Aether needs to be reconsidered...

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only wonld 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 ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable inedia, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

- Einsetin 1920 www.mountainman.com.au...

Personally I don’t believe in wave particle duality. I think that all energy and matter exists only as waves in nature and some properties of those waves can be summarized using particle theory. For example: quanta, or wave packets of light, can be though of as particles (photons) simply because they are indivisible. You can’t have half a quanta. This does not mean that light is a particle, it just means that the actual nature of the wave is such that it becomes something else when it gets too small or too big.

Currently physics is a complete mess, with virtual particles, electron ‘holes’, unexplainable quantum effects (such as entanglement) and of course the un-unified, and (currently) unexplainable, fundamental forces.

Light, electrons, and all matter being waves, they must travel through a medium. A wave is just the traversal of energy through a medium. The vacuum, or void, is not a medium. Waves cannot travel through nothing, this is why the theory of Aether must be reintroduced to physics: To explain the existing theories and phenomena and to allow for a greater scope of mainstream research.

The evidence is frankly overwhelming. Zero point energy and the quantum flux, quantum entanglement, even forbidden electron energy states. It all points back to waves in the Aether.

To recap I think particles are a simplified way of looking at complex wave forms, but nothing more. All energy in nature exists as some form of wave; Particles are nonexistent. The theory of duality is misleading and is hampering the scope of discovery in mainstream science.

I’d love to hear physicists views on the matter. Please post below.



[edit on 5-3-2007 by Yandros]

Lol, if you don't believe in particle-wave duality, then please explain why a Scanning Tunneling Microscope works (among many other experiments).

Virtual particles make a whole lot of sense, if you understand the mathematics. Quantum mechanics is a very confusing world, but in my opinion, if you don't know math, you'll never know physics.

If you can explain another way in which forces exists without virtual particles, then by God, you'll be a very famous man in history, and not only that, proving alot of extremely intelligent individuals to be stupid.

I know I'm not going to be the physicist to take on such a daunting task...no thanks.

I agree with you that an aether is needed. An atom can be defined as a particle but it is really the radii of the electron wave orbits which define its size and position. I think that in the future we will find that eveything we now currectly regard as point particles are also defined by wave orbits. And I suspect that the waves are photons in nature. This explains why rest mass can be converted into photons. It also explains intrinsic spin angular momentum.

I have no doubt that knowing the math for advanced theoretical physics is necessary for a deeper understanding; I also believe that science has failed in one sense if it cannot at least convey the general meanings of what it discovers to a non-scientist. Science attempts to attain verified public/consensus knowledge, that is why it is tested vigourously and peer-reviewed.

Regarding the wave/particle duality - I have seen the particle sometimes referred to as an actuallization or concresence/collapse of the wave phenomenon - so from that point of view it is as if it is (just) a wave that has crashed upon the shore. I am curious as to your take on the uncertainty principle, (that you cannot know both the position and momentum of a given particle) - the theory seems to say that you cannot measure either wave or particles exactly, so saying everything is waves will not work. The Aether is a really old idea, but really, my question is why is a medium required for the waves to propagate in? Have to remember here that these waves are waves of PROBABILITY, so what medium exactly does probablility propagate in? Generally ether theories are thrown out because they aren't necessary to explain what is happening (Occam's Razor). Could not the "waves" from their own "Aether"?

Yes it's simple. Every particle has antyparticle. Execpt light. And every micro model is same as macro model.

Originally posted by T_Jesus
Lol, if you don't believe in particle-wave duality, then please explain why a Scanning Tunneling Microscope works (among many other experiments).

Virtual particles make a whole lot of sense, if you understand the mathematics. Quantum mechanics is a very confusing world, but in my opinion, if you don't know math, you'll never know physics.

If you can explain another way in which forces exists without virtual particles, then by God, you'll be a very famous man in history, and not only that, proving alot of extremely intelligent individuals to be stupid.

I know I'm not going to be the physicist to take on such a daunting task...no thanks.

So many intelligent replies I'm impressed.

I had not read about scanning tunneling microscope until you mentioned it just now.

Certainly it is an interesting concept. But given that an electron is a wave which feeds back into itself, and given that covalently bounded atoms will share electrons in a sort of figure eight fashion (is this correct?) I see no reason that an electron pair could not jump across the gap between the tip of the probe and the atom on the surface provided that the tip is more negatively charged. I do not understand why this is fundamentally different from an electron jumping into a higher shell, only to find that the higher shell is actually shared with another atom. Whenever you have an electron jumping surely it has to enter a forbidden energy state (and essentially disappear) then reappear on the other side, or not enter at all (and emit the energy as light.)

I have only done high school physics and listened to some university physics lectures, so please pick me up if I get something wrong!

I’ll reply to the other posts when I get back. Once again thanks for the great replies!

Originally posted by Yandros
- Einsetin 1920 www.mountainman.com.au...

The site's pulling a "smoke and mirrors" on you.

Physics and our ability to measure the unvierse didn't end in 1920... but the site treats science as having never progressed beyond that era. The Michaelson and Moreley experiment is treated as the final word of scientists because it is probably the most assailable (being the oldest.) So they picked a straw dummy and lunged at it.

The experiment has been performed many times (testing if there's an ether or not) since 1880. Every single time, the test disproves an ether. Wikipedia has a list of the most notable of these experiments (through 1930), but it's been done since then and with better equipment:
en.wikipedia.org...

Currently physics is a complete mess, with virtual particles, electron ‘holes’, unexplainable quantum effects (such as entanglement) and of course the un-unified, and (currently) unexplainable, fundamental forces

Y'know, there's no cosmic law that says things HAVE to be simple rather than complex. Take our knowledge of genes... the more we know about them, the more structures and so forth we identify until it looks like a big mess to those who don't work in the field.

The evidence is frankly overwhelming. Zero point energy and the quantum flux, quantum entanglement, even forbidden electron energy states. It all points back to waves in the Aether.

As far as I know, those are theories and still unproven. I don't think you can base "I proved aether" on unproven theories.

Sorry I misread something. I will reply again soon.

[edit on 6-3-2007 by Yandros]

Do a search on Dayton C. Miller and Maurice Allais. These two scientist have both claimed that M-M experiment did not have a null result.

www.alternativescience.com...

I think/believe that the Standard model needs to take a few steps backwards and come forward again down a slightly different road.

Aether isn't the word I would use but it seems that Dirac's equation if taken to it's original logical end would in fact describe the entire universe. It would be simple and beautiful and would, among other things, imply a sea of energy that isn't much different than the quantum sea of virtual particles and angular momentum that we have now.

Dirac's equation was originally created to explain 'everything that is a wave' and since everything is a wave...

I would so love to see more work done on finding the negative energy that the equation originally predicted (like it predicted negitve matter or anti-matter). Negative Energy and Zero point energy are nearly the same thing. If that 'negative' sea exists then it would have to fill every part of space/time (you can't have something above zero point unless all states lower than that are filled).

So the point of that being, our entire universe would be filled with an 'aether' or quantum sea of negative energy!

Originally posted by liquidself
Regarding the wave/particle duality - I have seen the particle sometimes referred to as an actuallization or concresence/collapse of the wave phenomenon - so from that point of view it is as if it is (just) a wave that has crashed upon the shore. I am curious as to your take on the uncertainty principle, (that you cannot know both the position and momentum of a given particle) - the theory seems to say that you cannot measure either wave or particles exactly, so saying everything is waves will not work. The Aether is a really old idea, but really, my question is why is a medium required for the waves to propagate in? Have to remember here that these waves are waves of PROBABILITY, so what medium exactly does probablility propagate in? Generally ether theories are thrown out because they aren't necessary to explain what is happening (Occam's Razor). Could not the "waves" from their own "Aether"?

I have been pondering your question and I would like to try an analogy:

Imagine that you are assigned to the task of measuring an earthquake. The two things you must measure are momentum and position. If you measure momentum you must analyse velocity, scale and duration. In doing so you assume some point of measurement and hence you assume the position by measuring the momentum. Directly after, assuming no time has passed, you now measure the position of the earthquake. Not only is this very difficult, because it is not a pin point, but you have also assumed a position in order to record its momentum. In reverse I believe you would have the same problem.

This analogy is a distinctly far from the reality, I understand. But my point is a wave in aether may: change size and shape between units of time, and even if it didn’t, is not a 3d point, but rather a dynamic volume of propagating energy.

Will reply again shortly.

From what I have gathered reading about the Michelson–Morley experiment all it proves is that there is no aetheric wind measurable on earth. Not that aether doesn’t exist.

The assumption that aether resists motion is flawed in my opinion. The actual basis for inertia must lie in some fundamental constant. If we assume aether is the material that all energy and matter propagates through and exists in then how can we apply the physical properties of matter to it? This is like saying that the water in the sea floats because things float on it.

Even if the aether did resist motion by its nature this experiment would still not have disproved its existence. I think Einstein’s aether was the material aspect of space-time. And hence in pockets of extreme space-time curvature the aether would have been denser. This concept is a tad misleading because generally speaking more dense objects are host to faster waves rather than slower waves. But if you wave’s velocity is limited by a constant, in this case the speed of light, and the density of the aether is manifested as a longer distance to travel then its understandable that light would travel more slowly through the dense regions.

This in mind, why would an aetheric wind be measurable inside a dense pocket? Wouldn’t this be akin to trying to listen to the wind on earth, from space? (inverted conceptually because of what was explained above.)

Mind you; If gravity is waves in the aether then the above is invalid.




Byrd;
The idea that nature becomes more complex the further down you go goes against every scrap of human understanding. At some point it must become simple again to the point where it is manifestly self sustaining. An example being a fractal; while looking extremely complex, it boils down to a self sustaining equation.

DNA is another example; while being incredibly complex, it is actually constituted by only four elements.

I think it is the very nature of reality itself that the more you eliminate from the scope of analysis the simpler the object under study becomes.


[edit on 6-3-2007 by Yandros]

Originally posted by b3rgY
Yes it's simple. Every particle has antyparticle. Execpt light. And every micro model is same as macro model.

Doesn't it occur to you how fundamentally incorrect this seems?

Here’s the model, and here’s the exceptions to the rule? Since when is a correct understanding of a fundamental aspect of nature ever like that? Surely the model should work for all elements to which it can be applied. In the case of particles, if all particles have an antiparticle then light must also have an antiparticle. The fact that it does not is a glaring testament to the flawed nature of the theory. And hence surely other theories need to be considered, and at the same time an antiparticle for light needs to be searched for.

Simply accepting the existing theories because they are mainstream is not good scientific method. When questions are raised the questions should prompt research and discovery, not the theory to be changed to incorporate the problems. This is like the ‘missing link’ element of evolution. Instead of including the inconsistency in the theory we should be either looking for the link (which we are) or finding a better theory.

You’ll all tell me I’m nuts because I question the theory of long term human evolution in this regard. Well all I am doing is applying common sense. If there is an inconsistency then it needs to be rectified, not added as a condition on the predicate.

If I understand your analogy to measuring the earthquake, I think you have nicely approximated the catch-22 situation of trying to measure position or velocity that the uncertaintly princiiple describes. Basically, meaurements of one necessitate that the other measurement becomes inherently less accurate. So, if you assumed that everything is waves, you would never be able to accurately measure any position - position here doesnt have to be a point, it could be a line, or a 3D volume (of propagating energy. Dont get me wrong, I like the idea everything is waves, though I would probably say vibrations myself in that context. To see everything as waves is to me a perfectly legitatimate thing to say; I look at paintings by Emily Carr and this is just what I see there.

publish.edu.uwo.ca...

I dont think the idea is totally subjective either (but thats another topic).

I just dont know if it applies strictly to quantum physics. I think that everything is waves in one sense, but that it is also simultaneously engaged in the process of actualization; on the microphysical scale there is a superimposition of states, with the most probable areas resulting (on average) in actualization - and hence the particle.

If I may be so bold as to suggest that you evaluate your ideas about physicallity and the nature of what is "real", most of us have a tendency to "reify" - to think of life the universe and everything as a substance of some sort, which isnt necessarily true.

Your aether theory reminds me a little of Rupert Sheldrakes work on Morphogenics (non-local "memory" fields) and also David Bohm's "Implicate Order".

www.sheldrake.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

A lot of people associate the term "aether" with an astral plane kind of thing, so maybe another term? Just a suggestion.

One can not measure the ether, because ultimately the instruments used to measure it consist of the ether already.

Liquidself,

You are spot on with my analogy.

Let me just point out that I am not trying to branch into philosophy here. This is aether strictly in the physical sense. As in, we know electrons and light are waves, but waves in what? And that said, why wouldn’t everything else be waves too, that just exhibit properties of what we call particles?

If quantum physics has taught us anything its that things tend toward waves the smaller you get, this, in my mind, is not a co-incidence. And is nearly conclusive proof, of itself, that an aether must exist.

I feel that nature must be natural. This is one of the reasons I do not like the big bang theory. Things in nature rarely explode, and certainly not that spectacularly. I know the universe is expanding, but again I think we should be looking for new theories. (After looking at Neal Adam’s expanding earth theory, could it be that all matter, and even space-time itself, is expanding gradually?)

Componentization is the way the human mind tends to solve problems. We break things up into components which all have specific tasks and then define the way each of these components interacts with one another. This is the basic principle behind modeling of any sort and it also tends to be the principle used during reverse engineering. Here in-lies the problem. If we apply our concept of ‘how things should be’ while reverse engineering we are going to get a strange, rather inaccurate, model of the object under study, particularly if the object is very small and not man made.

Add this fact to the actual way we tend to discover sub atomic particles and the whole theory of particles seems to become a lot less certain. Atoms being smashed together near the speed of light in a particle accelerator could produce unnatural results. E.g. you wouldn’t accelerate two pieces of U235 together at high velocity to find out what was in them. And if you did you’d not have much left of your particle accelerator.

Anyway all this aside, I am still very interested to hear physicist’s responses to all of the above questions and responses