 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / March 2006Is the quantum field an aether?
Hi, I don't understand: On the one hand with special relativity Einstein got rid of the aether - the medium which electromagnetic waves use to travel and which can be used as an absolute reference system. On the other hand in quantum field theory quantum fields are invented which fill all space and which are the "medium" for particle waves. Isn't this reinventing the aether? In what way is this 'aether' bettern than the one Einstein got rid? Thanks for help, Pedro > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > other hand in quantum field theory quantum fields are invented which > fill all space and which are the "medium" for particle waves. I don't know where you got the idea that the quantum fields are the medium for the particle waves. They *are* the particle waves. In the same way, light doesn't need something *other than itself* to be the medium for its propagation. The photons that fill space *are* the light, not the medium for light. > Isn't > this reinventing the aether? In what way is this 'aether' bettern than > the one Einstein got rid? > > Thanks for help, > Pedro | Hi, | [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | this reinventing the aether? In what way is this 'aether' bettern than | the one Einstein got rid? Volovik says it very well in his comprehensive book "The Universe in a Helium Droplet" first paragraph of the Conclusion, "According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons, neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century [and last part of the 20th]. The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum." Einstein did not "get rid of" the fundamental medium. He just showed it was not necessary to include it for *most* physics. I highly suspect the "new" ether as Volovik mentions will be necessary for a complete theory of quantum gravity. FrediFizzx http://www.vacuum-physics.com > | Hi, > | [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > FrediFizzx > http://www.vacuum-physics.com I think the key change of viewpoint was that the aether looked the same regardless of what speed you were moving, distinguishing it from any material. What it is the the waves wave is still an issue to many people, although others are happy with 4-component complex fields just existing as mathematical constructs. Perhaps it is that in some sense the higher dimensional fabric of string theory vibrates, like gravitational waves are believed to vibrate the 4-dimensional fabric of space time. Tao wrote: >> "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > | On the one hand with special relativity Einstein got rid of > > | the aether - the medium which electromagnetic waves use to > > | travel and which can be used as an absolute reference system. -=- > > Einstein did not "get rid of" the fundamental medium. He just > > showed it was not necessary to include it for *most* physics. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it from any material. What it is the the waves wave is still an > issue to many people, although -=- SNiP -=- fabric of space time. $$ Constant AMBiENT particle COUNT; Constant VELOCiTY c/n. $$ AMBiENT media (including Einstein's "light medium") REGULATEs $$ the light VELOCiTY v to be CONSTANT @ CONSTANT particle COUNT. $$ $$ VELOCiTY is a VECTOR over duration; SPEED, the PATH over duration. o o o o X o Q vector o o o projection A - - - VELOCiTY vector - -> B - - - - -> C o o o P o Y o o o ANY path. $$ Any VELOCiTY vector can ONLY be *MEASURED* ..in retrospect. $$ [Vector VELOCiTY (A->B)/t is iNDEPENDANT of path SPEED (A~B) / t]. $$ NOTE: Any other *iMAGiNARY* velocity, BETWEEN any OTHER TWO points $$ (each located on the SAME path) will indicate a DiFFERENT velocity $$ vector, albeit (even though) THAT SAME *path* clearly doN'T CHANGE. $$ [i.e. See that VELOCiTY X->Y & P->Q are vectors, on the SAME PATH]. $$ $$ Momentum UNcertainty varies directly with STRAiGHTNESS of the PATH. $$ $$ Physically speaking, ```Brian A M Stuckless, Ph.T (Tivity). [p.s. DECLARiNG "no PRiOR geometry" GR *cut off* it's own WORLD-line]. Re: "Physical EMPTiNESS ..iN between POiNTs"; Fischy (2005). Re: "The PHYSiCs of EMPTiNESS ..OUTside of POiNTs"; Fischy (2006). Re: Is the quantum field an aether? Re: Vectors caN'T be *MEASURED*. General. physicsts have not yet understood where the mass comes from. but i doubt that an "ether" is responsible for that. already the old results of the em field showed, that, if an ether would exist, it has properties too strange to fit to the rest... the following equ give raise to many spectulations (among non physicists): phase_velocity x group_velocity = c^2 but i refuse to jump in there .... Greetings U > General. > physicsts have not yet understood where the mass comes from. > but i doubt that an "ether" is responsible for that. > already the old results of the em field showed, that, if an ether would > exist, it has properties too strange to fit to the rest... Not really. Relativistic symmetry appears in a sufficiently simple way in an ether theory. See gr-qc/0205035. And I'm completing now my ether theory of the standard model. The two key observations: 1. Three-dimensional Euclidean symmetry in the standard model (without mass terms): rotations: rotating generations as a whole translations: adding constants to a component of right-handed neutrinos 2. Modification of fermion doubling if we leave time continuous (which is natural in an ether theory with preferred frame): => 8 doublers instead onf 16 => 2 doublers instead of 4 with staggered fermions which allows physical interpretation. Ilja $$ MOMENTUM UNcertainty varies iNVERSELY with the PATH STRAiGHTNESS. Tao wrote: >> "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > | On the one hand with special relativity Einstein got rid of > > | the aether - the medium which electromagnetic waves use to > > | travel and which can be used as an absolute reference system. -=- > > Einstein did not "get rid of" the fundamental medium. He just > > showed it was not necessary to include it for *most* physics. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the same regardless of what speed you were moving, distinguishing > it from any material. $$ Constant AMBiENT particle COUNT; Constant VELOCiTY c/n: $$ AMBiENT media (including Einstein's "light medium") REGULATEs $$ the light VELOCiTY v to be CONSTANT @ CONSTANT particle COUNT. $$ $$ VELOCiTY is a VECTOR over DURATiON; SPEED, the PATH over DURATiON": o o o o X o Q vector o o o projection A - - - VELOCiTY vector - -> B - - - - -> C o o o P o Y o o o o ANY path. $$ Any VELOCiTY vector can ONLY be "MEASURED" ..in RETROSPECT. $$ [Vector VELOCiTY, (A->B)/t, is iNDEPENDANT of path SPEED, (A~B)/t]. $$ NOTE: Any other *iMAGiNARY* velocity, BETWEEN any OTHER TWO points $$ (each located on the SAME path) will indicate a DiFFERENT velocity $$ vector, albeit (even though) THAT SAME *path* clearly doN'T CHANGE. $$ [i.e. Note, VELOCiTiEs X->Y and P->Q are vectors on the SAME PATH]. $$ $$ Momentum UNcertainty varies iNVERSELY with the PATH's STRAiGHTNESS. $$ $$ Physically speaking, ```Brian A M Stuckless, Ph.T (Tivity). $$ [p.s. DECLARiNG "No PRiOR geometry" GR *cut off* it's own WORLD-line]. Re: Any SPACE-time where STUFF is CLEARLY isN'T EMPTY.!! Re: "Physical EMPTiNESS ..iN between POiNTs"; Fischy (2005). Re: "The PHYSiCs of EMPTiNESS ..OUTside of POiNTs"; Fischy (2006). Re: Is the quantum field an aether? Re: Vectors caN'T be *MEASURED*. > > | Hi, > > | [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > dimensional fabric of string theory vibrates, like gravitational waves are > believed to vibrate the 4-dimensional fabric of space time. Hi Tao, Yep, but now we are hitting a brick wall in the final quest to make GR and quantum theory more compatible. And we have the big question to still answer; is there a basic fundamental entity (strings or whatever) that makes everything or are there really different kinds of fundamental entities (leptons, quarks, etc.)? I highly suspect that string theory is correct in its assumption that there is a fundamental quantum entity that makes everything. However, they are stalled out because they predict something like 10^500 different vacuum states. Time to re-think a Dirac-like Sea, IMHO. If interested you can read more about our concept at, http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110 Any comments and questions are appreciated. FrediFizzx http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf or postscript http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps http://www.vacuum-physics.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.