Capiert

Ether evidence?

Recommended Posts

What sort of evidence wound you need

 to prove the ether?

Please give me some examples

 that are (=would be) acceptable?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All things are Quantum fluctuations and or excitations, the ether is not needed. LIGO is a big version of the Michelson Morley experiment which was designed to detect movement through the ether. LIGO however detects gravitational waves and is whole lot bigger and more sensitive than Michelson Morley.  http://www.bossyboson.com/black-hole-merger-at-ligo/

Edited by interested

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Capiert said:

What sort of evidence wound you need

 to prove the ether?

Please give me some examples

 that are (=would be) acceptable?

 

 

 

Well, first you would need a theory or model that predicted its behaviour. Then we could say what evidence would be required. 

So what does your ether do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you proposing aether because you're uncomfortable with the idea of waves not needing a medium? 

Our modern understanding of quantum mechanics is that all kinds of particles have a wavelike nature, so, if you accept that matter can travel through empty space, you should have no problem accepting the same for light or anything else. Why need aether?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, interested said:

All things are Quantum fluctuations and or excitations

!

Moderator Note

Keep pet theories in their own discussions in speculations, and deal with the OP with mainstream physics

Do not respond to this modnote.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2017 at 4:51 AM, Silvestru said:

Are you proposing aether because you're uncomfortable with the idea of waves not needing a medium? 

Our modern understanding of quantum mechanics is that all kinds of particles have a wavelike nature, so, if you accept that matter can travel through empty space, you should have no problem accepting the same for light or anything else. Why need aether?

Empty space is a misnomer, space is something it has dimension, a photon has no mass but it has momentum. The concept of ether is comforting to us macro beings... Space is a medium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Butch said:

Empty space is a misnomer, space is something it has dimension, a photon has no mass but it has momentum. The concept of ether is comforting to us macro beings... Space is a medium.

!

Moderator Note

But it's not based on science, and has no place in this discussion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Butch said:

space is something it has dimension

Space IS (not has) three dimensigons. That’s all it is. 

Edited by Strange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Space IS (not has) three dimensigons. That’s all it is. 

Agreed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

Space IS (not has) three dimensigons. That’s all it is. 

NO NO NO in relativity space time is x,y,z, and t, time being a 4th dimension responsible for the curvature of space, at least that is what I think you told me.:unsure: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, interested said:

NO NO NO in relativity space time is x,y,z, and t, time being a 4th dimension responsible for the curvature of space, at least that is what I think you told me.:unsure: 

You are conflating space and spacetime. Space itself is just volume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

You are conflating space and spacetime. Space itself is just volume.

;) bingo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, interested said:

NO NO NO in relativity space time is x,y,z, and t, time being a 4th dimension responsible for the curvature of space, at least that is what I think you told me.:unsure: 

Yes. The previous post was about space (not space-time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 12/15/2017 at 10:11 AM, Capiert said:

What sort of evidence wound you need

 to prove the ether?

Sorry, this has been bugging me the whole weekend: Ether has been proven and is 100% legit and fun.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ether

Aether on the other hand is a lost cause.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, StringJunky said:

You are conflating space and spacetime. Space itself is just volume.

 

17 hours ago, Mordred said:

;) bingo

 

17 hours ago, Strange said:

Yes. The previous post was about space (not space-time).

My reference was from a thread I posted on Quantum entanglement where I mentioned x,y,z as being dimensions with a 4th possible spacial dimension perhaps explaining some of the effects related to quantum entanglement. Some one posted the 4th dimension was time x,y,z,t space time. I was being pedantic here for light amusement. Apologies 

Max speed is c in space x,y,z, in quantum entanglement instantaneous information transfer can take place between particles, It was suggested the particles connected via another dimension, enabling them to operate as one particle even though separated by a large distance. I am off topic and speculating and should shut up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2017 at 4:14 PM, Mordred said:

;) bingo

This dovetails with the question raised in the OP if we question what volume is.  In SI units (meters cubed) we are combining length and direction.  It's not obvious that this is what is being done since direction is axiomatically contained in the presumption that the lengths are orthogonal to one another, or oriented in a specific direction.

The way that this observation dovetails with the OP is in the way that something in addition to three lengths  is necessary in order to specify a volume.  This something (quality, quantity, property, attribute,  whatever) allows the lengths to be oriented toward one another in a specific way.  This thing that causes or allows their orientation or direction to be specified could be viewed as the aether.  In other words, the scientific terms aether and direction can be considered synonymous when viewed in a certain light.

Edited by steveupson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, steveupson said:

This dovetails with the question raised in the OP if we question what volume is.  In SI units (meters cubed) we are combining length and direction.  It's not obvious that this is what is being done since direction is axiomatically contained in the presumption that the lengths are orthogonal to one another, or oriented in a specific direction.

Direction is not involved. Volume has no vector information.

1 hour ago, steveupson said:

The way that this observation dovetails with the OP is in the way that something in addition to three lengths  is necessary in order to specify a volume.  This something (quality, quantity, property, attribute,  whatever) allows the lengths to be oriented toward one another in a specific way.  This thing that causes or allows their orientation or direction to be specified could be viewed as the aether.  In other words, the scientific terms aether and direction can be considered synonymous when viewed in a certain light.

That connection is not obvious to me. Aether carries with it the implication of a preferred frame, to be sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, swansont said:

Direction is not involved. Volume has no vector information.

height, width, depth?

2 hours ago, swansont said:

That connection is not obvious to me. Aether carries with it the implication of a preferred frame, to be sure.

There is a preferred orientation.  The future has a preferred direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, steveupson said:

height, width, depth?

Those are not directions.

2 minutes ago, steveupson said:

There is a preferred orientation.  The future has a preferred direction.

Time isn't a vector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, steveupson said:

There is a preferred orientation.  The future has a preferred direction.

That is not a preferred frame of reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, steveupson said:

what are they?

The names we give to the three spatial dimensions, when applied to objects. They are not vectors, and their use is somewhat arbitrary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now