Gravity waves and the aether

[swansont]

And, before anyone gets the idea that I'm an aether supporter, far from it.

Relativity renders it un-needed.

 

But, just to get something straight, relativity is a model which does not need it.

Similarily the aether is a model.

They describe reality, where applicable.

The aether model has outlived its usefulness ( if it ever had any ).

 

I don't think in modern physics any model can be dismissed or 'debunked' simply because it is implausible.

If that were the case, a lot of QM would be similarly 'debunked'.

Why do you persist in ignoring the evidence that's been presented?

.

That's not strictly true.

Firstly I would rather refer to it as the MEDIUM of space. Unfortunately ' Aether' has had such bad press, it has been bandied around with scorn , that nobody dare have a sensible discussion about the issue of the requirement for a medium.

We have sought a need for a medium for sound ( namely air ) . We shout warning words ( get out the way ! ) by pushing energy up through our vocal cords to produce waves of energy in the air. We have sailed the high seas for centuries using the transmitted energy of wind into the medium both air and of water . Also the waves have moved by vibrations of the medium of water to produce energy flow from one side of an ocean to the other. One day we might use this to power generators.

We have detected the waves or vibrations of earthquakes, this time as the recipient of energy. As P waves and S waves , the energy of earthquakes has produced waves that practically travel round the world .Here the medium has been Rocks and soil . We have used the medium of space to send radio waves and light waves across space . The whole thing is a logical of energy seeking out a medium in which to operate in wave form . In this case with space as the medium it is electric and magnetic fields . If you go small enough just miniscule electric charges trillions upon trillions in a grid . When they are vibrated they induce magnetic fields and vibrations ( together E-M waves )

So it seems quite natural and logical that Electro .Magnetic waves would seek out a medium through which to travel . And there it is the medium of Space . Ram jam packed with miniscule point charges of electricity ready to be vibrated into electro magnetic oscillation and thus waves travelling through the medium at the speed of light . These vibrating fields ( magnetic and electrical ) take energy to start the waves in the medium . Just like all the previously quoted mediums for sound in air , waves in water , P and S waves in Rock .

What is the problem , it seems , naturally obvious , As plain as day .

Mike

Air has measurable properties which can be shown to affect the propagation of sound. So I will ask you again to tell us what the measurable and changeable properties of spacetime are that qualify it as a medium.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

?

 

Air has measurable properties which can be shown to affect the propagation of sound. So I will ask you again to tell us what the measurable and changeable properties of spacetime are that qualify it as a medium.

.

 

If we look at some of the formation images of the solar system. Or other star systems for that matter,

 

It is often illustrated:- with a complete plate of material surrounding the sun , ALL matter , dust , grit planets forming , all the rotating with the same speed of rotations. So any Michaelson - Morley experiment , with the residue of interstellar, inter Galaxy , dust , particles , maybe even miniature medium style charges , circulate together . This would produce a nil result with Michelson Morley experiment . So I have understood .

 

Mike

Edited June 17, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mordred]

What does interstellar medium have to do with an Ether? Perhaps you had better look at what an Ether really describes.

 

You keep drawing incorrect conclusions based on feelings rather than science

Edited June 17, 2016 by Mordred

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

What does interstellar medium have to do with an Ether? Perhaps you had better look at what an Ether really describes.

You keep drawing incorrect conclusions based on feelings rather than science

.

 

Forget the word ether for discussion , it's become a dirty word in science. Until it gets cleaned up , I would prefer to use the word ' medium ' ( the medium of space )

 

I am just looking for a medium , like any other medium . Water in the sea for waves, air for sound , rocks for p and S waves with earth quakes, a gold fish bowl of water for a fish to swim around in . These are all mediums for things to happen in .

 

For electro magnetic waves the medium is space . A proper medium based on an Electric field composed of micro miniature charges. , everywhere . There can't be just NOTHING .

 

Nothing , is for outside the universe, before the universe, not inside where there are galaxies and medium . Not galaxies in NOTHING .

That does not make sense . The universe would fall to bits ! There needs to be some form of medium , space, where gravity , does its bit in holding it all together . Surely ?

 

Mike

Edited June 17, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

Please stop posting nonsense.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Please stop posting nonsense.

It's not nonsense . Not even current thinking , holds to a universe full of gaps of nothingness.

 

There is all this vacuum energy , dark energy ( or cosmological constant ), there are quantum fluctuations , virtual particles , a whole sea of things , to name a few . All possible candidates for this replacement for nothingness. As a medium .

 

All I am considering are miniature charges , which must be there somewhere . The whole tree of particles is studded with ' charge ' throughout the standard model of particles .

 

Is that not so?

 

All I am saying is :-

That the EM WAVES of radio and light , can slingshot there way though this medium of charge ( electric field ) , because they themselves are of that nature , namely electrical-magnetic . (electro-magnetic waves ) . The whole thing makes ' sense ' .

 

What's wrong with that ? It's got to be better than these collosal gaps of NOTHING ?

 

Electro Magnetic wave , passing through medium of electrical charge field. SPACE

 

 

Mike

Edited June 17, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Dust and other matter are not space. So they are moot for this discussion.

 

You need to describe the properties of the medium, not the stuff you've added to it.

[Strange]

It's not nonsense .

 

 

Yes it is. It is just "stuff" you have made up.

 

Not even current thinking , holds to a universe full of gaps of nothingness.

There is all this vacuum energy , dark energy ( or cosmological constant ), there are quantum fluctuations , virtual particles , a whole sea of things , to name a few .

 

So what. None of these are the medium for electromagnetic waves.

 

All I am considering are miniature charges , which must be there somewhere .

 

Even if there were such a thing, they are not the medium for electromagnetic waves.

 

That the EM WAVES of radio and light , can slingshot there way though this medium of charge ( electric field ) , because they themselves are of that nature , namely electrical-magnetic . (electro-magnetic waves ) . The whole thing makes ' sense ' .

 

It might make sense to you, but that is only because you made it up. It has nothing to do with any science.

 

Electro Magnetic wave , passing through medium of electrical charge field. SPACE

 

The "medium" for electromagnetic waves is the electromagnetic field, which isn't a medium in any sane meaning of the word.

 

But if it makes you happy to call the field a medium, then go ahead.

[MigL]

Gonna have to disagree with you also on this one Mike.

 

In the 1800s EM was thought to require a medium, just like every other wave known at that point, and so a model was developed which involved a medium having some fantastic properties - such as a 'stiffness' which would support wave propagation at c, but offer no resistance to objects travelling through it.

 

In 1905 , Einstein introduced relativity, and this new model has been used ever since, as it has proved extremely accurate.

This new model does not require a medium for EM, as a matter of fact, it requires that there CANNOT be a medium. IOW there is no need for the aether ( medium ) anymore.

 

So what presented evidence am I ignoring Swansont ?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The "medium" for electromagnetic waves is the electromagnetic field, which isn't a medium in any sane meaning of the word.

 

But if it makes you happy to call the field a medium, then go ahead.

.

 

But if you are saying there is an electromagnetic field. 'there ' .

 

Where and how has it come to be ' there'? Or was it 'there ' already ?

 

Or are you referring to the ( electro magnetic field ) its brought with it ? If that is the case ? It is lifting itself up by its own ' bootstraps ' ?

 

Mike

Edited June 18, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[MigL]

Actually Mike, QED says the field is everywhere.

That's what the universe consists of, fields, on fields, on more fields.

The quantum particles that you think produce the field, are actually just manifestations, or 'lumps' if you will of their respective fields.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Actually Mike, QED says the field is everywhere.

That's what the universe consists of, fields, on fields, on more fields.

The quantum particles that you think produce the field, are actually just manifestations, or 'lumps' if you will of their respective fields.

.

So my ' medium' is made of ' lumps in a quantum electrodynamic field . ' is that what you are saying ?

 

So where is this ' QED field ' , emanating from ? If it's just there , then that is SPACE , and that is my MEDIUM?

 

Is it not ?

 

But where has it come from ? This is science ( cause and effect ) ?

 

Mike

 

Ps . We need to dig up Richard Feynman and throw a few questions at him .

This seems to have echo's of " Which came first, the chicken or the egg ? "

Edited June 18, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

.

 

But if you are saying there is an electromagnetic field. 'there ' .

 

Where and how has it come to be ' there'? Or was it 'there ' already ?

 

 

It is just there. Space is full of fields of different types.

So my ' medium' is made of ' lumps in a quantum electrodynamic field . ' is that what you are saying ?

 

No, your "medium" is the field.

 

Because the field is quantised, it happens to be "lumpy".

 

 

So where is this ' QED field ' , emanating from ? If it's just there , then that is SPACE , and that is my MEDIUM?

Fields are everywhere. It doesn't "emanate" from anywhere.

 

They fill space rather than being space.

[swansont]

 

So what presented evidence am I ignoring Swansont ?

 

 

Stellar aberration. You keep concluding that the aether was not debunked, but if you have a model where one experiment demands that we be moving at 30 km/s and another shows we are not moving at all, I don't see how you can say that the model was discarded for any other reason than it was shown to be wrong.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

one experiment demands that we be moving at 30 km/s and another shows we are not moving at all, I don't see how you can say that the model was discarded for any other reason than it was shown to be wrong.

 

.

 

Unless of course , the quantum fields extended ' way out ' from the earth , as if they were attached, like the rings of Saturn . In other words as if those quantum fields were just another part of earth extending to vast distances from Earth, rotating with Earth , as if attached or part of Earths make up . When measurements were made with respect to earth , it's as if they are not moving ?

 

In which case it would not be wrong , but perhaps not understood , or thought to be not feasible or likely . But not wrong ? However unlikely ?

 

Mike.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

.

 

Unless of course , the quantum fields extended ' way out ' from the earth , as if they were attached, like the rings of Saturn . In other words as if those quantum fields were just another part of earth extending to vast distances from Earth, rotating with Earth , as if attached or part of Earths make up . When measurements were made with respect to earth , it's as if they are not moving ?

 

In which case it would not be wrong , but perhaps not understood , or thought to be not feasible or likely . But not wrong ? However unlikely ?

 

Mike.

 

 

Aether drag models failed, too. You're repeating debunked arguments from 100 years ago.

[MigL]

Difference of opinion Swansont.

No model is ever 100%.

GR itself fails at certain limits. Do we throw it all away and say its debunked ?

 

What happened to the aether was that a better model came along, which better fit observation and experiment, and so the aether model was discarded.

Do you think that when we get a quantum theory of gravity, the GR model will be debunked, because it fails ( and may not agree with observations ) at certain limits ?

[Mordred]

I dont the only problem is quantizing gravity on the particle level. If anything quantum gravity will simply allow us a means to further fine tune GR.

 

However thats a huge difference between quantum gravity vs GR. Compared to GR vs Eather.

 

Eather has no experimental support of existence

Edited June 18, 2016 by Mordred

[Strange]

Difference of opinion Swansont.

No model is ever 100%.

GR itself fails at certain limits. Do we throw it all away and say its debunked ?

 

 

That is very slightly different:

 

GR: All results consistent with theory. No results contradict theory.

Aether: No results consistent with theory. All results contradict theory.

 

I know it's subtle but I'm sure you can figure it out with a little thought.

 

 

What happened to the aether was that a better model came along, which better fit observation and experiment, and so the aether model was discarded.

 

The aether was never a viable model.

[Mordred]

Lol just a side note I could easily come up with an Eather theory that would be 100% impossible to prove or disprove. However it would also be 100% useless.

[Strange]

Lol just a side note I could easily come up with an Eather theory that would be 100% impossible to prove or disprove. However it would also be 100% useless.

 

 

Someone beat you to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

Edited June 18, 2016 by Strange

[Mordred]

😁

[swansont]

Difference of opinion Swansont.

No model is ever 100%.

GR itself fails at certain limits. Do we throw it all away and say its debunked ?

 

What happened to the aether was that a better model came along, which better fit observation and experiment, and so the aether model was discarded.

Do you think that when we get a quantum theory of gravity, the GR model will be debunked, because it fails ( and may not agree with observations ) at certain limits ?

So you don't call a model that's many standard deviations off from prediction a failed model? (0.05 fringe observed vs 0.4 predicted) Interesting.

 

That's not failing at 10 decimal places, or 5, or even 1 or 2, where one might still be able to argue some value.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The bit that worries me , is the idea of ELectro Magnetic waves travelling through nothing . ( some ghastly void of nothingness ) If as , has been previously stated , that there is not NOTHING . But rather quantum field theory , fields with humps or bumps . Then I suspect that is not , NOTHING .

 

I am at a slight loss as to imagine , how that field is supported across vast reaches of space . Unless the substance of space , is this clever field , that just happens to be there ( from where it comes from I know not? ) . And if it is there , why has it not been referred to as a ' medium ' . Because that's exactly what it sounds like . A medium ( quantum electro magnetic field static ) able to allow to propagate a transmitted ELECTRO MAGNETIC WAVE , at the speed of light . ( not across nothing , but across this quantum field ) . Which I would like to refer to as a ' medium '

 

Or have I picked up the previous posts about ( quantum field theory ) wrong ? This is just a clever (name change ) , is it not ?

 

Mike

Edited June 18, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[MigL]

Well, let me see...

GR predicts a singularity central to a Black Hole of infinite density.

Does anyone think that will ever be consistent with observation ?

Elementary particles of zero dimension result in infinities at zero separation, of various field strengths.

( and are fudged away with a mathematical trick )

Does anyone think that's consistent with observation ?

And I could go on...

 

None of these implausible properties "debunk' anything.

They just indicate that the model is not applicable in those circumstances.

 

But we've already strayed far enough away form Moony's OP, so I concede.

Thank you gentlemen.