Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: delbertlarson

Unlike Tesla, Can you attribute any physical significance to your theory to be of interest to engineers who essentially
make things and make them work?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I must admit, I only know a but about the concept of Luminous aether, and why it was disproven. For a historical point of view id love to see that list if you can find it Always good to know more, even if it is just historical.

There does seem to be lots of confusion though, I remember someone once saying to me (at a conference) that the descriptions of how the higgs field works given by science media is troubling, since it basically makes it sound like the concept of an Aether was actually correct all along...

To which we know that, there are similarities in the description but they are conceptually different.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Have you ever heard of Amrit Sorli and Davide Fiscaletti? They seem to be making some of the same arguments as you however they don't try to re-introduce aether, rather they still reply on propagation of EM though the vacuum:

I had not heard of them. Thanks for referencing them. I have put looking into their work on my "todo" list.

Regarding the infogalactic article, I have a hard time wrapping my mind around this part:

"With the advent of general relativity, gravitation is also proposed to have an affect on time. In absolute theory no such effect occurs. Instead, absolute theory takes the position that clocks (any physical manifestation by which time is measured) will be affected by their gravitational environment but that time itself will not be."

Even if that's true, somehow I'm not sure how it's going to help me model nature any better than relativity does, and I'm not sure that you claim it will. From my perspective it seems to add confusion about time compared to the simpler assumption that it's what atomic clocks measure.

My guess is that when you first learned relativity you didn't think it was simple at all. Having time move faster in one place than another is something that seems quite strange, even nutty, to most people when they first learn it. Prior to Einstein I don't know if anyone even thought of such a thing. If a clock ran slower, they just thought it was the clock that was somehow affected, not time itself. Only after we learn relativity and use it and then see how it agrees with (almost) all experiments do we appreciate the simplicity of the relativity postulates. But the older approach has not been ruled out by experiment. The old approach accepts time and space as the fundamental concepts upon which we build physics. And from there we explain things by saying that our measuring devices are what are affected by their environment - not time and space itself.

There seems to be some discrepancy between the end of the preface to the paper and the end of the paper.

*1 There should have been no discrepancy. In the end of the preface I should have made it clear that there is no clear experimental evidence at the present time to choose one theory over the other. There are experiments that can be done, and they of course should be the deciding factor of what we accept as scientists.

One aside I would add is that when you talk about so called "faster than light" correlations in quantum entanglement, it's necessary to assume an unproven interpretation of quantum mechanics such as the Copenhagen interpretation. In the Everett interpretation discussed by Sean Carroll in the video in the opening post of this thread, it's not faster than light and of course that interpretation is also unproven, but with that uncertainty I wouldn't weigh the "faster than light" problem you talk about too seriously when I don't know that to be the case. I have no idea which interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, and I don't think anybody knows for sure.

*2 You raise a good point. One reason I take the approach I do is because it is the same approach taken by Einstein in his Einstein, Podolski, Rosen paper. The other reason is because my own views align with that. I have always thought the many universes approach was rather crazy, as I find much of modern physics to be. We (you, I and mbkennel) had quite a discussion for several pages on quantum philosophy starting back around page 287 of this thread. I retain my belief that quantum mechanics can be easily understood by proposing that any entity collapses to a size dx = hbar/2dp when it receives a momentum change of dp during an interaction, and that it collapses to the entire region where no collapse is required if a portion of it would be required to collapse but it does not collapse anywhere within the required portion. This isn't quite the same as Copenhagen, although it is close, especially with Heisenberg's (I think it was he) proposal that "the observer" can actually be an apparatus. My interpretation is that no observer or apparatus is needed, just an interaction or requirement of an interaction in a portion of the wave function. The problem with my proposal is only that relativity does not allow it because of the relativity of simultaneity not allowing for instantaneous collapse. (If the collapse is not instantaneous it could occur at two places.) But my interpretation is allowed by the absolute theories. And then everything can make sense once again in physics.

Beyond the above comments, I wish to thank you for seriously considering my work and helping to improve it. I will think about your comments and try to make the preface to the InfoGalactic article clearer as a result with regards to points *1 and *2 above. And then I will again tilt against the windmill of the status quo by posting to Wikipedia. What do you think the over/under is on how long it will be up before deletion? My ABC Preon Model lasted three months. In some sense, since they are asking for the page to be filled in, this one, or at least parts of it, might have a chance of sticking.

My aether model post is a bit of a struggle but I continue to work on it. There is a lot of math, which means a lot of formatting. But it is coming. It probably won't be a big hit here on ATS due to all the math. But then I plan to post my "aetherial speculations" and that might spark some interest. Warp drive and time travel, baby!

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: delbertlarson

Unlike Tesla, Can you attribute any physical significance to your theory to be of interest to engineers who essentially
make things and make them work?

When we get to the aether practical ramifications will be possible.

a reply to: ErosA433

The Luminiferous aether was not disproven, only shouted down. We still use the Lorentz and Maxwell Equations, both of which assumed the aether, to this day.

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I must admit, I only know a but about the concept of Luminous aether, and why it was disproven. For a historical point of view id love to see that list if you can find it

Always good to know more, even if it is just historical.

I doubt I can find the list easily but I think most are mentioned in the aether wiki. Depending on how you define historical, the usage that BELIEVERpriest asked about which you and I rejected along with the rest of the physics community was sort of implied by Dirac in a letter to Nature in 1951. This is the abstract:

Is there an Æther?

IN the last century, the idea of a universal and all-pervading æther was popular as a foundation on which to build the theory of electromagnetic phenomena. The situation was profoundly influenced in 1905 by Einstein's discovery of the principle of relativity, leading to the requirement of a four-dimensional formulation of all natural laws. It was soon found that the existence of an æther could not be fitted in with relativity, and since relativity was well established, the æther was abandoned.

That sounds mainstream enough, but then in the letter he makes this reference to aether and virtual particles along the lines of BelieverPriest's question, which never became a mainstream idea:

Aether Theories

"Physical knowledge has advanced much since 1905, notably by the arrival of quantum mechanics, and the situation [about the scientific plausibility of Aether] has again changed. If one examines the question in the light of present-day knowledge, one finds that the Aether is no longer ruled out by relativity, and good reasons can now be advanced for postulating an Aether ... We have now the velocity at all points of space-time, playing a fundamental part in electrodynamics. It is natural to regard it as the velocity of some real physical thing. Thus with the new theory of electrodynamics [vacuum filled with virtual particles] we are rather forced to have an Aether".

The luminiferous aether was proposed by Newton in 1718, for the propagation of light.

There was an idea around the same time for a separate gravitational aether which tried to describe a mechanism for how gravity worked but it was eventually discredited.

Then there was Einstein's "aether of general relativity" and GR obviously gained support but Einstein's usage of aether such as in this example never did:

We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

Then I suppose Louis DeBroglie's Pilot Wave theory proposed some kind of aether:

Louis de Broglie stated, "Any particle, ever isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous "energetic contact" with a hidden medium."

That's 5 ideas about the aether that are at least somewhat scientifically motivated even if some like the gravitational aether have been discredited.

Going further back the ideas are less and less scientific but the idea of aether has been around a long time. The first reference I know of was the diety Aether in Greek Mythology who was the personification of the air in the upper atmosphere, which the gods breathed. Here is Aether fighting with some kind of lion-headed creature:

Aether-the diety

Aether in battle with a lion-headed Giant

Then there was a Philosophic concept of aether which became known as quintessence:

Aether

Anaxagoras of Clazomena (~5th century BC) counterposed two principles - Chaos and Nous - for two types of substances, Air and Aether. Chaos was the principle of permanent motion (and for Anaxagoras all motion was vortical), and Nous the principle of the imponderable - of 'order', 'ratio', knowledge, plasticity, creation and consistency. Nous was also the power of the lightest substance, and thus the principle of Levity or Celeritas. As Aether was also the lighest of substances, Nous was its principle. All matter was made up of Aether and Air, and created by virtue of the Nous. Nous will later be distorted to become the basis of the philosophical concept of Reason in post-Socratic philosophy.

Aristotle treated the Aether as the finest of substances that filled up space -- a fifth 'element' alongside Air, Water, Fire and Earth -- on the principle that nature abhorred a vacuum or nothingness. The Aether thus became known as "Quintessence".

Then there was the "imponderable aether" tracing back to the Renaissance:

The birth of the scientific concept of the Aether can be traced to Renaissance thought - in particular to the one-all substance of Spinoza, Descartes' notion of a vortical occupation of space, and Leibniz's monist theory of monads. These different systematic thoughts share the concept of an imponderable substance that animates all physical reality, and are precursors to modern theories of a dynamic Aether. Robert Fludd suggested that the Aether was ''subtler than light'', and cites the 3rd century views of Plotinus on the ubiquitous and non-material properties of this subtle substance.

I'm no expert on the topic but it seems to me like a somewhat over-used word with too many meanings, but at least if it's qualified with an adjective such as "luminiferous aether" the meaning is somewhat defined, though I think even the supposed properties of the luminiferous aether may vary from source to source so "Lorentz Ether Theory (LET)" or "Larson Ether Theory" (I guess we can't abbreviate this one LET also) would be better because they refer to more specifics though I suppose the latter is still a work in progress. In any case the following source supports what Delbert Larson says about LET and SR being experimentally indistinguishable (so far) but gives some clues about why SR is preferred:

Pilot Wave Theory etc...

a reply to: Arbitrageur


Thanks for the excellent overview of Aether theories. Also, again, thanks for your comments on my InfoGalactic article. I have worked in the two suggestions you made to the second-to-last paragraph of my introductory section:

During the 20th century an overwhelming consensus developed among scientists that relativity is a superior theory to the older absolute theory. Yet it remains the case that there is little or no actual experimental evidence to favor Einstein's relative space-time over the classical absolute theory. The preference for relativity is largely philosophical, not empirical. In fact certain experiments - those involving Bell's theorem - are most easily interpreted as being in favor of absolute theory over relativity. Indeed, it was Einstein, working with Podolski and Rosen (EPR) who identified a conflict between quantum mechanics and relativity, and when the tests were done it was quantum mechanics, not relativity, that prevailed. This led to a scientific consensus that Einstein was wrong in EPR (but that he was right about relativity) and that a different interpretation of quantum mechanics was needed to understand the experimental results. Yet from the viewpoint of absolute theory, Einstein is considered to be right about EPR, and it is relativity that should be set aside.

I believe this strengthens the presentation. The issue of philosophical choice is now directly followed by a discussion of Bell's theorem experiments, and the impact this has had on quantum mechanical interpretation is then mentioned. Does it present the points clearly? Are your suggestions dealt with well?

Also, if anyone else would like to chime in that could be helpful. My thoughts are clear to me, and I think my writing conveys my thoughts, but others may not read things the same way I do so it is always beneficial to gain additional perspectives! (It can also be hard for an author to find their own typos.) That link again, should you be able to help, is InfoGalactic/Absolute Theory.

Sorry to butt in here. I have a question about a discharging coil.
If a coil has been charged with 5 volts and has reached a steady state with 0 volts and 50mA. The power source is switched of and the coil voltage goes to x volts (greater than 5). What does the current go to? Is it greater than 50mA?

Aether, or the medium that transmits interactions between charged particles are the so called particles them-self.
The relative position to another of the changes, is what we call Electro-Magnetic Field.

The common idea is, that charged particles have a certain size.
The classical electron 2.8179x10^-15 and the classical proton 2.8179^-13

in the meantime Physicists confirm surprisingly small proton radius of 0.84087(39) femtometres...

My theory predicts that, as the measurements develop in precision, the sizes will become even smaller, for proton and electron...

Why ?
I said it explaining what Aether ( or however you may call it ) is.

so..
all charged particles have "infinite" small point of origin and are "infinitely" big.
The "density" of those charges ( I will say body in the next line ) falls off with distance from the origin.
Eather is the "body" or what I call density of all the charged particles.
They penetrate each other. There is no separation between them.
This is how one electron "knows" what the other one is "doing".
...no need for interaction particles called photons or virtual transmission particles.

now... if you understand what I'm saying you will understand why the so called Aether was not detected.
Any measurements of moving inside the Eather failed because it is not an independent stand alone something all mater moves inside, but all the matter in the Universe itself.


Radiation waves are the movements in density of those charged particles ( Magnetic Field with speed C ), not the movement of they point of origin ( instantaneous ) Electric Field.


And again...
Photons is an idea not a real thing.
Time is an idea and not a physical something.

Arbitrageur !!
T=T0/sqrt(1-(2GM/Rc^2)) is a formula that works, no doubt about that formula...
But T is not something you can take and do something to it or do something with it.
It is just something you can calculate or count ( is what the clocks do )

Time does not exist as physical thing so does something like spacetime not !

a reply to: p75213

voltage up - current down... if constant electrons count

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: p75213

voltage up - current down... if constant electrons count

Are you sure? According to this page the opposite is true. Voltage Spike "The effect of a voltage spike is to produce a corresponding increase in current (current spike)." I'm thinking the coil is now the only source of voltage and the resistance hasn't changed therefore there should be an increase in current as: I = V/R.

That being the case we also have an increase of energy as the formula for energy in a coil is: w=0.5LI^2.

The answer is yes current increases Ohm's law states that the current through a conductor between two points is directly proportional to the voltage across the two points. 



en.m.wikipedia.org...

At the bottom of the page on this site - www.allaboutcircuits.com...
there is a circuit showing a neon bulb in parallel with an inductor and the sentence "If current through an inductor is forced to change very rapidly, very high voltages will be produced."
Well it appears not only do we have high voltages but also high currents and consequently high energy levels. According to my calculations the energy released by the voltage spike is greater than the energy spent to charge the coil. Why not collect that energy in a capacitor/capacitors and use some to drive a load while the remainder is returned to the coil to repeat the process.

In both cases (charging and discharging the coil) the time constant remains the same : t = L/R. In the example on the allaboutcircuits site it would take the same time to charge the coil with a 6 volt source as it would to discharge the 70 volt spike.

a reply to: p75213you aint gonna get extra energy for sure, maybe power yes

originally posted by: p75213
At the bottom of the page on this site - www.allaboutcircuits.com...
there is a circuit showing a neon bulb in parallel with an inductor and the sentence "If current through an inductor is forced to change very rapidly, very high voltages will be produced."
Well it appears not only do we have high voltages but also high currents and consequently high energy levels. According to my calculations the energy released by the voltage spike is greater than the energy spent to charge the coil. Why not collect that energy in a capacitor/capacitors and use some to drive a load while the remainder is returned to the coil to repeat the process.

A capacitor stores DC current think of it as a battery. You could add an inductor to store AC but the time would not be sufficient to charge the coil. In other words you would end up with less energy then you started with.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: p75213
At the bottom of the page on this site - www.allaboutcircuits.com...
there is a circuit showing a neon bulb in parallel with an inductor and the sentence "If current through an inductor is forced to change very rapidly, very high voltages will be produced."
Well it appears not only do we have high voltages but also high currents and consequently high energy levels. According to my calculations the energy released by the voltage spike is greater than the energy spent to charge the coil. Why not collect that energy in a capacitor/capacitors and use some to drive a load while the remainder is returned to the coil to repeat the process.

A capacitor stores DC current think of it as a battery. You could add an inductor to store AC but the time would not be sufficient to charge the coil. In other words you would end up with less energy then you started with.

I'm talking about dc. Not ac. In particular the circuit mentioned in my previous post. It's at the bottom of the page. You will see a coil in parallel with a bulb. Voltage Spike My proposal is to replace the bulb with a capacitor.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: p75213you aint gonna get extra energy for sure, maybe power yes

How do you come to that conclusion?

originally posted by: p75213

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: p75213
At the bottom of the page on this site - www.allaboutcircuits.com...
there is a circuit showing a neon bulb in parallel with an inductor and the sentence "If current through an inductor is forced to change very rapidly, very high voltages will be produced."
Well it appears not only do we have high voltages but also high currents and consequently high energy levels. According to my calculations the energy released by the voltage spike is greater than the energy spent to charge the coil. Why not collect that energy in a capacitor/capacitors and use some to drive a load while the remainder is returned to the coil to repeat the process.

A capacitor stores DC current think of it as a battery. You could add an inductor to store AC but the time would not be sufficient to charge the coil. In other words you would end up with less energy then you started with.

I'm talking about dc. Not ac. In particular the circuit mentioned in my previous post. It's at the bottom of the page. You will see a coil in parallel with a bulb. Voltage Spike My proposal is to replace the bulb with a capacitor.

OK what your not getting is the voltage increase is by converting DC to AC. You create AC by creating a spark gap. Instead of constant current you get spikes aka AC.Same as a converter I bought for the car I can use it to run a TV. But it starts out with 12 volts.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: p75213

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: p75213
At the bottom of the page on this site - www.allaboutcircuits.com...
there is a circuit showing a neon bulb in parallel with an inductor and the sentence "If current through an inductor is forced to change very rapidly, very high voltages will be produced."
Well it appears not only do we have high voltages but also high currents and consequently high energy levels. According to my calculations the energy released by the voltage spike is greater than the energy spent to charge the coil. Why not collect that energy in a capacitor/capacitors and use some to drive a load while the remainder is returned to the coil to repeat the process.

A capacitor stores DC current think of it as a battery. You could add an inductor to store AC but the time would not be sufficient to charge the coil. In other words you would end up with less energy then you started with.

I'm talking about dc. Not ac. In particular the circuit mentioned in my previous post. It's at the bottom of the page. You will see a coil in parallel with a bulb. Voltage Spike My proposal is to replace the bulb with a capacitor.

OK what your not getting is the voltage increase is by converting DC to AC. You create AC by creating a spark gap. Instead of constant current you get spikes aka AC.Same as a converter I bought for the car I can use it to run a TV. But it starts out with 12 volts.

What your not getting is the following quote from the aforementioned link "If current through an inductor is forced to change very rapidly, very high voltages will be produced". Forget ac. Just think about the one off situation when the collapsing magnetic field from the inductor induces a voltage spike across the same inductor. The output energy from the inductor to the capacitor is greater than the energy required to "charge" the inductor.