Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Truth Of The Aether


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2635 posts

Posted 01 June 2019 - 02:30 AM

I was going to post this in my other thread, but the idea's are good enough to start a new investigation for a new post.

 

The phase velocity of a particle or wave in a medium is

[math]v = \frac{c}{n}[/math]

For light, in literature, the refractive index [math]n[/math] decreases with an increasing wavelength,

[math]1 < n(\lambda_{red}) < n(\lambda_{yellow}) < n(\lambda_{blue})[/math]

The alternative statement for this is

[math]\frac{dn}{d\lambda} < 0[/math]

In such a case, the dispersion is said to be normal.

https://en.wikipedia...ersion_(optics)

This however, takes us to the Fresnel drag coefficient, that is, the index of refraction is

[math]w_{+} = \frac{c}{n} + v[/math]

and in the other direction

[math]w_{-} = \frac{c}{n} - v[/math]

From it, Frizeau found that

[math]w_{+} = \frac{c}{n} + v(1 - \frac{1}{n^2})[/math]

If we replace the concept this was used in first context of light traveling against the flow of a fluid, with gravity, then the speed of the light will be seen travelling slower with the flow of the fluid. This brings us back to the well-known concepts now, that light is not truly a constant when inside a gravitational field.

But to do this, we require dragging coefficient [math]f[/math] which involves an experiment by Arago in which that an aether drags light propagating through it with only a fraction of the mediums speed. Gravitational aether theories are not very well-explored, but if we accept that light is not a constant in general truth when gravitational fields are involved, then the dragging coefficient should be no different to the one proposed

[math]f = 1 - \frac{1}{n^2}[/math]

Then in 1895, Lorentz predicted the existence of an extra term, which brings us back to the dispersion formula, which is why we mentioned it in the beginning of this post:

[math]w_{+} = \frac{c}{n} + v(1 - \frac{1}{n^2} - \frac{\lambda}{n} \frac{dn}{d\lambda})[/math]

In particular, this term

[math]\frac{dn}{d\lambda}[/math]

in which we had noted the relationship

[math]\frac{dn}{d\lambda} < 0[/math]

 

Now, let's say a little about the gravitational aether, something which Einstein supported strongly, but did not appear to realize that the constancy of the speed of light in the medium of space is [not] generally constant like he believed his theory predicted.

 

A Gravitational Aether

 

Excellent arguments exist now for the existence of the gravitational permittivity and permeability with the discovery of gravitational waves. The constancy of the speed of light only holds in a vacuum - but the density of gravitation varies between celestial objects and therefore the speed of light does technically vary.

 

In fact, authors Masanori Sato and Hiroki Sato in their paper ‘’Gravitational wave derived from fluid mechanics applied on the permittivity and the permeability of free space’’ suggests that gravitational waves are simply fluctuations of the medium, which appears as the product of the permittivity of free space and the permeability of free space. That is, the gravitational wave is an acoustic wave in the medium - the proposal shows how the phase velocity of the fluctuation relates to the speed of light

 

[math]c = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_G \mu_G}}[/math]

 

The model has some interesting consequences, first being that permittivity and permeability are allowed to vary. A second is that the speed of light is variable in gravitational fields. Another interesting property is that while both Newtonian mechanics and Einstein’s relativity theories predict the confinement of light by gravity, neither theory defines the escape velocity or the Schwarzschild radius; in fact, the actual speed of light can only approach zero but never reach it - so in effect light is allowed to escape from a black hole.

 

Let’s be clear about something - I do not believe that the thickness of space (the medium) is an aether made from any particle. In fact there cannot be any motion associated to this aether because it would violate the first principles of relativity. In fact you can argue as I have already done, that any true quantization of gravity would be at odds concerning how we actually think about the roles of pseudo forces. 

 

Many experiments have been performed to measure the value of the Newtonian [math]G[/math] but has come up with varied results and up until this year another measurement has cast a shadow over settling why we keep measuring different values for the constant - it may not be the case the constant does change, but what it may have to do with is the gravitational acceleration which is proportional to the constant. Since in this aether theory I have chosen, both permittivity and permeability will depend on [math]G[/math] ~

 

[math]\frac{1}{\epsilon_G} = 4 \pi G[/math]

 

[math]\frac{1}{\mu_G} = \frac{c^2}{4 \pi G}[/math]

 

This leaves open a question of whether the deviations in the value of G has something to do with variations spacetime permittivity and permeability. This particular theory of the aether, as a dynamical ''thickness'' of space due to varying gravitational density, the refractive index for radiation is proportional to [math]\sqrt{\epsilon_G \mu_G}[/math] (the gravitational permittivity and permeaility) and is represented as:

 

[math]n = \sqrt{\frac{\epsilon_G \mu_G}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}}[/math]

 

A high refractive index for the equation

 

[math]\frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_G \mu_G}}[/math]

 

causes a low speed of light (such as found round strong gravitational fields of black holes). It has been argued in literature that the refractive index is more intuitive than curvature; this suggestion is probably quite true, since curvature is the presence of a dynamic metric but we know not what causes this ''dynamic feature'' other through the presence of matter - which is well-known to tell spacetime how to curve, but still doesn't explain why the dynamic phenomenon exists. In a sense, the gravitational explanation for a refractive index supposes a type of mechanical explanation to curvature.


Edited by Dubbelosix, 01 June 2019 - 09:46 AM.

  • Flummoxed likes this

#2 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 617 posts

Posted 01 June 2019 - 04:02 AM

The permeability and permittivity of space are most likely dependent on the underlying random quantum foam/carrier of the electromagnetic field.

 

Many aether theories exist, which have been discredited, because they are trying to detect a none randomly orientated permanent medium, which will give differing results if measured from different angles.

 

A completely randomly orientated aether with constant pressure only existing momentarily in the form of quantum froth, is workable and would not be detected by the Michelson Morley experiment.

 

Defining the aether, as quantum foam/froth which either allows photons to pass, or be absorbed and reemitted as they pass through the electromagnetic field/quantum foam is workable. 

 

If I read you right above, this is where you are headed YES/NO ?

 

EDIT the around MASSES would the electromagnetic medium density be reduced as in Cahills approach with Quantum foam inflow.


Edited by Flummoxed, 01 June 2019 - 04:05 AM.


#3 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • 1138 posts

Posted 01 June 2019 - 06:01 AM

The permeability and permittivity of space are most likely dependent on the underlying random quantum foam/carrier of the electromagnetic field.

 

Many aether theories exist, which have been discredited, because they are trying to detect a none randomly orientated permanent medium, which will give differing results if measured from different angles.

 

A completely randomly orientated aether with constant pressure only existing momentarily in the form of quantum froth, is workable and would not be detected by the Michelson Morley experiment.

 

Defining the aether, as quantum foam/froth which either allows photons to pass, or be absorbed and reemitted as they pass through the electromagnetic field/quantum foam is workable. 

 

If I read you right above, this is where you are headed YES/NO ?

 

EDIT the around MASSES would the electromagnetic medium density be reduced as in Cahills approach with Quantum foam inflow.

 

No it he going in the direction that time-space is the aether medium and gravity acts as the current, I can just tell by looking at this versus other posts dubbel has posted which actually makes sense unlike electromagnetic medium in time-space. Look at the math sometimes and you can tell the system he is explaining. He is talking about the permeability of Gravity in the medium not electromagnetism at-least thus far which is why the mu and eta have a G next to them. dubbel gravito-magnetism makes sense and it anomaly free most of the time, look at the math he uses seriously when have you ever seen electromagnetism explained that way with the definition having a G in them. Though, dubbel would disagree I tend to think the graviton would be the underlining carrier of such.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 01 June 2019 - 06:19 AM.


#4 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2635 posts

Posted 01 June 2019 - 09:23 AM

The permeability and permittivity of space are most likely dependent on the underlying random quantum foam/carrier of the electromagnetic field.

 

Many aether theories exist, which have been discredited, because they are trying to detect a none randomly orientated permanent medium, which will give differing results if measured from different angles.

 

A completely randomly orientated aether with constant pressure only existing momentarily in the form of quantum froth, is workable and would not be detected by the Michelson Morley experiment.

 

Defining the aether, as quantum foam/froth which either allows photons to pass, or be absorbed and reemitted as they pass through the electromagnetic field/quantum foam is workable. 

 

If I read you right above, this is where you are headed YES/NO ?

 

EDIT the around MASSES would the electromagnetic medium density be reduced as in Cahills approach with Quantum foam inflow.

 

First of all, not all aether theories have been ruled out, or I wouldn't be entertaining the notion of the gravitational aether. 

 

Second, it is true that spacetime is not nothing, but it is also equally true that there are no physical mediators for the gravitational force - so in response to your question about it being explainable as a quantum foam, I wouldn't be too quick to assume that. It has been well-known for a while as you know yourself, the speed of light is not a true constant when you take into consideration gravitational fields. From the Shapiro effect (predicted from general relativity) to the bending and slowing of light around gravitationally-massive bodies, the concept of a dragging in space cannot be refuted under our current models. 


Edited by Dubbelosix, 01 June 2019 - 09:51 AM.


#5 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2635 posts

Posted 01 June 2019 - 09:37 AM

Yes, Victor seems to have the right concepts I was heading towards. But I still remain firmly an anti (graviton supporter).



#6 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 617 posts

Posted 02 June 2019 - 03:38 AM

First of all, not all aether theories have been ruled out, or I wouldn't be entertaining the notion of the gravitational aether. 

 

Second, it is true that spacetime is not nothing, but it is also equally true that there are no physical mediators for the gravitational force - so in response to your question about it being explainable as a quantum foam, I wouldn't be too quick to assume that. It has been well-known for a while as you know yourself, the speed of light is not a true constant when you take into consideration gravitational fields. From the Shapiro effect (predicted from general relativity) to the bending and slowing of light around gravitationally-massive bodies, the concept of a dragging in space cannot be refuted under our current models. 

 

Yes 

 

The reason I suggested quantum foam is because it "likely" transmits polarized electromagnetic waves which travel at c through the quantum froth, given a particular permittivity and permeability of space. For c to change these parameters must also change. Since the speed of light is not constant under a gravitational field, the quantum froth must change in some way to slow down the transmission of electromagnetic waves. Also Cahills Quantum foam inflow is easy to understand and follow than a lot of other theories.

 

I think it is understood that gravity is an emergent force, and not a real force. It is mediated by space, which is full of randomly orientated froth, which may or may not be entangled, but that froth mediates the electromagnetic forces, and the speed of light. It has been shown that gravitational waves travel at the same speed as light. 

 

Your earlier threads were showing gravity as a change in pressure, I possibly mistakingly was reading this as a reuction in the density of quantum froth as gravitational waves pass by.

 

I agree Gravitons are most likely a hypothetical myth. 

 

I will shut up now



#7 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2635 posts

Posted 02 June 2019 - 07:45 AM

I really should ask, which moderator moved this to alternative theories, most of the content of this post is already established in literature.

 

It's dangerous when you apply physics and people point fingers calling it an alternative hypothesis, is dangerous, because how would physics ever progress? This on top of the fact that no statement in the opening post is attempting to make an alternative statement about the physics already established in physics.

 

All I am doing is the same thing that physicists before me have done - they take literature, they build a theory. What is it about the gravitational aether that makes people so scared? I quote

Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:

 

(extract from wiki)

It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.[17]

 

Concerning this quote, it was a response to Dirac who supported the notion of an aether:

 

''Quantum mechanics can be used to describe spacetime as being non-empty at extremely small scales, fluctuating and generating particle pairs that appear and disappear incredibly quickly. It has been suggested by some such as Paul Dirac[6] that this quantum vacuum may be the equivalent in modern physics of a particulate aether. However, Dirac's aether hypothesis was motivated by his dissatisfaction with quantum electrodynamics, and it never gained support from the mainstream scientific community.[16]''

 

On the same wiki page, the concurrent investigation I myself have been considering:

Mechanical gravitational aether

From the 16th until the late 19th century, gravitational phenomena had also been modelled utilizing an aether. The most well-known formulation is Le Sage's theory of gravitation, although other models were proposed by Isaac Newton, Bernhard Riemann, and Lord Kelvin. None of those concepts are considered to be viable by the scientific community today.

 

 

And this is where wiki has made an absolutist statement which is clearly wrong. There is more evidence supporting the gravitational aether than what has been appreciated. So much so in fact, excellent arguments exist for the gravitational aether including how it predicts the Sagnac effect on gravitational waves. Without an acceptance of alternative theory, physics would never progress. Which is why I find it confusing that downgrading the information given, can be classed as something considered as progress. In fact, it gives out the complete opposite signals.



#8 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2635 posts

Posted 02 June 2019 - 07:48 AM

Another good example of wiki making absolutist [wrong] statements is the rotating universe. I have done enough research to know that there are no good reasons to score rotating universes from the theoretical list.



#9 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2635 posts

Posted 02 June 2019 - 07:58 AM


 

I think it is understood that gravity is an emergent force, and not a real force. It is mediated by space, which is full of randomly orientated froth, which may or may not be entangled, but that froth mediates the electromagnetic forces, and the speed of light. It has been shown that gravitational waves travel at the same speed as light.

 

 

Actually, we have found that gravitational waves do not move like light speed when including the Sagnac effect. It has been found that the distortion between a gravitational wave and a light wave is slightly different, but not as large as Sagnac originally calculated... which was something like 1000 times over estimated.



#10 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2635 posts

Posted 02 June 2019 - 08:18 AM


 

Your earlier threads were showing gravity as a change in pressure, I possibly mistakingly was reading this as a reuction in the density of quantum froth as gravitational waves pass by.

 

Yes, a gravitational aether is an aether which involves a gravitational pressure. Also, right now to get a better picture I am reading on gravitational dispersion.



#11 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2635 posts

Posted 02 June 2019 - 09:33 AM

The thread I created in the physics section, involving my favorite equations I derived over the years, brings me finally to the possible connection to the opening post of this thread.

 

[math]S = \frac{1}{k_BT} \frac{\hbar c}{\lambda_0} = \mathbf{R}(\frac{Gm^2}{n^2_1k_BT} - \frac{Gm^2}{n^2_2k_BT})[/math]

 

The Fresnel dragging coefficient is:

 

[math]f = 1 - \frac{1}{n^2}[/math]

 

We can rearrange this in a very simple way: first we add the [math]\frac{1}{n^2}[/math]

 

[math]f + \frac{1}{n^2} = 1 - \frac{1}{n^2} + \frac{1}{n^2}[/math]

 

You could simplify further, for instance, this would give

 

[math]f + \frac{1}{n^2} = 1[/math]

 

and you could even find the levels in a transition process:

 

[math]\frac{1}{n^2} = 1 - f[/math]

 

And while this is interesting we explore not only this avenue, but we will first concentrate on the first equation that we featured:

 

[math]f + \frac{1}{n^2} = 1 - \frac{1}{n^2} + \frac{1}{n^2}[/math]

 

Can you see where this equation relates to the investigation of the transition equation? First I want to solve for the quantization levels:

 

[math]\frac{1}{n^2} + \frac{1}{n^2} = 1 - f - \frac{1}{n^2}[/math]

 

So how do you solve that? We will simplify the terms to make it easier and use the form

 

[math]f + \frac{1}{n^2} = 1 - \frac{1}{n^2} + \frac{1}{n^2}[/math]

 

where the second term on the left hand side is

 

[math]f + a[/math]

 

and the right hand side simplified as

 

[math] 1 - b[/math]

 

So that we have:

[math]f + a = 1 - b[/math]

add the notation of b on both sides

[math]f + a + b = 1 - b + b[/math]

simplify

[math]f + a + b = 1[/math]

subtracting [math]f + a[/math] from both sides gives

[math]f + a + b - (f + a) = 1 - (f + a)[/math]

which simplifies to

[math]b = 1 - f - a[/math]

 

Plugging back in the definitions we get

 

[math]\frac{1}{n^2} + \frac{1}{n^2}= 1 - f - \frac{1}{n^2}[/math]

 

Now, going back to the transition equation we will notice that it involves a negative sign on the left hand side, this is a simple procedure of distributing a negative sign:

 

[math]\frac{\hbar c}{\lambda_0} = \mathbf{R}(\frac{Gm^2}{n^2_1k_BT} - \frac{Gm^2}{n^2_2k_BT})[/math]

 

[math]- ( \frac{1}{n^2} + \frac{1}{n^2}) = - 1 - f - \frac{1}{n^2} [/math]

 

giving us

 

[math] \frac{1}{n^2_1} - \frac{1}{n^2_2}= 1 + f - \frac{1}{n^2} [/math]

 

The notation of [math]n[/math] is the index of refraction but in some loose way, I expect it can play the same role as the principal quantum number. There are loads of ways to continue from here, for instance, we might consider the addition of [math]\frac{1}{n^2}[/math] as a correction to the transition equation which may be similar in nature to a dispersion relation predicted by Lorentz:

 

[math] \frac{1}{n^2} - \frac{1}{n^2} + \frac{1}{n^2} = 1 + f [/math]

 

You could from here be solving for the dragging coefficient,

 

[math] f = \frac{1}{n^2} - \frac{1}{n^2} + \frac{1}{n^2} - 1[/math]

 

But the direction I wish to take is simply one in which we retain the terms in the equation and rewrite the third term on the left in terms of the dispersion, again, first predicted by Lorentz, but formulated here in a completely new way::

 

[math] \frac{1}{n^2} - \frac{1}{n^2} + \frac{\lambda}{n^2} \cdot \frac{dn^2}{d\lambda} = 1 + f [/math]

 

There will be more to say on this matter as I take the equation into the transition formula I created for black holes.

 

Reference:

 

https://en.wikipedia...zeau_experiment


Edited by Dubbelosix, 02 June 2019 - 09:38 AM.


#12 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 617 posts

Posted 02 June 2019 - 01:48 PM

Is Aether drag not the same as frame dragging https://en.wikipedia...Frame-dragging 


  • Dubbelosix likes this

#13 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2635 posts

Posted 02 June 2019 - 02:37 PM

Is Aether drag not the same as frame dragging https://en.wikipedia...Frame-dragging 

 

Absolutely related. In a sense, frame dragging is a type of torsion as well.