quiet

Fields and ether

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, quiet said:

 

The one proposed hundreds of years ago and eliminated in 1905.

There are really no reasons left not to dismiss that one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, swansont said:

The question was which aether? The one proposed hundreds of years ago and eliminated in 1905 (the luminiferous aether), or subsequent introductions? They aren't the same.

Some writings of recent times allow us to suppose that some scientists think, more or less, something similar to the following. The vacuum of the QED is a hive of activity, regardless of whether we adjective as real or virtual to each component of that activity. And a lot of that activity is spontaneous, that is, it does not need a causative agent. And because it does not need that, it's incessant, it operates all the time without interruption. Then, as a net result of all that activity, all portions of the vacuum house a content. And in all the portions the content has the same characteristics. This activity that fills the void is very similar to the presence of a physical medium. That idea decisively implies a density (of mass) greater than zero in all points of space, which according to E = mC2 implies an energy density greater than zero. In the case of the quantum hotbed, is there a single possibility for energy density or are there several?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Can you elaborate on this? When was that?

He was born in Edinburgh, correct?

Yes you are right, it was Edinburgh,

I must have misunderstood my tour guide.

Thank you for pointing that out. +1

However he was at originally at Aberdeen, and sacked.

 

https://homepages.abdn.ac.uk/j.s.reid/pages/Maxwell/

4 hours ago, quiet said:

Some writings of recent times allow us to suppose that some scientists think, more or less, something similar to the following. The vacuum of the QED is a hive of activity, regardless of whether we adjective as real or virtual to each component of that activity. And a lot of that activity is spontaneous, that is, it does not need a causative agent. And because it does not need that, it's incessant, it operates all the time without interruption. Then, as a net result of all that activity, all portions of the vacuum house a content. And in all the portions the content has the same characteristics. This activity that fills the void is very similar to the presence of a physical medium. That idea decisively implies a density (of mass) greater than zero in all points of space, which according to E = mC2 implies an energy density greater than zero. In the case of the quantum hotbed, is there a single possibility for energy density or are there several?

 

This gives me a mental picture of a ' Feynman Demon'  furiously scribbling his diagrams on a blackboard in that vaccum, in order to create all that activity and hot air.

Feynman Demon = Son of Maxwell's Demon.

:)

Edited by studiot

Share this post


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

Feynman Demon = Son of Maxwell's Demon.

:)

Combining an accurate observation with a sense of humor, you have achieved that I understand better and you have awakened a smile that makes me feel very good !!! Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really should read this book, written in 1974.

Fields of Force

Berkson.

He examines in minute detail the development of and the relationship between Fields and Ethers over some 500 years.

Note from sample in the extract just how many ethers there have been proposed, and how different they are.

Newton, Descartes, Fresnel, Farady, Stokes, Kelvin, Lorenz, Einstein, Maxwell, Planck and many others.
They all had a go.

There are extended answers to the question in your later posts that I have not attempted because the answers are too long for the forum.

As a matter of interest the word Field(s) appears in your title.

What do you understand by a Field in Physics and Mathematics ?
And do you know that these sciences use very different definitions and concepts of 'fields'?

ethers1.thumb.jpg.a8a161a53b798e2b00a30370f014da39.jpg

 

As a matter of interest do you/ can you  obtain any of the references I have offered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

An off-topic pet theory hijack has been split to Trash here.

 

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