Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Fresnel Drag And The Aether


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3205 posts

Posted 14 January 2020 - 10:05 AM

I have taken the following quote from an online source,

"The two main conceptual models for light propagation at the time of Fizeau’s experiment were (1) waves in an ether theory, and (2) ballistic particles in an emission theory. In each of these theories there was uncertainty about how light passing through a transparent substance would be affected by the motion of the substance. Some proponents of the ether theory argued that the ether is perfectly motionless and unaffected by ordinary substances, while others believed the ether would be dragged along – either totally or partially – by the material medium. Similarly some proponents of emission (ballistic) theories imagined that particles of light pass freely through a transparent substance, whereas others pointed out that in order to account for different indices of refraction we must posit an “extinction” effect, such that the corpuscles of light are absorbed and re-emitted by the particles of the substance, and hence the light acquires its characteristic speed relative to the substance. Consequently, an emission theory with rapid extinction predicts the same propagation speed as an ether theory with complete convection."

When gravity becomes the medium aether, the notion of a stationless aether must be abandoned. We know that space can expand at different rates as well and is as much related to Ricci flow dynamics as possibly can be. A gravitational field certainly can drag objects along with it, assuming we take distant objects receding faster than light as a phenomenon of the drag but while keeping in mind there is no local violation of the light speed. Light certainly moves through mediums at different rates which is in accord with absorption and emission of light through the physical substance.

Interestingly Einstein did abandon the motion filled aether, based on the results of Michelson and Morley experiments, but appears to have not been aware at the time that if the gravitational field or the metric in general was the aether itself, motion was allowed to exist but the result is that it cannot be made from any particle. Motion as will be explained more clearly, is allowed so long as the physical substance idea may be abandoned - this includes the existence of gravitons. Spacetime can flow, even without additional quantization of the gravitational field.

The drag interpretation of gravity will then make sense as being the only medium that could possibly be classed as etheric in nature. Also, the drag and dispersion can be completely understood from a photon moving in a gravitational field alone, even though we can use any ideal transparent medium, like water. A perfect transparent medium probably does not even exist. The closest thing we could have to that kind of idea, is an open vacuum in which light always travels at the speed of light in accord with the true meaning behind what we call a constancy of light. Even Einstein was aware in his creation of general relativity that the constancy of light has to abandoned ex ept for the special case of light in a vacuum... And this was because of the nature of gravity - the special case is a case in absence of significant gravitational effects. Bring geometry into the vacuum, light appears to be spatially variable. I'd go as far to say it is unavoidable since the variability allowed for experimental predictions like light bending round the sun.

More yet, the photon has some strange interpretations which have not been fully addressed concerning this variability, because if it can vary in space, an immediate consequence is that light will be measured in such cases as taking more time to reach us. But because we have been taught light has no frame of reference, it seems that something has to give somewhere since you cannot take time to get anywhere without some kind of refence frame. Is it an illusion that light varies in such a way from an observer in the rest frame alone? I don't think it's an illusion at all and may hint at an incompleteness to our understanding of the aether as the gravitational field, something which Einstein probably would have endorsed.

To understand how the Fresnel drag can be implemented to make sense of a gravitational aether, we really should first cover the basics of the equations (including the dispersive correction Lorentz made) and the conclusions that came afterwards, then we can move onto my modified equation for a drag in three dimensions. Some idea of the relativistic addition of velocities will be required for the following... And will be updated at a later point.

#2 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1726 posts

Posted 14 January 2020 - 06:47 PM

So dubbel, I am not against gravity being a aether as gravity does cause frame dragging effects along with have a general effect on things within its field, however there must be a mediator for the gravitational force being the graviton as a particle connector between the spaces with gravitational fields, This Spin 2 boson must be there otherwise there is much about physics humans don't understand which is what you are leading toward, but then what transmits gravity if there is no graviton?. Why can it not be a medium with a mediator particle? Secondly, I am not entirely convinced that gravity changes the speed of light of the electromagnetic boson being light, there is no shift in frequency of the light only wavelength from gravitational fields meaning that the particle doesn't lose energy during its transit through a gravitational field. If this were the case you would suspect that there would be other particles generated during its travel through a gravitational field via Higgs Interactions as Tachyon Condensation would happen in the medium. Could there be more detail to the aether than you originally suspected?


Edited by VictorMedvil, 14 January 2020 - 06:52 PM.


#3 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1536 posts

Posted 15 January 2020 - 12:25 AM

I see things in a slightly different way.

 

Consider a map of the oceans surface where areas away from pointy jagged objects with mass allow free travel in straight lines under consistent internal/external forces while things navigating anywhere around those same pointy jagged objects with mass, some of the objects hidden from view, have to take extreme care because it is very difficult to travel in straight lines under consistent internal/external forces and mistakes can be fatal.

 

Yes we can have a projection of that same physical system that enables easier straight line navigation and yes we can model that surface in 3D so that we can get a view of how things are in reality.

 

The problem is that our current 'maps' aren't maps or realistic representations at all, as well they show too many fantastic beasts and imaginary things.

 

p.s. my avatar is a screen capture image (Poincare section) from an optical feedback loop, the apparent 'drag' is just the difference between the frames (per second) of the optical system hardware and the camera is slightly askew (3 different angles) to the source.


Edited by LaurieAG, 15 January 2020 - 12:25 AM.


#4 maheshkhati

maheshkhati

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 15 January 2020 - 03:22 AM

I consider in different way, balance electromagnetic flux present around every substance act as Aether. So, every substance find the same velocity of light near to it. As given in 2nd chapter of my paper http://vixra.org/abs/1912.0171

So, every substance or measuring instrument find velocity of light is C.near to it.

So, Maxwell wave equation is always true for every observer & Mickelson-Morley experiment is also true for each instrument setup. 

I consider this as local space for that substance.


Edited by maheshkhati, 15 January 2020 - 03:24 AM.


#5 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3205 posts

Posted 15 January 2020 - 05:06 AM

So dubbel, I am not against gravity being a aether as gravity does cause frame dragging effects along with have a general effect on things within its field, however there must be a mediator for the gravitational force being the graviton as a particle connector between the spaces with gravitational fields, This Spin 2 boson must be there otherwise there is much about physics humans don't understand which is what you are leading toward, but then what transmits gravity if there is no graviton?. Why can it not be a medium with a mediator particle? Secondly, I am not entirely convinced that gravity changes the speed of light of the electromagnetic boson being light, there is no shift in frequency of the light only wavelength from gravitational fields meaning that the particle doesn't lose energy during its transit through a gravitational field. If this were the case you would suspect that there would be other particles generated during its travel through a gravitational field via Higgs Interactions as Tachyon Condensation would happen in the medium. Could there be more detail to the aether than you originally suspected?

 

 

Why do you say there has to be a graviton? If Einstein had understood his basic premise, gravity is not a quantization, but a pseudofield.... 



#6 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3205 posts

Posted 15 January 2020 - 05:07 AM

There is no physical transmission of gravity, it owes its existence to the very ''fabric'' in which physical systems exist in, to be clear. 



#7 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3205 posts

Posted 15 January 2020 - 05:11 AM

I see things in a slightly different way.

 

Consider a map of the oceans surface where areas away from pointy jagged objects with mass allow free travel in straight lines under consistent internal/external forces while things navigating anywhere around those same pointy jagged objects with mass, some of the objects hidden from view, have to take extreme care because it is very difficult to travel in straight lines under consistent internal/external forces and mistakes can be fatal.

 

Yes we can have a projection of that same physical system that enables easier straight line navigation and yes we can model that surface in 3D so that we can get a view of how things are in reality.

 

The problem is that our current 'maps' aren't maps or realistic representations at all, as well they show too many fantastic beasts and imaginary things.

 

p.s. my avatar is a screen capture image (Poincare section) from an optical feedback loop, the apparent 'drag' is just the difference between the frames (per second) of the optical system hardware and the camera is slightly askew (3 different angles) to the source.

 

 

There are corrections that have been made in the invention of relativity which gives the drag an exact value for water. The real task is now to understand how to understand the exact value for the gravitational drag, for a particular system, such as a photon moving through a gravitational field. The drag and the addition of velocities done correctly, is the final problem. If we can understand this model as a drag, we have a sort of new picture for the aether. 



#8 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3205 posts

Posted 15 January 2020 - 05:11 AM

I consider in different way, balance electromagnetic flux present around every substance act as Aether. So, every substance find the same velocity of light near to it. As given in 2nd chapter of my paper http://vixra.org/abs/1912.0171

So, every substance or measuring instrument find velocity of light is C.near to it.

So, Maxwell wave equation is always true for every observer & Mickelson-Morley experiment is also true for each instrument setup. 

I consider this as local space for that substance.

 

I'll take a look, you may have premises right, maybe not. None of this is easy. 



#9 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1726 posts

Posted 15 January 2020 - 12:16 PM

Why do you say there has to be a graviton? If Einstein had understood his basic premise, gravity is not a quantization, but a pseudofield.... 

The reason I say there has to be a graviton is pretty simple basically that at what point do you get one unit of gravity. It is said that gravity is so weak on the quantum level that it is hardly noticeable at what point does gravity cease to exist upon a object. The key to this is that gravity doesn't cease to exist upon a object but still has effect though a very small effect at what point is that very small effect the quantization of the field, why I say there must be a graviton at some level is when gravity is at it's weakest there must be a single particle that sends the signal that there is still gravity that would be the graviton. As you look at gravity more closely you realize that the graviton is a must as the force at some point get to a minimum value. At what point is the gravitational interactions of two Quanta of light displays a minimum value for gravity? There must at some point be a minimum value for gravity between some set of Energy-Mass carrying particles it is inevitable to find the graviton.

 

For instance, here is a simple explanation of to why there must be a graviton, basically two quanta of light can be expressed as planck's constant or h now place that in the Newtonian gravity law for Energy-Mass of a small particle via E/C2 = M , so  (E2/C4)G/R= F, where E -> h and R -> λ, from that the expression (h2/C4)G/λ= E/Δt2 , so the Quantization of gravity between two quanta of light is 3.2537650324444444444444444444444*10-85 between two quanta with a 1 nm wavelength in units of Joules per Second squared meaning in 1 second the value of Energy bound is that amount within gravity showing a minimum of gravitational potential energy which is actually smaller than the theoretical size of a graviton's energy meaning at what point do you define it as a quanta of gravity because it is possible when taking in account quanta particles to get very small numbers for the value of gravity is a value of 3.2537650324444444444444444444444*10-85  joules small enough to define it as a gravity quanta which can be even smaller with larger wavelengths? What if we started to define this completely in planck units, is that small enough to consider it a quanta of gravity? At what point does it become the exact smallest value? If such a smallest value were found wouldn't that mean that gravity's elementary particle has been found?

 

 

There is no physical transmission of gravity, it owes its existence to the very ''fabric'' in which physical systems exist in, to be clear. 

 

 

Yes that is all well and good to say it is the "Very Fabric" but what is the fabric of the universe do you not think that there is some sort of gravitational aether meaning where does gravity derive its force from? Just nothing, what defines a "Very Fabric" of the universe is there some sort of particle that this "Fabric" is generated from that mediates the strength of gravity and generates Time-space? My point being define that "Very Fabric" and you begin to run into alot of unanswered questions about gravity.


Edited by VictorMedvil, Today, 03:40 AM.


#10 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1536 posts

Posted 15 January 2020 - 10:11 PM

There are corrections that have been made in the invention of relativity which gives the drag an exact value for water. The real task is now to understand how to understand the exact value for the gravitational drag, for a particular system, such as a photon moving through a gravitational field. The drag and the addition of velocities done correctly, is the final problem. If we can understand this model as a drag, we have a sort of new picture for the aether. 

See my avatar image, the drag is the latency that you should expect using any 'relative to the speed of light' timing mechanism.



#11 maheshkhati

maheshkhati

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted Yesterday, 06:46 AM

At beginning, I also consider gravity as Aether  but Maxwell wave equation  becomes wrong for different inertial observers in gravity of earth. Then I see towards atom & inter-molecular space, where electromagnetic flux is the field which control every thing & electron and particles express its velocity with related to it. Then, I calculate independent charge flux of total electrons of  earth & find it is very strong even at long distance from earth. This electrons -ve flux is balance by equivalent +ve protons flux & this equivalent electromagnetic flux around each substance act as Aether or local space for that substance. 

Photon creates electromagnetic vibration in space while moving. This vibration is easily created in Aether made with balance electromagnetic flux. 

How single photon create interference. Such a problem can be solve by this consideration.

 http://vixra.org/abs/1912.0171



#12 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 857 posts

Posted Today, 05:06 AM


More yet, the photon has some strange interpretations which have not been fully addressed concerning this variability, because if it can vary in space, an immediate consequence is that light will be measured in such cases as taking more time to reach us. But because we have been taught light has no frame of reference, it seems that something has to give somewhere since you cannot take time to get anywhere without some kind of refence frame. Is it an illusion that light varies in such a way from an observer in the rest frame alone? I don't think it's an illusion at all and may hint at an incompleteness to our understanding of the aether as the gravitational field, something which Einstein probably would have endorsed.

To understand how the Fresnel drag can be implemented to make sense of a gravitational aether, we really should first cover the basics of the equations (including the dispersive correction Lorentz made) and the conclusions that came afterwards, then we can move onto my modified equation for a drag in three dimensions. Some idea of the relativistic addition of velocities will be required for the following... And will be updated at a later point.

 

 

Are you suggesting that a photon can be modeled using Ricci flow, based on a geometric manifold, rather than a volume. The movement being caused by space contracting in front of the photon due to its positive curvature ? and expanding behind photon due to -ve curvature of manifold perhaps ? Are Ricci Solitons connected in some way? 

 

If the above is true, then are you further arguing that space is contracted by other types of particles ie mass. Can particles/mass be modeled as manifolds also?. https://journals.aps...106017#fulltext



#13 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3205 posts

Posted Today, 07:33 AM

The reason I say there has to be a graviton is pretty simple basically that at what point do you get one unit of gravity. It is said that gravity is so weak on the quantum level that it is hardly noticeable at what point does gravity cease to exist upon a object. The key to this is that gravity doesn't cease to exist upon a object but still has effect though a very small effect at what point is that very small effect the quantization of the field, why I say there must be a graviton at some level is when gravity is at it's weakest there must be a single particle that sends the signal that there is still gravity that would be the graviton. As you look at gravity more closely you realize that the graviton is a must as the force at some point get to a minimum value. At what point is the gravitational interactions of two Quanta of light displays a minimum value for gravity? There must at some point be a minimum value for gravity between some set of Energy-Mass carrying particles it is inevitable to find the graviton.

For instance, here is a simple explanation of to why there must be a graviton, basically two quanta of light can be expressed as planck's constant or h now place that in the Newtonian gravity law for Energy-Mass of a small particle via E/C2 = M , so (E2/C4)G/R2 = Fg , where E -> h and R -> λ, from that the expression (h2/C4)G/λ= Eg /Δt2 , so the Quantization of gravity between two quanta of light is 3.2537650324444444444444444444444*10-85 between two quanta with a 1 nm wavelength in units of Joules per Second squared meaning in 1 second the value of Energy bound is that amount within gravity showing a minimum of gravitational potential energy which is actually smaller than the theoretical size of a graviton's energy meaning at what point do you define it as a quanta of gravity because it is possible when taking in account quanta particles to get very small numbers for the value of gravity is a value of 3.2537650324444444444444444444444*10-85 joules small enough to define it as a gravity quanta which can be even smaller with larger wavelengths? What if we started to define this completely in planck units, is that small enough to consider it a quanta of gravity? At what point does it become the exact smallest value? If such a smallest value were found wouldn't that mean that gravity's elementary particle has been found?





Yes that is all well and good to say it is the "Very Fabric" but what is the fabric of the universe do you not think that there is some sort of gravitational aether meaning where does gravity derive its force from? Just nothing, what defines a "Very Fabric" of the universe is there some sort of particle that this "Fabric" is generated from that mediates the strength of gravity and generates Time-space? My point being define that "Very Fabric" and you begin to run into alot of unanswered questions about gravity.


But there is no one unit of gravity, realistically the stress energy tensor is contributed by all types of matter regardless of the existence of a graviton.

The gravity is a response of a physical system in the metric, Einstein saw it as curvature. We can think of it more accurately as an index of refraction.

Edited by Dubbelosix, Today, 07:34 AM.


#14 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3205 posts

Posted Today, 07:35 AM

Are you suggesting that a photon can be modeled using Ricci flow, based on a geometric manifold, rather than a volume. The movement being caused by space contracting in front of the photon due to its positive curvature ? and expanding behind photon due to -ve curvature of manifold perhaps ? Are Ricci Solitons connected in some way? 
 
If the above is true, then are you further arguing that space is contracted by other types of particles ie mass. Can particles/mass be modeled as manifolds also?. https://journals.aps...106017#fulltext


You can deal with metrics that are volumetric as well, they are not limited to two dimensional flow mechanics. Besides,a volumetric flow is important so that the geometry of the system does not collapse too quickly in cosmic scales.

#15 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3205 posts

Posted Today, 07:36 AM

But no, I don't attribute any single particle with the aether.

#16 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3205 posts

Posted Today, 07:38 AM

At beginning, I also consider gravity as Aether  but Maxwell wave equation  becomes wrong for different inertial observers in gravity of earth. Then I see towards atom & inter-molecular space, where electromagnetic flux is the field which control every thing & electron and particles express its velocity with related to it. Then, I calculate independent charge flux of total electrons of  earth & find it is very strong even at long distance from earth. This electrons -ve flux is balance by equivalent +ve protons flux & this equivalent electromagnetic flux around each substance act as Aether or local space for that substance. 
Photon creates electromagnetic vibration in space while moving. This vibration is easily created in Aether made with balance electromagnetic flux. 
How single photon create interference. Such a problem can be solve by this consideration.
 http://vixra.org/abs/1912.0171



The Maxwell equations do not apply to gravity in that way, we require new parameters called a gravitational permititivity and permeability which is almost widely accepted now with the discovery of Gravitational waves.

#17 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 857 posts

Posted Today, 10:10 AM

But no, I don't attribute any single particle with the aether.

 

All things are quantum fluctuations are they not. I was alluding to a stochaistic viewpoint of ricci flow, that I had been confusing myself with and is perhaps not related to this thread. However the makeup of a photon ie a wave or a ballistic particle, travelling through a ether. Viewing a photon as contracting space in front of it and expanding space behind it. Moving like a soliton wave, gave a nice picture. After all a photon generated, by electrons changing energy levels orbiting a nucleus, how does that packet of energy travel. The ricci soliton idea seemed appealing, ive dug up a few papers which I am puzzling with. 

 

Edit : This paper seems related to your OP https://arxiv.org/vc...0704.1942v3.pdf


Edited by Flummoxed, Today, 10:15 AM.