect on an object is called the mass of the object.

Imagine a mass far far from other objects.Try to move it(relative to the rest of the universe).It resists being accelerated but does not resist moving.
Far far.Why does it INSTANTLY resist acceleration and not wait a time depending on the distance to the nearest mass
and the speed of light.
Nothing to do with the nearest mass.
Distance to nearest aether is zero.

 

[MeteorWayne]

The aether is easily detectable .

Except that it has not been detected, and in fact has been excluded as existing based on many measurements over the last century.

 

[KickLaBuka]

I agree with wayne. I'm a motorcyclist and i'm pretty sure my inertia is not due to the air i travel through, neither does the air let me pass unimpeded at a constant speed, nor does my momentum consider the air the definition of it. Inertia is quite specifically in it of itself.

 

[undidly]

I agree with wayne. I'm a motorcyclist and i'm pretty sure my inertia is not due to the air i travel through, neither does the air let me pass unimpeded at a constant speed, nor does my momentum consider the air the definition of it. Inertia is quite specifically in it of itself.

""i'm pretty sure my inertia is not due to the air i travel through,""

A tiny part is.Air moves around you ,that takes a little energy,stored as kinetic energy in the air movement.
Unfortunately it is lost to friction in the air,if not lost then the vehicle speed could increase indefinitely as does a space ship.

"" neither does the air let me pass unimpeded at a constant speed,""

Air is viscous ,there are friction losses.
Aether is not viscous,there are no friction losses.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Aether is not viscous,there are no friction losses.

Especially since it's been proven not to exist.

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

The aether is easily detectable but it has the characteristic of what I must name as "rate of change rigidity" until
I find the correct name (if any).
A lump of steel has normal rigidity and resists changes in shape.
A lump of aether (it is everywhere) allows changes in shape(deformation) but resists changes in the RATE of
deformation.
Objects passing through the aether at constant speed are unimpeded but any CHANGE in speed is impeded.
This is called inertia and is an effect of the aether.The degree of the effect on an object is called the mass of the object. Imagine a mass far far from other objects.Try to move it(relative to the rest of the universe).It resists being accelerated but does not resist moving.

Very interesting. I always wondered why scientists don't think about simple things like "motion", which may reveal a lot of interesting properties of our universe. Even though your definition of origin of inertia not 'accepted' yet, but it is surely intriguing.
But you lost me in the next lines.

Far far.Why does it INSTANTLY resist acceleration and not wait a time depending on the distance to the nearest mass
and the speed of light.
Nothing to do with the nearest mass.
Distance to nearest aether is zero.

What you describe as "rate of change of rigidity" of 'some substance', I try to imagine it as 'structure of empty space'. But why would it oppose acceleration but not uniform speed? Both are basically change in space with time.

 

[undidly]

The aether was never thought to be dense but instead very RIGID and not dense.
It is the rigidity or incompressability of matter that make sound go quickly.
The density makes it go more slowly.

You are absolutely right on this. It is not the density. What I said was incorrect. So the aether had the rather unique properties of being very RIGID and yet undetectable.

The aether has not been discarded,it has been renamed as the HIGGS field.

This statement is not correct. The aether has been discarded and Higgs field is definitely not just another name for the aether. Remeber the aether was a theorized rigid medium that was necessary for light to propegate through. The Higgs field is a theorized field that gives particles mass or enertia. Not the same.

"" Remeber the aether was a theorized rigid medium that was necessary for light to propegate through. The Higgs field is a theorized field that gives particles mass or enertia. Not the same.""

You are almost right.The luminiferous aether was to propagate light.
The unspecified aether was responsible for everything including inertia.
The unspecified aether (which includes the luminiferous aether) and the Higgs field occupy the same space and time as
each other ,that is everywhere and all the time.Spacetime is also everywhere and all the time.
Could it be that spacetime is the new word for aether and the Higgs field is part of spacetime.

What ?.
No aether?.
Bet there are no gravitons either.
Are gravitons predicted by Higgs theory?.

 

[yevaud]

Are gravitons predicted by Higgs theory?.

No, Higgs and Gravitons are two different theories and are responsible for two different things. One is a field explaining how particles can exert gravitational forces on each other, and the other is a field explaining how particles get mass to begin with.

 

[KickLaBuka]

Undidly, while some of the kinetic energy is lost due to friction with the air, no inertia is. The air resistance is subtracted from the kinetic energy of the moving mass. Think about a balloon and a bowling ball both travelling at one hundred kilometers per hour. They both have the same drag, but the bowling ball's kinetic term is much greater due to its higher mass, an implicit definition of inertia. Further, space time is just that. Its a coordinate system. Since you described the nearest alleged aether to be zero distance away, and objects and their properties are explained, the word becomes extraneous. The last approach is to define what mass is a function of. Higgs tries as well as string theory but neither could account with a physical and logical deduction.

 

[undidly]

Aether is not viscous,there are no friction losses.

Especially since it's been proven not to exist.

Prove a negative?.

I am glad I did not say that.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Don't worry, you didn't.

 

[undidly]

Undidly, while some of the kinetic energy is lost due to friction with the air, no inertia is. The air resistance is subtracted from the kinetic energy of the moving mass. Think about a balloon and a bowling ball both travelling at one hundred kilometers per hour. They both have the same drag, but the bowling ball's kinetic term is much greater due to its higher mass, an implicit definition of inertia. Further, space time is just that. Its a coordinate system. Since you described the nearest alleged aether to be zero distance away, and objects and their properties are explained, the word becomes extraneous. The last approach is to define what mass is a function of. Higgs tries as well as string theory but neither could account with a physical and logical deduction.

I agree with all you say here but I go just a little further.

On the subject of the source of inertia ,here is a thought experiment.
Imagine a dry sponge on the end of a spring bouncing up and down,in a space ship,in air,not a pendulum,just up and down.
The oscillation rate depends on the spring and the mass,more mass lower rate,
Repeat the experiment in a vacuum.The rate is higher (faster) because the moving mass is less,no air in the sponge.
I say the air mass which was in the sponge adds to the mass of the sponge for this experiment.

I say also that aether pervades all matter ,even inside atoms,and that ALL mass is a result of the aether being there.
In the same way as the sponge mass is INCREASED by the air so ALL the mass of atomic particles is from the aether.
So does the aether have mass as the air has mass?.No but it is VERY rigid.

 

[KickLaBuka]

that is a good thought experiment but it only reinforces my statements. A sponge filled with air does not increase the mass of the sponge. The air particles collide with the sponge slowing the spring rate. Think about the same experiment but with a steel plate. The plate does not increase mass when the system is placed in water but the spring rate is affected. If you think mathematically, the force from the spring would be subtracted by the loss of momentum from those collisions. Not mass adding to the mass of the sponge. The point is where you make your additive terms. You can add forces or add fields but you cannot add a force to a field or mass to a force. In the spring the force is its constant times its displacement. In the collision the force is the mass times the change in displacement in time. Adding mass directly to the result of the spring force changing speed violates conservation of momentum and the distributive law. Your logic left you down a path to then conclude that inside atoms the mass was a result of an as yet undefined aether, when the mass of a proton is already known as well as the mass of the electron energy.

 

[origin]

I say also that aether pervades all matter ,even inside atoms,and that ALL mass is a result of the aether being there.
In the same way as the sponge mass is INCREASED by the air so ALL the mass of atomic particles is from the aether.
So does the aether have mass as the air has mass?.No but it is VERY rigid.

I guess this is the point. The aether is considered an outdated hypothesis that has been discarded by mainstream science. You say aether pervades all matter because it is your belief. It is not a mainstream science hypothesis.

You believe that the therorized Higgs Field is just another name for the aether, mainstream science does not. The aether was hypothesised to explain how light propegated through empty space, experimentation and solid theory showed that the aether was not necessary for the propegation of light. Light was shown to be a constant which actually showed that light could not be propegating through the aether. The Higgs Field does not address the propegation of light through a vacuum so I do not see how you can say the Higgs Field is another name for the aether.

Perhaps you are using a different definition for the aether than is generally accepted?

edited to add could you supply a link that discusses the linkage between the aether and the Higgs Field?

edited for clarity

 

[undidly]

that is a good thought experiment but it only reinforces my statements. A sponge filled with air does not increase the mass of the sponge. The air particles collide with the sponge slowing the spring rate. Think about the same experiment but with a steel plate. The plate does not increase mass when the system is placed in water but the spring rate is affected. If you think mathematically, the force from the spring would be subtracted by the loss of momentum from those collisions. Not mass adding to the mass of the sponge. The point is where you make your additive terms. You can add forces or add fields but you cannot add a force to a field or mass to a force. In the spring the force is its constant times its displacement. In the collision the force is the mass times the change in displacement in time. Adding mass directly to the result of the spring force changing speed violates conservation of momentum and the distributive law. Your logic left you down a path to then conclude that inside atoms the mass was a result of an as yet undefined aether, when the mass of a proton is already known as well as the mass of the electron energy.

Oh dear ,I thought someone would misunderstand me.The sponge material is not altered in any way.The air moves with the sponge,air has mass.
Take your steel plate and a few more.Weld it into a closed box.Weigh it full of air,weigh it with all the air removed.
The steel is not changed but the box full of air weighs more.
Make a box of something weightless,weigh it full of air,weigh it empty.

""when the mass of a proton is already known as well as the mass of the electron energy.""

The mass of a proton in aether is well known.
The mass of an electron in aether is well known.
Can we change the aether to change the proton mass in the same way as changing the air pressure in the box
changes the mass of the box?.(box+air)
We cannot yet change the aether but we can go to places where the aether is different,under a strain of some sort.
Such a place is the surface of the Earth where masses are larger by one part in 10^9.That is why clocks on Earth are slower than clocks in space (by the same amount).
Slower clocks in a G well and mass increase in a G well are GR stuff.I did not make it up.Ask Einstein.
Aether changed ,mass changed.Coincidence?.

 

[KickLaBuka]

Especially since it's been proven not to exist.

Prove a negative?.

I am glad I did not say that.

Technically proving to the negative is more powerful than asserting to the affirmative. For example, aether has been shown time and time again unnecessary but the speed of light has been affirmed and then held on to. Showing that to be a false true constant would topple the way mainstream thinks about astronomy.

 

[origin]

The mass of a proton in aether is well known.
The mass of an electron in aether is well known.
Can we change the aether to change the proton mass in the same way as changing the air pressure in the box
changes the mass of the box?.(box+air)
We cannot yet change the aether but we can go to places where the aether is different,under a strain of some sort.
Such a place is the surface of the Earth where masses are larger by one part in 10^9.That is why clocks on Earth are slower than clocks in space (by the same amount).
Slower clocks in a G well and mass increase in a G well are GR stuff.I did not make it up.Ask Einstein.
Aether changed, mass changed.Coincidence?.

Of course it is not a coincidence, you made up the properties of the aether to coincide with general relativity. You also use aspect of the Higgs field to coincide with the made up aether. This is not science. Making up a field or substance and saying it has the same properties as general relativity and the using general relativity as proof of the made up field is a little, uh interesting.

edited for formating.

 

[KickLaBuka]

Thank you origin. You said it all. Thats why i like to call them pushers. But I'll return to a more professional pose and stick with the spring for now. Relativity is a different fight. In this square steel box, as the spring moves, do you suggest that the air with mass goes along or swirls around or collides into the front and back of the container? Are you familiar with conservation of momentum, spring force equations, or what i have already explained? Or am i misunderstanding four hundred year old laws?

 

[SpeedFreek]

Hi guys!

The ether was found to be surplus to requirements and so was discarded, in much the same way as the cosmological constant. The ether has not exactly been "proven not to exist", but as of yet, there has been no need for it and no way to detect it if we did need it! (Yes, this is me!)

The Michelson-Morley experiment (and subsequent tests for the constancy of the speed of light, etc) preclude the need for a "luminifeous" ether in order to explain the motions of elementary particles, and relativity precludes it as a dynamical theory, but, as has been alluded to above, the mathematical concept of a "hidden" ether remains.

But, what use is it?

Well, that all depends on what we discover in the future, doesn't it?