PDA

View Full Version : Undetectable Šther?



undidly
2011-Oct-08, 01:48 PM
If there is an Šther and it is a superfluid how could any mechanical properties be detected?

antoniseb
2011-Oct-08, 02:01 PM
If there is an Šther and it is a superfluid how could any mechanical properties be detected?
Can you say more about the particulars of this Šther you have in mind? Does it have some scale at which is has granularity? Does it have any kind of momentum of its own? Is it a carrier of magnetic susceptibility? etc...

undidly
2011-Oct-09, 03:36 AM
The magnetic and electrical characteristics of any Šther are not for this thread.
I am interested in human scale effects so granularity is also not for this thread.

An object can travel without friction through space and can do the same traveling through a superfluid.

I have seen superfluid helium on video and it does have mass and therefore inertia.It was in the bottom
of its container ,as is any liquid.
The Šther could have mass and inertia.
How can we test for these things?

Tensor
2011-Oct-09, 03:48 AM
The magnetic and electrical characteristics of any Šther are not for this thread.

Why not? You're asking how to test for an aether, those properties would be ideal for testing. Of course, we know that an aether isn't needed for those properties, so it's kinda useless to worry about those particular properties or even testing for those properties of an aether.


The Šther could have mass and inertia.
How can we test for these things?

If the aether had inertia, collisions with planets, moons, asteroids, comets etc, would transfer such inertia and cause those objects to travel in different gravitational paths than those that are observed. Mostly, those collisions would slow such objects and those objects would spiral into their primary.

undidly
2011-Oct-10, 11:53 AM
Why not? You're asking how to test for an aether, those properties would be ideal for testing. Of course, we know that an aether isn't needed for those properties, so it's kinda useless to worry about those particular properties or even testing for those properties of an aether.



If the aether had inertia, collisions with planets, moons, asteroids, comets etc, would transfer such inertia and cause those objects to travel in different gravitational paths than those that are observed. Mostly, those collisions would slow such objects and those objects would spiral into their primary.

"collisions with planets"?

The Šther (if it exists) is everywhere.
How can it collide with anything?
Planets travel through the Šther.

"and those objects would spiral into their primary"
As do orbiting black hole pairs.
The effect is observed.

Transfer the the momentum to where?
Maybe into the Šther in the form of gravitational waves?

Tensor
2011-Oct-10, 01:11 PM
"collisions with planets"?

The Šther (if it exists) is everywhere.
How can it collide with anything?
Planets travel through the Šther.

If the planets are traveling through the aether, and IF IT HAS MASS AND INERTIA, those objects would be colliding with it. I'm just using the initial conditions you specified. Or are we ignoring those properties also?


"and those objects would spiral into their primary"
As do orbiting black hole pairs.
The effect is observed.

Over and above the gravitational effect? You have an example of this, right? Broken down into the gravitational effect part and the aether effect part?


Transfer the the momentum to where?
Maybe into the Šther in the form of gravitational waves?

Maybe into electrical, magnetic or mechanical effects. We don't know. You haven't been specific enough, and aether has never been observed. Are you advocating for momentum transfer to aether (whatever it is) to be gravitational waves?

captain swoop
2011-Oct-10, 01:36 PM
Undidly Please take care. This Forum is for asking questions of the Mainstream and getting mainstream answers.
If you propose dispute the Mainstream answers and instead advocate anything that is against the Mainstream then this thread needs to ne moved to the ATM Forum

Copernicus
2011-Oct-11, 01:22 AM
Why would an object have to be separate from the aether, why could not the earth be eddies of momentum differentials transfered from one part of the aether to the next part of the aether. A tornado is no different than the air that it is in except that it is faster air.

Hornblower
2011-Oct-11, 02:27 AM
Why would an object have to be separate from the aether, why could not the earth be eddies of momentum differentials transfered from one part of the aether to the next part of the aether. A tornado is no different than the air that it is in except that it is faster air.

The combination of a tornado and the surrounding air does not resemble the combination of a planet and the surrounding space. Can you illustrate whatever you are envisioning in appropriate mathematical detail? If so, someone here might be able to give you an answer.

Tensor
2011-Oct-11, 04:53 AM
Why would an object have to be separate from the aether,

Do you understand the history of the aether? The following from wikipedia describes the problems with the aether of the late 19th century:
Nevertheless, by this point the mechanical qualities of the aether had become more and more magical: it had to be a fluid in order to fill space, but one that was millions of times more rigid than steel in order to support the high frequencies of light waves. It also had to be massless and without viscosity, otherwise it would visibly affect the orbits of planets. Additionally it appeared it had to be completely transparent, non-dispersive, incompressible, and continuous at a very small scale. Feel free to explain how an object would fit the description of the aether. For instance, Earth. Has to be fluid. Nope, not a fluid, so the Earth would have to be separate from the aether. The sun might work, it fits the description of a fluid. Millions of times more rigid than steel? Nope, count the sun out. See the problems?


why could not the earth be eddies of momentum differentials transfered from one part of the aether to the next part of the aether.

Eddies of momentum differentials? What does that even mean? Momentum is a vector. If the Earth was transfering momentum, then the Earth would have to have different momentum vectors. Not to mention, even if it did have multiple vectors for momentum, the aether would have to have some sort of mechanical makeup, to transfer the momentum to. Which means there would be other reactions we would observe, which we don't.


A tornado is no different than the air that it is in except that it is faster air.

So, you're saying that the aether is made up of the many different elements that make up the Earth? You might want to check that description of the aether again.

undidly
2011-Oct-11, 09:11 AM
Why would an object have to be separate from the aether, why could not the earth be eddies of momentum differentials transfered from one part of the aether to the next part of the aether. A tornado is no different than the air that it is in except that it is faster air.

I think you are on the right track.
I was hoping that someone would explain the mechanical aspects.

If an experimenter was near to an orbiting pair of black holes what instrument would he use to measure
what?
A specially made instrument?

astromark
2011-Oct-11, 09:51 AM
In short, and I beg for correction; there is no eather.

The general term is used to describe the void of empty space between every thing.

That some scream out it must be something as to be nothing would be a contradiction of space being a medium

that allows a wave function action. or transference of energies..

I am of the view that mainstream science does NOT support the notion of a 'eather'.. at all.

I see some confusion of minds when eather is mistaken for absolutely nothing at all.

profloater
2011-Oct-11, 10:04 AM
you have chosen to ignore the aether tests involving light and you mention a superfluid. If a fluid can flow around an object and rejoin perfectly at the back as in laminar flow but without any viscosity, then planets etc could move through it without net forces however if there is an aether it would have to more than just a superfluid

Strange
2011-Oct-11, 10:09 AM
I was hoping that someone would explain the mechanical aspects.

Someone has explained the mechanical aspects: it doesn't work.


If an experimenter was near to an orbiting pair of black holes what instrument would he use to measure
what?

What do you want to measure?

Apart from the idea of an aether (a) not making sense (b) not being required and (c) not being detectable, what are you looking for?

Copernicus
2011-Oct-11, 02:08 PM
Do you understand the history of the aether? The following from wikipedia describes the problems with the aether of the late 19th century:
Nevertheless, by this point the mechanical qualities of the aether had become more and more magical: it had to be a fluid in order to fill space, but one that was millions of times more rigid than steel in order to support the high frequencies of light waves. It also had to be massless and without viscosity, otherwise it would visibly affect the orbits of planets. Additionally it appeared it had to be completely transparent, non-dispersive, incompressible, and continuous at a very small scale. Feel free to explain how an object would fit the description of the aether. For instance, Earth. Has to be fluid. Nope, not a fluid, so the Earth would have to be separate from the aether. The sun might work, it fits the description of a fluid. Millions of times more rigid than steel? Nope, count the sun out. See the problems?




Eddies of momentum differentials? What does that even mean? Momentum is a vector. If the Earth was transfering momentum, then the Earth would have to have different momentum vectors. Not to mention, even if it did have multiple vectors for momentum, the aether would have to have some sort of mechanical makeup, to transfer the momentum to. Which means there would be other reactions we would observe, which we don't.



So, you're saying that the aether is made up of the many different elements that make up the Earth? You might want to check that description of the aether again.

I agree with all of the requirements of the aether, that it is rigid, in fact as rigid as Planck Pressure at the component level. That it is continuous in that its components touch each other in, for example, cuboctahedron structure. Fluid in that as the universe expands it leaves gaps that allow for some movement. etc.

If we already know the requirements, even though they seem unbelievable to us, why aren't we looking? The universe at a deeper level probably seems to be magical. Doesn't mean it is magical. We just don't understand it.

If the sun is sending gravitons to change the momentum of the earth continuously, if we add up all that momentum it must be momentum, it seems fantastical. Worse yet, think of how much momentum would be necessary for charged particles. We logically don't believe the universe actually is as fantastic as it is. So many more times stronger by magnitudes and magnitudes that we have to invent other explanations.

I just think if we know the requirements for the aether we should work towards that direction even if it seems to be a fools game.

Strange
2011-Oct-11, 02:21 PM
If we already know the requirements, even though they seem unbelievable to us, why aren't we looking?

We have looked. It's not there. Why would you expect it to be? It was an idea (hypothesis) that was falsified and proved unnecessary decades ago. Why keep going on about it? Do you want to try and detect phlogiston or caloric as well?


If the sun is sending gravitons to change the momentum of the earth continuously, if we add up all that momentum it must be momentum, it seems fantastical. Worse yet, think of how much momentum would be necessary for charged particles.

I don't understand that. Or how it is relevant to the non-existence of the ether.

WayneFrancis
2011-Oct-11, 02:32 PM
I agree with all of the requirements of the aether, that it is rigid, in fact as rigid as Planck Pressure at the component level. That it is continuous in that its components touch each other in, for example, cuboctahedron structure. Fluid in that as the universe expands it leaves gaps that allow for some movement. etc.


French dressing please. What are the "gaps" that are being created? If there is an aether then what happens when the universe expands? Its a "super fluid" but "leaves gaps"?



If we already know the requirements, even though they seem unbelievable to us, why aren't we looking? The universe at a deeper level probably seems to be magical. Doesn't mean it is magical. We just don't understand it.


We know the requirements for invisible pink winged unicorns too. Should we look for those? BTW the IPWUs also have all the properties needed to make the aether unnecessary, not that an aether is necessary at all right now.



If the sun is sending gravitons to change the momentum of the earth continuously, if we add up all that momentum it must be momentum, it seems fantastical. Worse yet, think of how much momentum would be necessary for charged particles. We logically don't believe the universe actually is as fantastic as it is. So many more times stronger by magnitudes and magnitudes that we have to invent other explanations.


What? How would the Sol and Earth exchanging virtual particles like gravitons change the momentum of the Earht? The only momentum change in the Earth is due to its non circular orbit. Do you understand what "momentum" actually is?



I just think if we know the requirements for the aether we should work towards that direction even if it seems to be a fools game.

Again why should we work towards the direction of an aether any more then we should work towards the direction of IPWUs?

Copernicus
2011-Oct-11, 02:47 PM
We should look for the aether because we can calculate the properties it must have to exist. The IPWU argument is ridiculing anybody who steps out of bounds and is putting anybody outside the mainstream into a virtual firing squad.

Strange
2011-Oct-11, 02:56 PM
We should look for the aether because we can calculate the properties it must have to exist.

But:

a) those properties are inherently contradictory
b) there is no need for an aether - what is it for?
c) I can invent all sorts of non-existent things and define their properties -is it worth looking for them as well?
d) we have looked and it doesn't exist


The IPWU argument is ridiculing anybody who steps out of bounds and is putting anybody outside the mainstream into a virtual firing squad.

Of course it isn't. It is a perfectly good analogy for something that doesn't exist and is made up.

Why keep going on about it? Do you want to try and detect phlogiston or caloric as well?

WayneFrancis
2011-Oct-11, 03:08 PM
We should look for the aether because we can calculate the properties it must have to exist. The IPWU argument is ridiculing anybody who steps out of bounds and is putting anybody outside the mainstream into a virtual firing squad.

No, the point is that we don't have any reason to require an aether just like we don't have any reason to believe in IPWUs.

So we have no evidence for an aether or IPWUs. What question, gaps in our knowledge, do you think an aether would answer?

So lets list the properties that an aether must have. Note that some of the "requirements" are not a requirements we currently need to explain. Tensor "requirements" aren't gaps in our knowledge that need to be answered. They are constrains on that you would have to put on something that you are trying to shoe horn into a spot that doesn't currently require anything else.

So what property does your aether have that explains something we can not currently answer?

Lets put it another way. If you are looking to make a vanilla butter cake are you going to look for chocolate in the recipe? If you see a basic cake made and there is flour, egg, sugar, oil and milk there and the recipe seems to make that cake and it tastes, looks and smells like the first cake then why look for other ingredients?

WayneFrancis
2011-Oct-11, 03:19 PM
PS. I'm sorry you think that I'm ridiculing you. That is not my intention. It might be a communication issue but as of yet I have not seen a reason to look for the aether beyond you saying we should look for it. From what I see here in the thread, knowing the arguments normally put forth for an aether in the past by others, it is reasonable for a person to think you either don't know about the evidence against the aether or you disregard that evidence. Others have tried to explain the evidence against the aether to you but you seem not understand what is being presented to you.

So why don't you think the evidence that has been put forth so far is sufficient?

Tensor
2011-Oct-11, 03:35 PM
I agree with all of the requirements of the aether, that it is rigid, in fact as rigid as Planck Pressure at the component level. That it is continuous in that its components touch each other in, for example, cuboctahedron structure. Fluid in that as the universe expands it leaves gaps that allow for some movement. etc.

Yeah, etc. I noticed that you left out those properties that are contradictory to the ones you describe. That being massless and having no viscosity, yet being more rigid, by millions of times is a show stopper (among others for me).


If we already know the requirements, even though they seem unbelievable to us, why aren't we looking?

Yeah, we know the requirement, we also know what kind of effects those requirements would produce. Guess what, we don't see those effects.


The universe at a deeper level probably seems to be magical. Doesn't mean it is magical. We just don't understand it.

Yep. Why is mass of the electron 0.510998928 MeV? It's not magical, we don't understand it. However, we can measure the mass, we can measure it's momentum, we can measure it's charge. We can even see the effects of electrons (check any television or computer monitor prior to 1990 for a simple example) None of which we can do with the aether.


If the sun is sending gravitons

We have no model to explain the sun sending gravitons. We have a model to explain the Earth's orbit using geometry.


to change the momentum of the earth continuously, if we add up all that momentum it must be momentum, it seems fantastical.

Why?


Worse yet, think of how much momentum would be necessary for charged particles.

Why is that worse? Charged particles are handled all the time in particle accelerators.


We logically don't believe the universe actually is as fantastic as it is. So many more times stronger by magnitudes and magnitudes that we have to invent other explanations.

You want to explain this a bit better? We use the models we come up with to make predictions. If the predictions match our observations, we keep the model. If they don't, we get rid of the model. Now, there are times (most of them) where the current model isn't totally thrown out, just tweaked a bit.


I just think if we know the requirements for the aether we should work towards that direction even if it seems to be a fools game.

Again, if there was an aether, we would observe effects on the planets, and effects in particle accelerators that are not seen. If we don't see them, why look for an aether? I still don't understand your fascination with wasting resources on something that does not produce any effects or is not needed by experiment or is shown to be needed by any current model.

Copernicus
2011-Oct-11, 04:31 PM
I also agree that the aether is massless and has no viscosity. And yes, this does seem to be contradictory, but the parameter are what they are, and that is precisely why it is so hard to detect. All the tools we have for measuring the aether have failed.

Lets say you have a bucket of hardened steel spheres coated with electrolized chrome, all in mecury so they are, in a sense, weightless. Very hard, very slippery, weightless. Make the balls out of something with specific gravity equal to mercury. They are placed in a rubber container, that can expand. They are packed cuboctahedron. Place another ball in there with a string attached and pull it through this structure. What happens if you pull it fast or slow. Does this mimic the situation of the theoretical properties an aether must have, but is not mainstream, why or why not.

Do the hardened steel balls appear weightless as the extra ball is pulled through very slowly, but extremely massive when the velocity reaches some certain theoretical limit?

Addition to model, the rubber container is also floating in mercury.

Strange
2011-Oct-11, 04:35 PM
Why do you need an aether? What is it for? What questions does it answer? How is it different from phlogiston?

Copernicus
2011-Oct-11, 04:47 PM
An aether is needed for action at a distance, fields, quantization, symmetry!

Shaula
2011-Oct-11, 04:54 PM
All the tools we have for measuring the aether have failed.
OK. So which scenario is more likely?
1) The tests are not good enough despite the fact that all the required properties of the hypothetical aether say that they should be, requiring ever more contradictory behaviours to be ascribed to it (entrainment, being the same 'stuff' as matter but not momentum coupled, rigid superfluid... ... ...) keeping it just beyond our reach.
2) It is not there.

This is Q&A. The mainstream view is that there is no aether and that lots of tests have shown this. It is not the place to argue for it but a place to ask questions - even if you don't like the answers.


An aether is needed for action at a distance, fields, quantization, symmetry!
No it is not. Not at all. Those topics are covered by field theories without the need for an aether. That is the mainstream view.

Edit: added second quote and reply

Strange
2011-Oct-11, 04:54 PM
An aether is needed for action at a distance, fields, quantization, symmetry!

Right... in the same way that phlogiston is "needed" to explain combustion. Oddly, none of our highly successful theories have an "aether-shaped hole" in them. So, no.

Strange
2011-Oct-11, 04:56 PM
All the tools we have for measuring the aether have failed.

Because it is not there. And there is absolutely no reason to think it should be. Only cranks and pseudoscientists produce theories with aether.

PetersCreek
2011-Oct-11, 11:49 PM
An aether is needed for action at a distance, fields, quantization, symmetry!

To reinforce captain swoop's earlier moderation (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/122177-Undetectable-Šther?p=1944024#post1944024), if you wish to advocate for an aether, do it in the ATM forum. You risk infraction by continuing to do so in this thread.

WayneFrancis
2011-Oct-12, 12:00 AM
An aether is needed for action at a distance, fields, quantization, symmetry!
Says who? Why is it required for any one of these let alone all of them.

By "action at a distance" do you mean it is needed to explain gravity? Is this because you believe you can't have an attractive force between 2 objects so you need some type of "aether" to "push" objects together with some type of pressure?

Are you just giving different "fields" out there the label of "aether"?

Why is it needed for quantization?

What do you mean by symmetry? If you are using the "aether" to explain symmetry in particle physics then why would the aether be needed to explain symmetry in many areas but would skip others?

Please, if you have in depth answers for these then open an ATM thread on the topic and let us go into the merits and flaws of those ideas there because none of those need answering by an aether according to mainstream science.

WayneFrancis
2011-Oct-12, 12:08 AM
Perhaps you should ask a question like.

"How can I learn more about field theory?"

I have yet to see someone promoting an aether actually understanding the mainstream answers to which the proponent claims the aether explains better.
Perhaps you are right. But first I need to see a question where we don't currently have an answer that work and where chucking in an aether doesn't break more science then it fixes.