beecee

Just something that I have been going to ask for a while.... https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_spacetime_possess_the_properties_of_a_relativistic_aether "Einstein is generally credited with eliminating the need for the aether. However, as documented in the book “Einstein and the Ether”, from 1916 until his death he believed in the aether in some form. In these years, he used the terms “relativistic ether” and “physical space” to convey this idea. For example, in 1934 he wrote “Physical space and the ether are different terms for the same thing; fields are physical states of space.” The standard model is a field theory where all fundamental particles are considered “excitations” of their respective fields. For example, there is an electron field, a muon field and a Higgs field. Do these fields physically exist in spacetime? If so, can they be described physically and collectively described as a relativistic aether? The recent detection of gravitational waves (GWs) has elevated this discussion because one model says that GWs are waves of gravitons propagating at the speed of light through the empty void of space. The competing model advanced by D. B. Blair et al is that GWs are “ripples in the curvature of spacetime which propagate in a very stiff elastic medium. Spacetime has a characteristic impedance of c3/G.” This is describing the physical properties of spacetime encountered by GWs as an elastic medium with a tremendously large impedance. The word “aether” is not used by Blair, but perhaps the elastic properties of spacetime, the multiple fields of the standard model, and the vacuum fluctuations or quantum field theory should be lumped together into the collective term “relativistic aether”. Is space an empty void which messenger particles propagate through or does space have physical properties which justify the term “relativistic aether” and call for further analysis?" <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any comments? I'm not perturbed one way or the other in actual fact, and do not see it as causing a problem. This paper may also be open to some comment...again, I'm unable to see any problem one way or the other.... https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/space-time-and-aether-.php?aid=81157 Space, Time and Aether Received Date: September 25, 2016; Abstract: At the end of the nineteenth century a luminiferous aether was considered necessary to explain electromagnetic interactions and the propagation of light waves. As this aether could not be detected it was disregarded and mathematical theories were developed to explain physical interactions without reference to the aether. Now, over a century later, it is generally acknowledged that a major part of the universe consists of Dark Energy. This article considers that dark energy could be the same entity as the elusive luminiferous aether and looks at implications for time, space and gravity. The conclusion is that results can be obtained by this method that are equivalent to those obtained according to Einstein’s theories <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I find this interesting......................... https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/albert-einstein-began-by-rejecting-the-ether-theory-2e0d8ff8a812 extract: "In 1920 Einstein said about ether corresponding with classical ether. But in his paper in 1924, named “Concerning the Aether”, Einstein explained the “aether of general relativity” is not absolute, because matter is influenced by the aether, just as matter influences the structure of the aether. So the only similarity of this relativistic aether concept with the classical aether models lies in the presence of physical properties in space. Therefore, Einstein’s use of the word “aether” found little support in the scientific community, and played no role in the continuing development of modern physics"

Question....While accepting that the old luminiferous ether was invalidated by Michelson and Morley, could the spacetime of GR possibly be inferred as an ether?

I see the quantum foam as real nothing that has existed for eternity... Irrespective "true nothingness" may simply mean redefining.

Only possibly "nothing" being eternal, depending on how you define "nothing"...perhaps the best definition of nothing we can have is the quantum foam from whence the BB evolved from. https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag6fH8cU-MU

In relation to the title of this thread, "Could time and space be older than the creation of our universe" The prevailing theory that is supported by the overwhelming evidence, is that space and time [as we know them] evolved from a hotter denser state at t+10-43 seconds. The "as we know them" is important.

https://phys.org/news/2018-12-volume-universe-factor.html Innovation increases observable volume of the universe by a factor of seven December 14, 2018, GEO600 Gravitational Wave Detector: The detection of Einstein's gravitational waves relies on highly precise laser measurements of small length changes. The kilometer-size detectors of the international network (GEO600, LIGO, Virgo) are so sensitive that they are fundamentally limited by tiny quantum mechanical effects. These cause a background noise which overlaps with gravitational-wave signals. This noise is always present and can never be entirely removed. But one can change its properties – with a process called squeezing, to date only used routinely at GEO600 – such that it interferes less with the measurement. Now, GEO600 researchers have achieved better squeezing than ever. This opens new ways to improve the international detector network in the next observation runs and is a key step to third-generation detectors such as the Einstein Telescope. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-12-volume-universe-factor.html#jCp ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: https://phys.org/news/2018-12-mini-detectors-gigantic-bose-einstein-condensates-gravitational.html#ms Mini-detectors for the gigantic? Bose-Einstein condensates are currently not able to detect gravitational waves: The gravitational waves created by black holes or neutron stars in the depths of space have been found to reach Earth. Their effects, however, are so small that they can only be observed using kilometer-long measurement facilities. Physicists are therefore discussing whether ultracold and miniscule Bose-Einstein condensates with their ordered quantum properties could also detect these waves. Prof. Ralf Schützhold from the Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR) and the TU Dresden has studied the basis of these suggestions and writes in the journal Physical Review D that such evidence is far beyond the reach of current methods. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-12-mini-detectors-gigantic-bose-einstein-condensates-gravitational.html#jCp the paper: https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.105019 Interaction of a Bose-Einstein condensate with a gravitational wave: ABSTRACT Partly motivated by recent proposals for the detection of gravitational waves, we study their interaction with Bose-Einstein condensates. For homogeneous condensates at rest, the gravitational wave does not directly create phonons (to lowest order) but merely affects existing phonons or indirectly creates phonon pairs via quantum squeezing—an effect which has already been considered in the literature. For inhomogeneous condensate flows such as a vortex lattice, however, the impact of the gravitational wave can directly create phonons. This more direct interaction can be more efficient and could perhaps help bring such a detection mechanism for gravitational waves a step closer towards experimental realizability—even though there is still a long way to go. Finally, we argue that super-fluid helium might offer some advantages in this respect.

I'm still not sure what you are attempting to say...As far as I am aware, the universe has been found to be flat to within very small error allowances. Our observable universe is around 47 billion L/years in radius, and that is all we can say with any degree of certainty...the universe as a whole may be infinite or very very big, so much so as to be beyond our ability to measure it. Another point worth noting, the BB model only applies to our observable universe. https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/07/18/how-big-is-the-entire-universe the finality of that article says...."Just because the part of it we can see is indistinguishable from flat doesn't mean it's intrinsically flat in its entirety. But it does mean that the Universe is far larger than we'll ever see. Even taking the minimum allowable estimate for the size of the Universe means that, at most, less than 0.0001% of the volume of the Universe is presently or will ever be observable to us. Once you put our knowledge about dark matter and dark energy in there, you'll realize that we'll never see more of the Universe than we can right now. So all that we see -- the billions of stars in our galaxy, the hundreds of billions of galaxies lighting up the observable Universe -- is just a teeny-tiny fraction of what's actually out there, beyond what we can see. And yet, we can know that it's there. Isn't science wonderful?"

You don't see the bashing on both sides?

The BB is supported by four main pillars of evidence.... [1] The observed expansion:[2] The predicted CMBR: [1] Abundance and nucleosynthesis of the lighter elements: [4] Large scale galactic structure: The BB describes the evolution of space and time from t+10-43 seconds. I accept the BB as the most likely model describing how our universe evolved due to the preponderance of evidence.

Agreed, on "The Farthest" doco...excellent stuff. I'm not sure if that is entirely right, but I'm open for correction. I was of the opinion that due to its trajectory it was only ever meant to have a close encounter with Jupiter and Saturn...The Titan decision was simply convenient I think.

Articles on physorg today concerning climate change......... https://phys.org/news/2018-12-arctic-broad-environment.html Arctic's record warming driving 'broad change' in environment: study: Global warming is heating the Arctic at a record pace, driving broad environmental changes across the planet, including extreme storms in the United States and Europe, a major US scientific report said Tuesday. Persistent heat records have assaulted the fragile Arctic for each of the past five years—a record-long warming streak, said the 2018 Arctic Report Card, released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-12-arctic-broad-environment.html#jCp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://phys.org/news/2018-12-degrading-permafrost-arctic-infrastructure-mid-century.html Degrading permafrost puts Arctic infrastructure at risk by mid-century: Seventy percent of the current infrastructure in the Arctic has a high potential to be affected by thawing permafrost in the next 30 years. Even meeting the climate change targets of the Paris Agreement will not substantially reduce those projected impacts, according to a new study published in Nature Communications. "Much more needs to be done to prepare Alaska and Alaskans for the adverse consequences of coming changes in permafrost and climate," said Vladimir Romanovsky, a scientist with the University of Alaska Fairbanks Geophysical Institute who has been monitoring permafrost across Alaska for 25 years. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-12-degrading-permafrost-arctic-infrastructure-mid-century.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< https://phys.org/news/2018-12-glaciers-thinning-asia.html Slow flow for glaciers thinning in Asia: Providing water for drinking, irrigation and power, glaciers in the world's highest mountains are a lifeline for more than a billion people. As climate change takes a grip and glaciers lose mass, one might think that, lubricated by more meltwater, they flow more quickly. However, satellite images from over the last 30 years show that it isn't as simple as that. A paper published recently in Nature Geoscience describes how a multitude of satellite images have been used to reveal that there has actually been a slowdown in the rate at which glaciers slide down the high mountains of Asia. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-12-glaciers-thinning-asia.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< https://phys.org/news/2018-12-scary-poles-weird.html Scary warming at poles showing up at weird times, places: Scientists are seeing surprising melting in Earth's polar regions at times they don't expect, like winter, and in places they don't expect, like eastern Antarctica. New studies and reports issued this week at a major Earth sciences conference paint one of the bleakest pictures yet of dramatic and dangerous warming in the Arctic and Antarctica. Alaskan scientists described to The Associated Press Tuesday never-before-seen melting and odd winter problems, including permafrost in 25 spots that never refroze this past winter and wildlife die-offs. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-12-scary-poles-weird.html#jCp ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I'm surprised sometimes that the climate scientists don't just pack up and leave humanity to fend as best as it can. Why isn't this stuff in the general media? Perhaps they see it as not sensational enough? What chance have we got? In my opinion only in the hands of our young people who will afterall have to do the fending as best as they can.

Yep, Voyager 11 actually showed that when the opportunity did present itself, [a planetary alignment] that Newtonian mechanics could enable us to rendezvous with all four of the gaseous and ice giants of the outer solar system, a feat in itself, and an indication of how powerful the superseded use of Newtonian mechanics could be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_2 Path viewed from above the solar system Path viewed from side, showing distance below ecliptic in gray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_2

The following is an article detailing the second man made object to reach Inter stellar space, or that region where the Sun’s flow of material and magnetic field no longer affect its surroundings. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-11/parkes-radio-telescope-tracks-nasa-spacecraft/10605106 NASA confirms Voyager 2's crossing into interstellar space as Parkes tracks its progress ABC Central West By Joanna Woodburn and Kathleen Ferguson Updated yesterday at 4:14pm PHOTO: NASA's Voyager 2 has crossed through the heliosphere into interstellar space. (Supplied: NASA ) NASA has confirmed that Voyager 2 is now in interstellar space, some 18 billion kilometres from Earth — and its progress is being tracked from central-west New South Wales. The probe, launched in 1977, is the second human-made craft ever to enter interstellar space. The first was its partner, Voyager 1, which made the crossing in 2012. Since early November the CSIRO's Parkes Radio Telescope has been tracking Voyager 2, which can no longer be observed from the northern hemisphere. more at link....... <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hi.....Firstly in actual fact, it isn't a scientific theory, [which is the highest accolade any scientific model can have] it is simply hypothetical. Secondly mostly all scientific theories and models start out as speculative and hypothetical, and to use a favourite terminology of mine, need to run the gauntlet before reaching theory stage. Thirdly as yet we cannot even say with any confidence how or why the BB happened, and noting that this theory [the BB] only goes back as far as 10-43 seconds after the initial event, of which we are ignorant. So you can see that evidence for any multiverse is unlikely to be evident.

Yes, certainly I get it, At last. To talk of the properties of negative mass as though its something concrete, after admitting it is hypothetical, is rather weird to say the least and what I have already commented on. Yes, I have already given a link that already claims that, so? hypothetical? Speculative? Impossible? methinks you are playing games. Why would anyone actually see any need to discuss such hypothetical stuff with you, after your feelings and unsupported claims re GR are well known. I've seen many examples of what you claim as "quality of content" and most all is hypothetical and fictional and probably anti mainstream. And obviously the few citations also point to the paper's lack of substance and simply repeating what most already know. Your many opinions on science are mostly just that...opinions mixed in with some recognised factual positions of which you do have good knowledge of. It's your opinions not based on recognised mainstream positions that are in question and purely hypothetical at this time.

The position is that it is hypothetical and speculative like many scientific papers, and certainly not mainstream thinking.

So you finally admit that it is all speculation and hypothetical? Strange way of doing it but hey! I'll take it!

With all due respect q-reeus, you obviously have an agenda, an anti GR stance and perhaps that clouds your thinking, and your unreasonable efforts in attempting to claim and show it in error or wanting. And of course, if in your opinion, you are 100% certain of your claims, there is a far greater and more substantial way of getting it accepted...write up a professional paper, in a professional manner, for professional peer review. You will certainly get a 100% fair hearing, which you erroneously claim you are not getting here. My quote mining are all with links and it can always be read in context. The point again though is this is all speculation and hypothetical scenarios. GR and the BB as first inferred by the OP poster are not in anyway invalidated or lessened in anyway and still stand as the accepted mainstream incumbent models. That is obvious and yet something you fail to accept.

The point has been made. The OP claims, and the additional hypotheticals are all still just that. As I have pointed out hundreds of scientific papers based on speculative hypothetical and unknown scenarios are published every day. And that is what science is all about. Some end up after the appropriate research as accepted incumbent and mainstream thinking and models...others remain and research continues...many though are simply lost in cyber space and never to be heard of again. The problem of negative mass is hypothetical and unlikely. The properties of such unlikely and hypothetical negative mass, is it appears debatable, and obviously so "hairy fairy", fanciful and unlikely, as probably to belong to the third bundle, and eventually be lost in cyber space. Meanwhile the research into the mystery of DM and DE continues, with many papers and ideas, being considered actively. Some info from WIKI follows...... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass "Positive mass attracts both other positive masses and negative masses". "Negative mass repels both other negative masses and positive masses". For two positive masses, nothing changes and there is a gravitational pull on each other causing an attraction. Two negative masses would repel because of their negative inertial masses. For different signs however, there is a push that repels the positive mass from the negative mass, and a pull that attracts the negative mass towards the positive one at the same time. Hence Bondi pointed out that two objects of equal and opposite mass would produce a constant acceleration of the system towards the positive-mass object,[6] an effect called "runaway motion" by Bonnor who disregarded its physical existence, stating: "I regard the runaway (or self-accelerating) motion […] so preposterous that I prefer to rule it out by supposing that inertial mass is all positive or all negative." ” — William B. Bonnor, in Negative mass in general relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass

And why were not these extra "events" discovered by aLIGO/VIRGO research scientists themselves? Were they actually over cautious in there announcements? Does no one else see this as momentous and important? https://australiascience.tv/gravitational-waves-biggest-black-hole-merger-ever-detected-revealed/ "All four newly confirmed black hole mergers were found in archived observing runs from 2017, coming to light as a result of routine data-cleaning". "They bring the total number of mergers detected to 10 – plus a single neutron star–neutron star collision – over the past three years" And I'm rather disappointed that the announcement by the aLIGO VIRGO media people, have not seen fit to give credit to the great work as achieved by the Aussie contingent and the Australian National University (ANU) here...... https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news news release: LIGO and Virgo announce four new Gravitational Wave detections: The National Science Foundation's LIGO, and the European based Virgo, have published new results from the first two observing runs. Four new BH mergers are newly announced...more at link

Does it? Can you give some reputable reference to support that? The only universe with any possible maximum radius is the observable universe, and that is around 47 billion L/years in radius...or is that actually what you meant to say? The universe as a whole? I did find this...... https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/07/14/ask-ethan-how-large-is-the-entire-unobservable-universe/#410c447ddf80 extract: "This means the unobservable Universe, assuming there's no topological weirdness, must be at least 23 trillion light years in diameter, and contain a volume of space that's over 15 million times as large as the volume we can observe. If we're willing to speculate, however, we can argue quite compellingly that the unobservable Universe should be significantly even bigger than that".

We'll ignore the usual denial of the likely fact that negative mass probably does not exist and that this is pure speculation and of course the reason why it is where it is, in speculations.......here's some more links..... http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2014/11/negative-mass-in-general-relativity.html Negative Mass in General Relativity? Science News ran a piece the other week about a paper that has appeared in PRD titled “Negative mass bubbles in de Sitter spacetime”. The Science News article is behind a paywall, but don’t worry I’ll tell you everything you need to know.The arxiv version of the paper is here. Since I’m quoted in the Science News piece saying something to the extent that I have my reservations but think it’s a promising direction of study, I have gotten a lot of questions about negative masses in General Relativity lately. So here a clarification.First one has to be careful what one means with mass. There are three types of masses: inertial mass, passive gravitational mass, and active gravitational mass. In General Relativity these masses, or their generalization in terms of tensors respectively, are normally assumed to be identical.The equality of inertial and passive gravitational mass is basically the equivalence principle. ... The positive mass theorem, in contrast to what its name suggests, does not state that one cannot have particles with negative masses. It states instead, roughly, that if your local matter is normal matter and obeys certain plausible assumptions, then the total energy and mass are also positive. You thus cannot have stars with negative masses, regardless of how you bend your space-time. This isn’t as trivial a statement as it sounds because the gravitational interaction contributes to the definition of these integrated quantities. In any case, the positive mass theorem holds in space that is asymptotically flat.Now what they point out in the new paper is that for all we know we don’t live in asymptotically flat space, but we live in asymptotic de-Sitter space because observational evidence speaks for a positive cosmological constant. In this case the positive mass theorem doesn’t apply. Then they go on to construct a negative mass solution in asymptotic de Sitter space. I didn’t check the calculation in detail, part of it is numerical, but it all sounds plausible to me. However, it is somewhat misleading to call the solution that they find a negative mass solution. ...Selling this as a negative mass solution is like one of these ads that say you’ll save 10$ if you spend at least $100 – in the end your expenses are always positive. The negative mass in their solution corresponds to the supposed savings that you make. You never really get to see them. What really matters are the total expenses. And these are always positive. There are thus no negative mass particles in this scenario whatsoever. Further, the cosmological constant is necessary for these solutions to exist, so you cannot employ them to replace the cosmological constant.It also must be added that showing the existence of a certain solution to Einstein’s field equations is one thing, showing that they have a reasonable chance to actually be realized in Nature is an entirely different thing. For this you have to come up with a mechanism to create them and you also have to show that they are stable. Neither point is addressed in the paper. ... In summary, I think it’s an interesting work, but so far it’s an entirely theoretical construct and its relevance for the description of cosmological dynamics is entirely unclear. There are no negative mass particles in this paper in any sensible interpretation of this term. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: and another..... https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae257.cfm How can something have a negative mass, and what does that mean? Asked by: Jim Larkin Answer If a particle could have a negative mass it certainly would be hard to understand. That is why physicists define mass to be always positive. So by definition there is no such thing as 'negative' mass. This is not an arbitrary definition as there are very deep reasons as to why a negative mass could never be physical. Sometimes, in employing mathematical models to describe Nature, we come across solutions to equations that may allow for negative masses. For example, the formula for the energy of a relativistic particle is E2 = m2*c4 + p2*c2. So a particle with a certain positive energy but no momentum could presumably have a positive or negative mass. ... These 'negative' solutions are simply not physical and are dropped. Not everything that has mathematical meaning has physical meaning! Another place where people like to talk about negative masses is in reference to 'tachyons.' ... Such a state (like Dirac's 'negative energy' states) are non-physical. These particles would have imaginary masses (that is the mass-squared is negative) and this is just as unphysical as a negative mass or a negative energy. Thus such solutions are always discarded or removed from any theory that claims to describe Nature. Answered by: Brent Nelson, M.A. Physics, Ph.D. Student, UC Berkeley Gives self an uppercut...Now how did I miss that poor example of quoting, or in effect, misquoting.......What was really said and explained elsewhere was... Other 8 points left out for sake of convenience. No "you" there at all and specifically explained in the highlighted text. and obviously no correction needed.

Perhaps you have reading issues...The reply was with regards to as I inferred here....."Need I mention again, that this is simply all hypothetical, and as of today and taking into account the OP and the late addition", You of course being the late addition. And all facts are correct. And yet you replied....again. Knowledgeable or not, and whether you like it or not, my 110% support for mainstream, obviously also has the vast majority of experts also giving the same 110% support. The same bluster stands...your so called request for expert comment has been given with my reputable link, and of course the overall likelyhood of anything resembling negative mass is near zero and speculative at best.

Not sure how you can read any certainty in any reply of mine including your faulty recall. I'm not sure if the Alcubierre drive will ever be realized...I certainly hope so though.....I'm not sure if wormholes exist either, other then they are a prediction of GR, and whether it is positive or otherwise that some form of exotic matter will be needed to keep them open....all hypothetical at this time. Who knows, DM maybe the stuff to enable wormholes and the Alcubierre drive to be reality one day......But again, for the umpteenth time, at this time it is all speculative, and hypothetical and that's that. He was correcting you on your stuff up....I'm sure you will have no difficulty in admitting that, since you can't refute his and my factual stance on that matter. Again, what meaningful response would you like? Something like if this exists, and that is possible, and we do this, therefor GR is invalidated? Need I mention again, that this is simply all hypothetical, and as of today and taking into account the OP and the late addition, [1] The article and paper in the OP is based on speculation. [2] It does not in the slightest invalidate the BB. [3] Anti matter voids do not exist for obvious reasons. [4] Anti gravity is not a consequence of anti matter. [5] The voids are simply areas of less density [6] The "pushing" described is really the gravitational attraction of matter towards more dense regions of matter and away from the less dense regions. [7] The web formations are a result of gravity. [8] The universe [space] is dynamic and has been known since Hubble. [9] Negative mass is unknown in reality. That's the state of the nation at this time and is in line with physical law, knowledge, and observational data.

I don't believe I am denying anything that isn't patently obvious. Science changes all the time, and any new challenger needs to "run the gauntlet" just as the incumbent model did. Because one's pet hypothetical has not yet seen the light of day so to speak, does not mean that the mainstream is entrenched...and because some theories that have gained in certainty over time are still the preferred model, also does not point to any entrenchment. Theories gain in certainty over time and as long as they are continually making successful predictions and aligning with new observations, they remain as is. Yep, so? I don't see anything claiming 100% validation there. In fact as I have been saying, still plenty of doubt. I believe everything so far I have posted is relevant, including If it doesn't exist, then it is quite relevant to any argument by anyone with regards to any perceived properties of that doubtful quantity. "However the big difference, arguably the biggest difference, between anti-matter and negative matter is that negative matter doesn’t exist".