 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / February 2006A Discussion on the Basic Properties of an Aether
> etherist wrote: >> On 31 Jan 2006 09:12:49 -0800, "shevek" <shevek4@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >Aetherist wrote: >> >> On 30 Jan 2006 10:57:29 -0800, "shevek" <shevek4@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> [Snip...] >> >> We are indeed on the very same page. >> >>>> If it were, we wouldn't have any need for GR. There is a reason >>>> that the Lorentz transform between systems in motion is of the >>>> form Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2) and it isn't 'just because' either. It is >>>> based upon light speed independence of emitter &/or receptor >>>> motion and the fact that (c + v) & (c - v) define the relative >>>> speed between them along the axis of motion. >>> >>> A perhaps slightly more difficult question is exactly why time >>> dilation takes the form it does.. can you show from first >>> principles without appealing to group/metrical symmetry or >>> linearity (as is usually done in SR derivations of Lorentz >>> transform) exactly how much an electromagnetic clock will be >>> dilated compared to another at motion through the aether? >> >> I attempted to convey this earlier in this very thread. See: >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2b584e4266da7674?dmode =source&hl=en >> >> Rewording a section from that post (for clarity) I say, >> >> Thus let's set up a simple concept which works as follows; >> >> One tick is, by our definition, the time it takes a tennis ball >> to travel from A to B to A as, >> >> B Y >> ----- (Reflector) ^ >> ^ | >> | | >> | | >> | | >> D +---------->X >> | >> | >> | >> ----- (Trans/Receiver) >> A >> >> Each time the ball returns to hit the transmitter plate >> another is fired, tick, tick, tick... Now we will also >> define the 'speed' of the ball to be independent of any >> speed of the system that contains the elements of A & B. >> The vector velocity of the Ball along the X & Y axes are >> simple the result of Trig, >> >> s^2 = v(x)^2 + v(y)^2 >> >> Thus for any v(x) > 0, >> >> v(y)^2 = s^2 - v(x)^2 >> >> making the effective speed s' = v(y) where >> >> s' < s >> Clearly, >> _______ >> s' / >> - = / 1 - B^2 >> s \/ >> >> Where >> >> B = v(x)/s >> >> We can conclude that the tick cycle of any clocks of this >> type will experience a 'physical' slowing down of it >> tick rate by a factor equal to the Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2)... >> >> Therefore, by our definition, we have established a time >> slowing process based solely upon the travel paths required >> to traverse linear distances and a fixed speed s and >> motion wrt to any baseline. > > Thank you. However there may be more explaining to do, for > example you didn't mention the dilation of the lengths of the > arms of your device as they are measured from the moving frame... > does that complicate the picture somewhat? It would be physically complicated if it did not dilate (as in contract). For, if that were the case, as has been pointed out by many over the years, physically, the moving systems (even wrt respect to each other) would experience extra forces and effects due to that motion. Nature simply would not be conservative when anything was in inertial motion. In particular, the momentum of a system would not be invariant under transformations. >> If you were in a situation where you could not determine v(x) >> to any standard baseline, and, given that s IS constant, >> how can one account for this simple effect? Well, if the >> system A-B is 'rigid' we have a way of finding out where >> the baseline for v(x) = 0 is. That is by re-orienting the >> clock 90°. Under such rigid conditions the tennis ball will >> have to travel even farther to 'catch' the receding >> wall and make its way back. The round trip distance in this >> case is, of course, precisely farther by the Sqrt of the above >> value, making it (1 - [v/c]^2). The difference, was what >> Michelson expected to discern as fringe interference. This >> difference would make it possible to discriminate orientation >> and thus v(x). >> >> As you should be able to tell, 'time dilation' is present >> in ALL! moving systems, even those with Galliean structure. > > Yes, time dilation of a sort, but that is more of a doppler shift > than a metrical reconfiguration. Only because, without the contraction there could be no single metric since _______ / s' != s / 1 - B^2 \/ in an orientation independent manner... >> It is simply that the distance necessary to complete the >> circuit is velocity dependent. [Snip...] >> Before I start the new thread, you can help focus my efforts >> by telling me what you want to discuss. > > How about which properties of the aether lead to electromagnetic > fields? Isn't that easy, see: http://www.vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf > I seem to recall we have some disagreements on that topic :) What were those? Sorry, I don't remember :( > Cheers - shevek | > etherist wrote: | >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] | >> | >> I attempted to convey this earlier in this very thread. See: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2b584e4266da7674?dmode =source&hl=en | >> Rewording a section from that post (for clarity) I say, | >> [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] | | Isn't that easy, see: http://www.vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf Well, it is not so hard if we take Quantum Vacuum Charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c). ;-) 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 >|> etherist wrote: >|>> [quoted text clipped - 144 lines] > >http://www.vacuum-physics.com Ya'need to find the LHO form, somethin'like, __________ 1 / QVC = --- / K·(hbar)·c 2·pi \/ Ya'know like the SI form, ______ / ___ 1 / / £ q = --- / h / --- 2·pi \/ \/ 3·µ Where h = Planck's constant £ = Permitivitty µ = permeability q = elemental charge Then the +/- takes care of itself... Paul Stowe | >|> etherist wrote: | >|>> [quoted text clipped - 165 lines] | | Then the +/- takes care of itself... Well yes, the k is assumed so it would be QVC = +,- sqrt(k*hbar*c) so that in SI it becomes +,- sqrt(4pi*eps0*hbar*c). I guess it would actually be sqrt(hbar*c/k). Not sure what you mean by "+/- take care of itself..." We need the +/- so that the medium can be neutral macroscopically. 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 [Snip...] >|> Well, it is not so hard if we take Quantum Vacuum Charge = +,- >|> sqrt(hbar*c). ;-) [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > "+/- take care of itself..." We need the +/- so that the medium > can be neutral macroscopically. Let's look at what you just wrote, sqrt(4pi*eps0*hbar*c) Given that eps0 = £, hbar = h/(2·pi) and c = 1/Sqrt(£·µ) we have, QVC = Sqrt([2·£·h]/[Sqrt(£·µ)]) _______ / __ / / £ = / 2·h / - = (11.71)·q \/ \/ µ _________ / __ 1 / / £ = ---- / 8·pi^2/ - = (11.71)·q 2·pi\/ \/ µ Which is the form of a LHO, __ 1 / K w = ---- / - 2·pi\/ m Which, of course, is the cyclic variation around a mean value (x')... i.e. x' +/- dx. Paul Stowe > [Snip...] > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > Paul Stowe Discuss away by all means. In the meanwhile, ask Cassini the time. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm Androcles > > [Snip...] > > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm I enjoyed chatting with Cassini.. but what's that? Good lord, it's a clone of Mars, orbiting the sun at less than a tenth of an AU! :) > Androcles > [Snip...] > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > Which, of course, is the cyclic variation around a mean value (x')... > i.e. x' +/- dx. And BTW (as if you didn't know), in SI 'your value' is, ________ / __ 1 / h / £ QVC = ---- / - / - = (11.71)·q 2·pi\/ ¢ \/ 3·µ Where ¢ = ~137.036 (inverse alpha) Paul Stowe >> Which, of course, is the cyclic variation around a mean value (x')... >> i.e. x' +/- dx. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > QVC = ---- / - / - = (11.71)·q > 2·pi\/ ¢ \/ 3·µ Ack! I hate it when I type lex-dexic... :( It should be, Where ¢ = alpha = 1/137.036 > Paul Stowe > > etherist wrote:[..} > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > motion. In particular, the momentum of a system would not > be invariant under transformations. Uh, it's not. Nature is very conservative. That is, the momentum of a system is not invariant under transformations. That floating pebble might not look like a real momentum heavyweight to you, but the folks looking at that pebble through the windshield of a space shuttle might be more concerned. > >> Before I start the new thread, you can help focus my efforts > >> by telling me what you want to discuss. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Isn't that easy, see: http://www.vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf A great paper, a hundred years ahead of its time and some of the material even of interest today. I'm interested in these hexagonal cells, with particles between them that he envisions. Perhaps an early prediction of atomic (elemental) structure.. the electrons are indeed less massive and more mobile than larger vortex (angular momentum) nuclei. But surely any modern discussion of the aether is trying to explore scales many magnitudes smaller? > > I seem to recall we have some disagreements on that topic :) > > What were those? Sorry, I don't remember :( Sorry, me neither. I'm particularly interested in which moment or weighted average of the distribution function of aether constituents that you ascribe to phi (electric scalar potential) A (magnetic vector potential) Let me be more annoyingly precise. The aether constists of constituents with possible properties (position, velocity, sexual orientation, your ad here) such that the statistical distribution of all the constituents can be expressed as a distribution function f(x,v,s,..), giving the density at any point in the phase space of a particle at x, with speed v, etc. My question is what funcions AA and PP of the properties x,v,s,... satisfy the relations: phi(x) = \integral { PP(x,v,s...)*f(x,v,s...) dv ds d.. } A(x) = \integral { AA(x,v,s...)*f(x,v,s...) dv ds d.. } where the functions A(x) and AA(x,v,s,...) are vectors as is x, v, and possibly s ;) As another example Ilja Schmelzer will tell you which tensor weight function GG defines the metric tensor: g_ij = \integral { GG_ij(x,v,s...)*f(x,v,s...) dv ds .. } though if I remember correctly his GG don't depend on s explicitly. Some good guesses of the form of PP and AA exist in the literature. But I think there is still some work to do in bringing the associated normalization constants together in a coherent picture. Cheers - shevek > > Cheers - shevek >>> Aetherist wrote:[..} >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Uh, it's not. Nature is very conservative. Yes it is... That's the point. > That is, the momentum of a system is not invariant under > transformations. Under 3-D Transforms, of course. > That floating pebble might not look like a real momentum heavyweight > to you, but the folks looking at that pebble through the windshield > of a space shuttle might be more concerned. Is this an attempt at patronizing? Do you think I'm stupid? Of course the relative momentum and energy are frame dependent. >>>> Before I start the new thread, you can help focus my efforts >>>> by telling me what you want to discuss. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > nuclei. But surely any modern discussion of the aether is trying to > explore scales many magnitudes smaller? The question really is, 'if matter consists of harmonic patterns of the lattice' HOW can one explore & directly measure and/or observe scales many magnitude smaller than that of which they are made??? >>> I seem to recall we have some disagreements on that topic :) >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > phi (electric scalar potential) phi maps to v, Kinematic viscosity. Bulk viscosity is simply £·v Where, as before, £ = permittivity (density) > A (magnetic vector potential) The vector potential A is the component of circulation or the solenoidal vector component > Let me be more annoyingly precise. The aether constists of > constituents with possible properties (position, velocity, sexual > orientation, your ad here) Why the sarcasm? The aether consists of fundamental properties, including: Density: £ (Permittivity - 8.54E-12 kg/m^3) Modulus: Y (inverse Permeability [1/µ] - 7.96E+05 kg/m-sec^2) Charge: q (Coulombs - 1.60E-19 kg/sec) K-viscosity: v (Sqrt[h·c^2/q] - 1.93E+01 m^2/sec) B-viscosity ¥ (Sqrt[h/q]·£·c - 1.71E-10 kg/m-sec) > ... such that the statistical distribution of all the constituents > can be expressed as a distribution function f(x,v,s,..), giving the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > where the functions A(x) and AA(x,v,s,...) are vectors as is x, v, > and possibly s ;) Now, do you want this in ten words of less? Perhaps, you want just the one GUE just written out... This is a newsgroup and space & time are limited. > As another example Ilja Schmelzer will tell you which tensor weight > function GG defines the metric tensor: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But I think there is still some work to do in bringing the > associated normalization constants together in a coherent picture. Of course there is. To do that one does need to identify the elements of the aether that are associated with > Cheers - shevek Paul Stowe > >>> Aetherist wrote:[..} > >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the lattice' HOW can one explore & directly measure and/or observe > scales many magnitude smaller than that of which they are made??? Thanks for your reply. I think now there is enough material to have a decent argument. That is a good question.. though I think the reference to "lattice" (crysatline structure?) is not necessary. Let me rephrase, stating the question again to avoid having to answer it: If matter consists of statistical distributions of smaller constituents, how can one explore and directly measure or observe scales many magnitude smaller than that of which they are made? Do you think that Heisenberg has answered this question fairly well, in that particular scale? > >>> I seem to recall we have some disagreements on that topic :) > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Where, as before, £ = permittivity (density) Really? Many point to kinetic pressure as the key component of the electric potential.. > > A (magnetic vector potential) > > The vector potential A is the component of circulation or > the solenoidal vector component And many also point to the bulk velocity as the vector potential. If you take A as the bulk velocity, then it is B (curlA) that is the vorticity or circulation. The analogy of the unovservabilty of the bulk velocity, and the guage invariance of the magnetic vector potential, is also quite compelling I think. > > Let me be more annoyingly precise. The aether constists of > > constituents with possible properties (position, velocity, sexual > > orientation, your ad here) > > Why the sarcasm? No sarcasm there.. you misread me. How would you constrain the list of possible properties of aether constituents? A lot of freedom there for the theorists.. position and velocity could also be in N dimensions and on any choice of manifold. > The aether consists of fundamental properties, including: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > K-viscosity: v (Sqrt[h·c^2/q] - 1.93E+01 m^2/sec) > B-viscosity ¥ (Sqrt[h/q]·£·c - 1.71E-10 kg/m-sec) These properties are all collective or statistical properties of the aether.. we need to start with what properties an individual aether constituent can have. Do you think that the aether, lets say in a volume with no disturbances known as massive particles, has a mass density? That doesn't make sense to me. > > ... such that the statistical distribution of all the constituents > > can be expressed as a distribution function f(x,v,s,..), giving the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > just the one GUE just written out... This is a newsgroup and > space & time are limited. I've seen good evidence that (using my terrible notation above) PP ~ (<v>-v)^2 - the square of the peculiar velocity of an aether constituent (phi ~ scalar pressure), and AA ~ v - the velocity of a constituent (A~<v>, bulk velocity). One example of a paper using these associations is: Marmanis, H., "Analogy between the Navier-Stokes and Maxwell's equations: Application to Turbulence", Phys. Fluids 10 (6), 1428-1437, 1998 > > The aether consists of fundamental properties, including: > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > volume with no disturbances known as massive particles, has a mass > density? That doesn't make sense to me. I'll start with a quote from Maxwell's papers: "Let us now suppose that the phenomena of magnetism depend on the existence of a tension in the direction of the lines of force, combined with a hydrostatic pressure; or in other words, a pressure greater in the equatorial than in the axial direction: the next question is, what mechanical explanation can we give of this inequality of pressures in a fluid or mobile medium? The explanation which most readily occurs to the mind is that the excess of pressure in the equatorial direction arises from the centrifugal force of vortices or eddies in the medium having their axes in directions parallel to the lines of force. This explanation of cause of the inequality of pressures at once suggests the means of representing the dipolar character of the line of force. Every vortex is essentially dipolar, the two extremities of its axis being distinguished by the direction of its revolution as observed from those points." I would suggest that a aether medium of ultramundane particles where only Newtonian contact forces are at play is a model which fits the math for electromagnetism and quantum phenonema, gravity and other phenomena generally considered in theoretical physics models. The only added requirement is that wherever matter is present, sink-vortices in the aether medium are associated with that matter. The necessary postulates and corollaries are set out at Dennis McCarthy's website at the address below: http://hometown.aol.com/Dennis2020/Index.html and are fully discussed in the book by Steven Rado entitled "Aethro-Kinematics." I would think the principle of Ockham's Razor suggests that a simple model based on established principles is preferrable to any model which does not suggest mechanisms for phenonema or which is mathematical only. The typical objections to aether models (inability to model transverse waves, lack of experimental measurement an aether wind on the Earth's surface, inability to be a cause for gravity, etc.) are all addressed in Rado's book. We have a yahoogroup entitled "aethro-kinematics" for discussions of the model. Vern > The necessary postulates and corollaries are set out at Dennis > McCarthy's website at the address below: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Vern Rado's "book"? You call this joke a book? >>>>> Aetherist wrote:[..} >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Thanks for your reply. I think now there is enough material to have a > decent argument. I would hope for a civil discussion, even if we disagree. I'm tired of arguing... > That is a good question.. though I think the reference to "lattice" > (crysatline structure?) is not necessary. I'll try to clarify, when I say lattice I mean, "an arrangement of points or particles or objects in a regular periodic pattern in 2 or 3 dimensions" Maxwell's vortices fit this bill. One could (and I do) consider these a psuedo-grainular medium have a distinctive action, density, modulus, ... etc. Underlying this organized fluidic structure is another, 'sub' media, that constitutes the vortices. This also has an action, density, modulus, ... etc. The mean free spacing for the sub media must be clearly orders of magnitude less that that of the vortice lattice matrix medium. It is the vortice lattice matrix that defines EM/QM processes and properties. It is likely the interaction of the sub-medium with this superstructure that give rise to gravity. When you say crystalline it brings to mind the above plus, "A physically homogeneous solid in which the atoms, ions, or molecules are arranged in a three-dimensional repetitive pattern." and I'm not sure about solidity. Superfluid most likely, Supersolid maybe. > Let me rephrase, stating the question again to avoid having > to answer it: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Do you think that Heisenberg has answered this question > fairly well, in that particular scale? Yes, absolutely! It the inherent granularity and uncertainty as the scale reduces in all such media. >>>>> I seem to recall we have some disagreements on that topic :) >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Really? Many point to kinetic pressure as the key component of > the electric potential.. Electrostatic force, yes. Perhaps I misunderstand, do you mean potential E, or Voltage V? Voltage equates to kinematic viscosity, E to the net drift velocity at a point. It is likely that E is a resultant vector of the net resultant of the interacting component vector potentials at the point of evaluation. >>> A (magnetic vector potential) >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of the bulk velocity, and the guage invariance of the magnetic > vector potential, is also quite compelling I think. I agree. I guess my comment was unclear. >>> Let me be more annoyingly precise. The aether constists of >>> constituents with possible properties (position, velocity, sexual [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > freedom there for the theorists.. position and velocity could also > be in N dimensions and on any choice of manifold. Isn't that the agravation? There are axioms in the basic aether concept which are the same as all media. These are, the aether is grainular, that is to say, particulate. These particles have momentum, occupy a non-zero volume, interact (probably in a perfectly elastic manner), and there exist a void spacing between them. This means that the medium is compressible. >> The aether consists of fundamental properties, including: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > volume with no disturbances known as massive particles, has a mass > density? That doesn't make sense to me. I think it has a momentum/energy density. In the sense that P o< mv and E o< mv^2 it does have a 'mass' density. However, this does not equate to 'massive' as in ponderable or inertial 'rest' mass. This property (ponderable) is a manifestation which I think spring forth from field gradient effects, not the basic momenta/energy of the sub media itself. >>> ... such that the statistical distribution of all the constituents >>> can be expressed as a distribution function f(x,v,s,..), giving the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > equations: Application to Turbulence", Phys. Fluids 10 (6), > 1428-1437, 1998 I think we're on the same page, see my comment about it being a resultant. Paul Stowe > >>>>> Aetherist wrote:[..} > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > I would hope for a civil discussion, even if we disagree. I'm > tired of arguing... Thanks for your replies, I agree. In this case I was reffering to "argument" as preferable, as opposed to "abuse". > > That is a good question.. though I think the reference to "lattice" > > (crysatline structure?) is not necessary. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > and I'm not sure about solidity. Superfluid most likely, > Supersolid maybe. Let's get this straight. Do you suppose that such a lattice exists in what we call a vacuum, e.g. the space between protons in interplanetary space? Such a lattice strucure is well-established of course in solid materials, but I see no reason to suppose such a structure exists in a vacuum.. > > Let me rephrase, stating the question again to avoid having > > to answer it: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > a resultant vector of the net resultant of the interacting component > vector potentials at the point of evaluation. I'm not sure I follow you, probably because we should be more precise in defining these words in terms of the tensor components.. What is drifting in the "net drift velocity" you refer to? Charged massive particles, or space-time constituents? > >>> A (magnetic vector potential) > >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > perfectly elastic manner), and there exist a void spacing between > them. Those are some possible hypotheses. Remember we are dealing with objects who's interactions create what we call "space", by e.g. allowing electromagnetic wave propagation. There's no reason to assum a priori that these particles can be described in a space similar to the one they create, or really to assume anything at all. But that's a good place to start - if you can reproduce in your model all the observations then we are getting somewhere. I don't think an aether constituent has a "momentum" per se., but rather just a velocity. Also unclear is the nature of the interaction between them.. no interaction is necessary to allow wave propagation, transverse or otherwise. > This means that the medium is compressible. The question is how compressible. Yes, all substances are compressible, but often we can treat them as incompressible e.g. water. Even air is modeled quite well as an incompressible medium. Modeling the aether as incompressible allows good agreement with Maxwell's equations but I imagine some compressibility will be required to model e.g. a massive particle. > > These properties are all collective or statistical properties of the > > aether.. we need to start with what properties an individual aether [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > from field gradient effects, not the basic momenta/energy of the > sub media itself. I agree with that last part.. for preliminary models I don't think it's a good idea to put a mass m on an aether constituent, so there is no p=mv. THanks again - shevek > > > That is a good question.. though I think the reference to "lattice" > > > (crysatline structure?) is not necessary. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > course in solid materials, but I see no reason to suppose such a > structure exists in a vacuum.. I believe Maxwell was describing matter, but he recognized that the aether is an integral part of matter. He was not just describing a medium by itself. His description was for magnetism and how the force of magnetism might be caused by stresses or stains in a medium, and the vortices that give rise to the circulatory patterns in the aether are only present wherever there is matter. So any lattice structure or multiple vortices he was desribing then would equate today to molecules and the atoms that they are made of. <snip> > > Isn't that the agravation? There are axioms in the basic aether > > concept which are the same as all media. These are, the aether [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > interaction is necessary to allow wave propagation, transverse or > otherwise. Vortices are necessary for quantum phenomena, but not waves, which are simply disturbances in the medium. Vortices are only present wherever there is matter. Instead of the perspective that "we are dealing with objects [whose] interaction create what we call 'space' [] by [] allowing electromagnetic wave propagation[,]" wouldn't a better description be that space is simply the three dimensional area which the constituents of the medium occupy in their endless random collisions and the vortices in the medium which are present wherever there is matter give rise to disturbances in the medium which are dissapated away from the matter in what we recognize as light. > > This means that the medium is compressible. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > equations but I imagine some compressibility will be required to model > e.g. a massive particle. In an ideal-gas or superfluid-type medium isn't it assumed that there will never be enough of the constituents in any given area to prevent random collisions, which is the only condition in that type of medium which could cause incompressibility. Otherwise, the medium, by itself, is essentially isotropic. It is, again, only where matter is present that there are sinks and sources in the medium which give rise to what we call electromagnetic phenomena. > > > These properties are all collective or statistical properties of the > > > aether.. we need to start with what properties an individual aether [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > a good idea to put a mass m on an aether constituent, so there is no > p=mv. Every medium must have particles that have mass, however, when the particles are ultra mundane p=mv does not create any problems. When matter is accelerated through the medium at significant speeds, then resistance is encountered. > THanks again - shevek Vern >>>> That is a good question.. though I think the reference to "lattice" >>>> (crysatline structure?) is not necessary. [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > Vortices are necessary for quantum phenomena, but not waves, ... A true statement... > ...which are simply disturbances in the medium. Vortices are only > present wherever there is matter. Here I (Maxwell and many others) disagree. > Instead of the perspective that "we are dealing with objects [whose] > interaction create what we call 'space' [] by [] allowing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > rise to disturbances in the medium which are dissapated away from the > matter in what we recognize as light. By necessity then, E&M won't exist in regions devoid of matter??? >>> This means that the medium is compressible. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > that there are sinks and sources in the medium which give rise to what > we call electromagnetic phenomena. Vorticity is essential to the superfluid state... >>>> These properties are all collective or statistical properties of the >>>> aether.. we need to start with what properties an individual aether [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > matter is accelerated through the medium at significant speeds, then > resistance is encountered. Paul Stowe <snip> > > Vortices are necessary for quantum phenomena, but not waves, ... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Here I (Maxwell and many others) disagree. It seems to me that all emissions of electromagnetic waves come from matter. If vortices existed in an aether medium independent of matter, then wouldn't we be finding electromagetic waves coming from nowhere and propagating from anywhere and everywhere? > > Instead of the perspective that "we are dealing with objects [whose] > > interaction create what we call 'space' [] by [] allowing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > By necessity then, E&M won't exist in regions devoid of matter??? Electromagetic waves will certainly travel anywhere because they are simply the disturbances in an aether medium and the aether medium is everywhere. However, they can't propagate where there is no matter because there is nothing to cause a disturbance in the medium. So just because matter is necessary to give rise to electromagetic waves doesn't mean that no electromagnetic waves will be present in regions devoid of matter, it just simply means that those waves originated somewhere else, where there was matter. The CMBR is an example. > >>> This means that the medium is compressible. > >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Vorticity is essential to the superfluid state... >From a fluid dynamic perspective, if you start with a medium in which the constituents have elastic collisions and no other forces are involved, there would be no reason for vortices to form, so if superfluids have vorticity, there must be something more going on in superfluids than just elastic collisions. <snip> Vern > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > simply disturbances in the medium. Vortices are only present wherever > there is matter. Hi Vern - To be more specific, vorticity is present wherever there is a magnetic field, and all massive particles have magnetic fields associated with them. > Instead of the perspective that "we are dealing with > objects [whose] interaction create what we call 'space' [] by [] [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > there is matter give rise to disturbances in the medium which are > dissapated away from the matter in what we recognize as light. The real issue is being able to put numbers on positions in a space, to quantitatively describe events via locations and/or times. Such a scheme requires a "standard unit length" and/or a "standard unit of time", as well as ways to apply these standard units to obtain locations. Einstein laid this out very clearly for us. When we visualize a constant volume, it is electromagnetic standard length that produces the dimensions of the volume - because that is how we have evolved to understand our surroundings. The length of crystal lattices, the timing of chemical and electrical neuron firings, all depend on the electromagnetic interactions - our metric is therefore build around electromagnetic interactions - based on the simple postulate that the speed of light is constant. We may need to step outside of this framework to describe the activities under the plank scale, at the level of constituents of the space-time fluid. > > > This means that the medium is compressible. > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > that there are sinks and sources in the medium which give rise to what > we call electromagnetic phenomena. Good point Vern - imcompressibility seems to be reliant on collisions. Is that true? > > > > These properties are all collective or statistical properties of the > > > > aether.. we need to start with what properties an individual aether [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > matter is accelerated through the medium at significant speeds, then > resistance is encountered. A "medium" only implies that something exists in the middle.. betwee other things. Also, no resistance is encountered due to motion through the aether. Resistance to acceleration, yes (inertia), but not to velocity. Such a resistance (to motion at a constant velocity) would violate Newton's laws and has been well checked for by experiment. I think we discussed that here before? Cheers - shevek <snip> > > Vortices are necessary for quantum phenomena, but not waves, which are > > simply disturbances in the medium. Vortices are only present wherever [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > field, and all massive particles have magnetic fields associated with > them. If there is an aether medium, then a magnetic field is a direct representation of the patterns of the bulk flow of the medium, not something separate from the aether. It is only in an aetherless vacuum concept that a magnetic field is an entity unto itself. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. > > Instead of the perspective that "we are dealing with > > objects [whose] interaction create what we call 'space' [] by [] [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > outside of this framework to describe the activities under the plank > scale, at the level of constituents of the space-time fluid. I believe Einstein chose this route of describing nature because of seemingly unreconcilable contradictions (the speed of light appeared to be constant which cannot be combined with Galilean transformations between frames plus experiments at the time had indicated mass increase and failed to detect motion w.r.t an all pervading aether). So yes, if you take this view then putting numbers on positions in space is necessary because of the inherent complexity of transforming from one frame to another. On the other hand, if one assumes an aether medium and there is aether-based explanation for the seeming constancy of the speed of light, mass increase and no (or very slight) aether wind on the surface of the Earth; and if the electromagetic nature of things can be explained through mass/vortices in the aether, then we're back to Galilean tranformations and no real need for the complexities of space/time or a space/time metric. So before throwing the baby out with the bathwater, why not re-examine the contradictions which led us down the relativistic path to see if they can actually are contradictions. The explanation for the MMX is that the mass/vortex of the Earth is moving with the Earth around the Sun; the explanation for perceived mass increase is that mass is accelerated w.r.t to the local aether thereby requiring more energy because of resistance which makes it appear that the mass is increasing; and the constancy of the speed of light is an aether or medium based concept anyway as is with sound in the air. <snip> > Good point Vern - imcompressibility seems to be reliant on collisions. > Is that true? As I understand it, the particles of all mediums have an average collision free distance that they travel before contacting another particle. If that average collision free distance becomes zero then you have something other than a medium. I'm seeing some interesting discussions of what waves really are in other posts in this thread. I model waves as periodical compression pulses through a medium that have both longitudinal and transverse momentum because that is the only way that disturbances in a medium can be modeled. <snip> > > Every medium must have particles that have mass, however, when the > > particles are ultra mundane p=mv does not create any problems. When [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > violate Newton's laws and has been well checked for by experiment. I > think we discussed that here before? I think the words medium and aether is used interchangably in this group and generally mean an ideal-gas like fluid in which the particles have elastic collisions. As I have said before, there is a distinct analogy between the motion of an object through the air and the resistance it encounters and the motion of an object through the aether and the resistance it encounters. They both use the same mathematical formula, the Mach formula. At low speeds w.r.t both the air and an aether, there is the appearance of no resistance, therefore you could say that Newton's First holds in the air too, but it's only an illusion because there's not enough resistance yet to show that it's violated. > Cheers - shevek If you don't have Rado's Aethro-Kinematics yet, give me an email at the yahoogroup and I'll make sure you have a copy. These concepts are alot easier to discuss by referencing a chapter in the book instead of trying to explain a concept in a post. Vern [Snip of old...] >>>> The question really is, 'if matter consists of harmonic patterns of >>>> the lattice' HOW can one explore & directly measure and/or observe [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > exists in what we call a vacuum, e.g. the space between protons > in interplanetary space? Yes, as did Maxwell... > Such a lattice strucure is well-established of course in solid > materials, but I see no reason to suppose such a structure exists > in a vacuum.. I do, it is in the very nature of light. Thus we have the electric and magnetic properties of 'free space', including a characteristic impedence, density, and modulus, satisfying the same equations of state. The free space condition is, IMO, 'defect-free'. It is matter that is defects on this otherwise perfect lattice. The froth on the ocean of space. It (matter) consititutes a tiny minority fraction of the aetherial medium. It is the baseline to which all other is 'normalized'. >>> Let me rephrase, stating the question again to avoid having >>> to answer it: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > drifting in the "net drift velocity" you refer to? Charged massive > particles, or space-time constituents? Potential E It isn't what's drifting, it's how a particle at that point WILL drift under the net influence of the medium. A simple pictorial example, Let the symbol * represent a clockwise fluidic line rotation and # a counter-clockwise one. if the vortices are of equal velocity at the same radii we can have either, * * or * # Pick a point some distance from the centers but between the vortices like, * + * Under the influence of Bernoulli {SP} there is zero net effect, the two circulations are equal and opposite. Move off that centerline and the situation changes. The particle will be 'infulenced' to drift due to the same Bernoulli influences. This is what I mean by drift pontential. It is the interaction of the individual circulations that give rise to the apparent linear movement. >>>>> A (magnetic vector potential) >>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > objects who's interactions create what we call "space", by e.g. > allowing electromagnetic wave propagation. Let me be clear (I hope), the aether does not create space, and BY that I mean a simple volume. There 'could' be truly empty space, that was devoid of all physical qualities, EXCEPT for said dimensional volume. The aether resides IN space, endowing it with the physical qualities of energy/momentum/matter/plasma we call 'space' and the material objects therein. > There's no reason to assume a priori that these particles can be > described in a space similar to the one they create, or really to > assume anything at all. But that's a good place to start - if you > can reproduce in your model all the observations then we are getting > somewhere. Sigh, it certainly isn't radically different. What consitutes reproduce? You must realize that all of modern science (denials not withstanding) is founded IN aether theory. All of physics up to circa ~1910 WAS developed within models of it, not 'non-aether' theories! Switching to calling the medium's physically distributed properties fields does not change this. I have found some new relationships and correlations. > I don't think an aether constituent has a "momentum" per se., > but rather just a velocity. Also unclear is the nature of the > interaction between them.. no interaction is necessary to allow > wave propagation, transverse or otherwise. How can a wave propagate without physial intereaction? >> This means that the medium is compressible. > > The question is how compressible. For Maxwell's vortex lattice that is quantifiable. The coefficient of compressibility is ~1.26E-06... > Yes, all substances are compressible, but often we can treat them > as incompressible e.g. water. In approximation, sure. But you lose information in doing so. In fact, under true incompressibility, wave speed is infinite and wave phenomena cannot even exist. > Even air is modeled quite well as an incompressible medium. > Modeling the aether as incompressible allows good agreement with > Maxwell's equations but I imagine some compressibility will be > required to model e.g. a massive particle. You can 'ignore' the higher order terms present (and linearize) the expressions, but, like I said, technically finite propagation velocity is incompatible with the model. Further, you'd have no charges. >>> These properties are all collective or statistical properties of the >>> aether.. we need to start with what properties an individual aether [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > it's a good idea to put a mass m on an aether constituent, so there > is no p=mv. While confusing (mass verses 'ponderable' mass) I disagree. But one can indeed standardize on an aether 'quantum' of momentum since it will prove immpossible to stop & weigh an aetheron. Best regards, Paul Stowe > [Snip of old...] > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > minority fraction of the aetherial medium. It is the baseline to > which all other is 'normalized'. The electric and magnetic properties of 'free space' do not require a lattice framework for description. Consider a fluid distribution of aether constituents - this fluid has a density (0th moment) a bulk velocity (1st moment - vector) a pressure (2nd moment - rank 2 tensor) and many more quantities that describe the fluid as a function of space and time. I see no need to introduce a structure such as lattice in the space-time medium.. a fluid approach can be seen to describe electromagnetic effects quite well. > >>> Let me rephrase, stating the question again to avoid having > >>> to answer it: [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > by drift pontential. It is the interaction of the individual > circulations that give rise to the apparent linear movement. Sorry for my language difficulties, whe you say "that particle" do you mean a space-time constituent or a massive particle such as an electron? I prefer the analogy of an electron as a hurricane. There is a pressure gradient moving out from the center (electric field), a vorticity (magnetic field), and a spin orientation. High pressure or low pressure systems can form (electrons and positrons) As to why only certain size hurricanes are allowed on that scale, and why they are so stable, I can't tell you. Maybe meteorologists could use Dirac's equation :) > >>>>> A (magnetic vector potential) > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > the physical qualities of energy/momentum/matter/plasma we call > 'space' and the material objects therein. OK, let's talk a little metaphysics. We must of course be extremeley careful when we say "in space" due to different meanings this has in different contexts. Leaving out for a minute the meaning we aren't interested in for now (outside of the Earth's atmosphere), the phrase can refer to an existing metric. Until we have defined a metric, we can't say something is "in space" because we haven't defined the space yet. That was the kind of meaning I was referring to. What creates space in that sense is meter sticks and clocks.. or to put it in another way light. (vibarational frequency and propagation speed acting as clock and meter stick). These tools will not work in describing the properties of an aether constituent for obvious reasons. But we can also say "in space" in a more abstract way, meaning something like "exists". In such a way the aether does reside as you say IN space - though for calculation purposes any coordinate systems describing this space must be specifically labeled as "subspace" or something different from the other electromagnetic-metric-defined space. > > There's no reason to assume a priori that these particles can be > > described in a space similar to the one they create, or really to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > properties fields does not change this. I have found some new > relationships and correlations. Keep up the good work! Fortunately languages provide us with an infinite number of ways to express any idea.. if one word goes out of favor we can easily leave it out of our publications. Trying to follow reasons for the ebbs and flows of popularities of words and symbols will drive anyone insane - we must work with the times given to us on these issues I'm afraid. > > I don't think an aether constituent has a "momentum" per se., > > but rather just a velocity. Also unclear is the nature of the > > interaction between them.. no interaction is necessary to allow > > wave propagation, transverse or otherwise. > > How can a wave propagate without physial intereaction? The only physical interaction required is motion. Look to any introductory fluid mechanics book for the derivations of the wave equation for pressure/density fluctuations (sound). Collisions between fluid constituents are ignored in such a derivation, though they can change the wave speed in certain media and may be included later in the text. It's easy to visualize. Imagine a fully collisionless gas of particles. Now imagine that at one point extra particles are added increasing the density. Because they are all moving in random directions, the volume of gas that contains some extra particles will increase. There will be a wave-front at the edge of this volume that moves out at the average velocity of the particles. Indeed the sound speed is very nearly equal to the average speed of a molecule in the air. > >> This means that the medium is compressible. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > In fact, under true incompressibility, wave speed is infinite > and wave phenomena cannot even exist. Untrue. Only certain types of waves, such as compression waves, cannot exist. Other disturbances, such as temperature, rotation, surface deformations, heat-flux anisotropies, etc., will propagate in a perfectly incompressible medium. > > Even air is modeled quite well as an incompressible medium. > > Modeling the aether as incompressible allows good agreement with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > velocity is incompatible with the model. Further, you'd have > no charges. That depends on your model fow what is charge (I guess that's the same question again as what is electric field, because charge is a divergence of electric field). It also depends on your equations of state.. an incompressible medium doesn't necessarily mean the pressure can change. It also doesn't necessarily mean the density can't change, but rather del*V=0. > >>> These properties are all collective or statistical properties of the > >>> aether.. we need to start with what properties an individual aether [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > can indeed standardize on an aether 'quantum' of momentum since it > will prove immpossible to stop & weigh an aetheron. One can't measure the temperature or pressure of an individual gas particle, but with some lab experiments and a bit of calculations we can indeed put numbers on its mass and size. Who will be the first to calculate inherent properties of space-time constituents? Regards - shevek [Snip of old...] >>>>> That is a good question.. though I think the reference to "lattice" >>>>> (crysatline structure?) is not necessary. [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > The electric and magnetic properties of 'free space' do not require > a lattice framework for description. Actually they do, otherwise we would have them. I thought that this would be clear from Maxwell's reference. > Consider a fluid distribution of aether constituents ... OK... > - this fluid has a density (0th moment) No problem... > a bulk velocity (1st moment - vector) Do you mean an internal current (like the Gulf Stream)? Or do you mean a Root Mean Speed of the constitute aetherons? > a pressure (2nd moment - rank 2 tensor) Is it? The Stress-Energy tensor is Rank 2 and is of the form £, 0, 0, 0 0, Px, 0, 0 0, 0, Py, 0 0, 0, 0, Pz But Modulus can easily replace the vetcor components of pressure. > and many more quantities that describe the fluid as a function > of space and time. I see no need to introduce a structure such > as lattice in the space-time medium.. a fluid approach can be > seen to describe electromagnetic effects quite well. In QM the lattice structure equates roughly with the concept of virtual e/p pairs, the ZPE... [Snip...] >>>> Electrostatic force, yes. Perhaps I misunderstand, do you mean >>>> potential E, or Voltage V? Voltage equates to kinematic viscosity, [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > you mean a space-time constituent or a massive particle such as an > electron? A massive particle, a neutron would do. Without a massive particle it is only a 'Potential'. > I prefer the analogy of an electron as a hurricane. There's a difference. I see an electron as a ring vortex. using the very same nomenclature a ring vortex in cross-section would look like, <- -> ^ # | * -> <- There is, potentially a dual rotation system here. The polloidal 'spin' (the counter-clockwise left, clockwise right cross-sections) and angular rotation from left (into the page) to right (out of the page) resulting an a circular spiral (like a snake swallowing its own tail). This is the only form of vorticity allowed with a fluid system that does not havin a discontinuitous boundary. The ring vortex can exist without any angular rotation but must have spin. > There is a pressure gradient moving out from the center (electric > field), a vorticity (magnetic field), and a spin orientation. Yes, but can't exist in an infinite fluid. For the vortex ring this is also true. In fact, you get the standard 'bar' magnetic field lines. > High pressure or low pressure systems can form (electrons and > positrons) As to why only certain size hurricanes are allowed on > that scale, and why they are so stable, I can't tell you. Check Helmholtz theorems, Kelvin's theory, Kelvin's instability, etc... > Maybe meteorologists could use Dirac's equation :) The probably can. [Snip...] >>>>> No sarcasm there.. you misread me. How would you constrain the >>>>> list of possible properties of aether constituents? A lot of [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > can't say something is "in space" because we haven't defined the space > yet. That was the kind of meaning I was referring to. Metaphysically one can define space without invoking any metrics. It is only when wants quantification of the definition do they need to set it all up. But I understand, most today invoke space assuming the medium is included. > What creates space in that sense is meter sticks and clocks. or to > put it in another way light. (vibarational frequency and propagation > speed acting as clock and meter stick). These tools will not work in > describing the properties of an aether constituent for obvious reasons. Indeed, which is why claiming that Lorentz covariance somehow is an aether free concept is nonsense, as is claiming SR disproves its existence. The medium, if it exists must be internally self consistent. Galilean transformations would require that the medium propagate momentum & energy at infinite speed. All media are, to its own constitutes, local Lorenta covariant. It is by 'external' embedded objects whos stress/strain response is not linked to the media can any divergence be observed. The addage 'to thine own self be true' applies to all media, including aether. > But we can also say "in space" in a more abstract way, meaning > something like "exists". In such a way the aether does reside as you > say IN space - though for calculation purposes any coordinate systems > describing this space must be specifically labeled as "subspace" or > something different from the other electromagnetic-metric-defined > space. Do you know how hard I tried to avoid using the word 'subspace' :) But again, there not a disagreement here, just I think, differences in conceptual terminoloy. >>> There's no reason to assume a priori that these particles can be >>> described in a space similar to the one they create, or really to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Keep up the good work! Fortunately languages provide us with an > infinite number of ways to express any idea. Overstated, but yes, the are many ways to skin a cow. > if one word goes out of favor we can easily leave it out of our > publications. Since science claims to practice an honor system and I for one feel honor bound to call the spade a spade, and honor the literally thousands of physicists including the greats like Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Helmholtz, Lord Kelvin, Gauss, Minkowski, Lorentz, Poincare'... etc. that developed most of science using the concept. Avoiding the name just for political and lame metaphysical reasons simply goes against my view of integity. But, hey, I'm certainly an old fashion dinosaur. > Trying to follow reasons for the ebbs and flows of popularities > of words and symbols will drive anyone insane - we must work with > the times given to us on these issues I'm afraid. I'm intelligent enough, I could. I choose a more honorable path. >>> I don't think an aether constituent has a "momentum" per se., >>> but rather just a velocity. Also unclear is the nature of the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > though they can change the wave speed in certain media and may be > included later in the text. The are? It is those that propagate the fluctuation at the RMS of the particle population. Like, http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/waves/lw.html http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/waves/gsl.html http://www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk/schools/lesson1/flash/long.swf Statisical equation (Continuum based) assume and depend upon underlying behavior. > It's easy to visualize. Imagine a fully collisionless gas of > particles. Now imagine that at one point extra particles are added [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > speed is very nearly equal to the average speed of a molecule in the > air. This an example of a pressure pulse, not a wave. Even so, unless the particle have a zero area cross-section the cannot be collisionless. >>>> This means that the medium is compressible. >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > surface deformations, heat-flux anisotropies, etc., will propagate > in a perfectly incompressible medium. >>> Even air is modeled quite well as an incompressible medium. >>> Modeling the aether as incompressible allows good agreement with [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That depends on your model fow what is charge (I guess that's the > same question again as what is electric field, I assumed you knew my model for charge. If not, see, http://www.mountainman.com.au/charge_ps.htm > because charge is a divergence of electric field). Then the electric field is the scalar momentum content of the medium. > It also depends on your equations of state.. an incompressible > medium doesn't necessarily mean the pressure can change. It also > doesn't necessarily mean the density can't change, but rather > del*V=0. It does mean the density [£] cannot change. Explicitly it is expressed as, d£/dt = 0 The mass-conservation equation then takes the form you stated, Del·v = 0 >>>>> These properties are all collective or statistical properties of the >>>>> aether.. we need to start with what properties an individual aether [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > can indeed put numbers on its mass and size. Who will be the first to > calculate inherent properties of space-time constituents? Well, for EM/QM based Maxwell lattice theory I get two new basic parameters, ¥ (the quantum of momentum in kg-m/sec) and ú (Lattice spacing in {m}eters). Light speed c is as always. ¥ = ~5.15E-27 kg-m/sec ú = ~6.43E-08 m For this all familiar constants arise. A few quick examples, h = 2·¥·ú Planck's Constant q = 2·¥/ú Coulombs k = ú^2/c Boltzmann's Constant ... etc. Paul Stowe > [Snip of old...] > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Do you mean an internal current (like the Gulf Stream)? Or do you > mean a Root Mean Speed of the constitute aetherons? The former. Bulk velocity is simply the average velocity of the particles - wind speed if you like. In terms of the aether this is the one big fluid moment that everyone wants to be able to measure - the goal of MMX was to measure the 1st fluid moment of the aether in this vicinity - they reported that they couldn't make the measurement due to length contraction and time dilation of the laboratory apparatus. > > a pressure (2nd moment - rank 2 tensor) > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > But Modulus can easily replace the vetcor components of pressure. Here's your RMS speed - as fluid textbooks call it the square of the average "peculiar velocity", that is the velocity of a constituent minus the bulk velocity. The pressure tensor is not necessarily isotropic or diagonal.. anisotropies lead to gravity - off diagonal terms would be viscocity. Also note that usually a mass is included in the definition of pressure, though this is simply a units convention and doesn't change the math. > > and many more quantities that describe the fluid as a function > > of space and time. I see no need to introduce a structure such [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > In QM the lattice structure equates roughly with the concept of > virtual e/p pairs, the ZPE... Sounds like handwaving.. unless I see a reason why a fluid approach won't work I'm going to keep approaching the problem from that angle. > [Snip...] > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > its own tail). This is the only form of vorticity allowed with > a fluid system that does not havin a discontinuitous boundary. Interesting.. what about Berger's vortex that is a solution to the Navier-Stokes equations? No discontinuous boundary there.. > The ring vortex can exist without any angular rotation but must > have spin. Sorry, I don't follow the difference between them.. > > There is a pressure gradient moving out from the center (electric > > field), a vorticity (magnetic field), and a spin orientation. [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > But again, there not a disagreement here, just I think, differences > in conceptual terminoloy. Why don't you like that term? I think it's a decent word, partially because of the sci-fi usage.. > >>> There's no reason to assume a priori that these particles can be > >>> described in a space similar to the one they create, or really to [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > simply goes against my view of integity. But, hey, I'm certainly > an old fashion dinosaur. You make a very good point and I am impressed with your integrity. Though I don't know the history of the term "aether" very well, I assume it goes back before Pythagoras who associated it with dodecahedrons or some such, I think you are right that the terms we choose honor those giants whos shoulders we stand upon. I'll try to slide it into my next paper on the topic. If we can get away with using terms like "quark" and "charmed" or "p-brane", why not "aether"? > > Trying to follow reasons for the ebbs and flows of popularities > > of words and symbols will drive anyone insane - we must work with [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Statisical equation (Continuum based) assume and depend upon > underlying behavior. RMS speed doesn't have anything to do with collisions. Start with the Boltzmann equation without a collision term, from that you can derive the continuity equation and a momentum conservation equation, assuming no viscosity (diagonal pressure tensor). Those two are easily combined to yield a wave equation assuming that the density is directly proportional to the pressure. Look at Landau and Lifshitz for example. Sound waves don't depend on collisions to propagate - in fact collisions degrade the signal. > > It's easy to visualize. Imagine a fully collisionless gas of > > particles. Now imagine that at one point extra particles are added [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > This an example of a pressure pulse, not a wave. A pressure pulse is indeed a wave - also called a blast wave. Drive the system (add the extra particles) with a sine wave if you want to see sine waves emerge. > Even so, unless the > particle have a zero area cross-section the cannot be collisionless. In practice we say a system is collisionless if the mean free path is larger than the system of interest. [..] Thanks for your posts - shevek > > [Snip of old...] > > [quoted text clipped - 247 lines] > Sound waves don't depend on collisions to propagate - in fact > collisions degrade the signal. If there are no collisions it would mean that the sound you hear is a particle that travels the entire distance from the source to you. Would you please explain how those particles make it around corners without collisions. > > > It's easy to visualize. Imagine a fully collisionless gas of > > > particles. Now imagine that at one point extra particles are added [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the system (add the extra particles) with a sine wave if you want to > see sine waves emerge. A blast wave is something very specific. It starts out as an expanding volume, not a vibration. The particles do actually move out from the source. The initial expansion can be faster than the speed of sound. At some point there will no longer be enough energy to continue the outward movement of mass, and the wave will continue outward by the transfer of momentum between particles. Watch a video of a bomb blast over a rice paddy and you can see what I am talking about. > > Even so, unless the > > particle have a zero area cross-section the cannot be collisionless. > > In practice we say a system is collisionless if the mean free path is > larger than the system of interest. How far do you think a particle of air travels before it collides with another particle? > [..] > > Thanks for your posts - shevek > > > [Snip of old...] > > If there are no collisions it would mean that the sound you hear is a > particle that travels the entire distance from the source to you. > Would you please explain how those particles make it around corners > without collisions. Good point. I don't disagree that many of the properties of sound that we know and love do depend on collisions. My point is only that the derivation of the wave equation does not - nor does propagation. Actually, sound doesn't travel around corners that well.. usually you hear it from it's echo from another nearby surface. You'll need wide open spaces to hear this effect - e.g. a common problem in rock climbing is communication from the top of the cliff to the bottom. The sound goes up along the cliff wall but doesn't go over the edge so the person on top can't hear it. Make sure you make arrangements accordingly. > > > > It's easy to visualize. Imagine a fully collisionless gas of > > > > particles. Now imagine that at one point extra particles are added [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > transfer of momentum between particles. Watch a video of a bomb blast > over a rice paddy and you can see what I am talking about. Again, you're right that the collisions do affect the system - but approximation as a collisionless system will do quite well. However perhaps I am being a bit incomplete - when the collisionless Boltzmann equation is used to derive sound waves, an equation of state is also used. The reasons that the equation of state are valid may depend on collisions, so even if they aren't explicity there in the derivation they are what forces the gas to be a Maxwellian distribution. > > > Even so, unless the > > > particle have a zero area cross-section the cannot be collisionless. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > How far do you think a particle of air travels before it collides with > another particle? At STP - maybe 10^-7 meters or so.. Amazing we can even move around in this ultra-dense soup of an atmosphere :) Cheers - shevek shevek4@yahoo.com: >Good point. I don't disagree that many of the properties of sound that >we know and love do depend on collisions. My point is only that the >derivation of the wave equation does not - nor does propagation. Sure it does. The phenomenological parameters (elasticity, compressibility, etc.) used in the derivation of the wave equation are derived from statistical mechanics. Not only that, those parameters are obtained from what is an unphysical limit if taken literally. >Actually, sound doesn't travel around corners that well.. usually you >hear it from it's echo from another nearby surface. Depends on the frequency. You can hear the sound from a bass guitar cabinet around a bend just fine. >You'll need wide >open spaces to hear this effect - e.g. a common problem in rock >climbing is communication from the top of the cliff to the bottom. The >sound goes up along the cliff wall but doesn't go over the edge so the >person on top can't hear it. Make sure you make arrangements >accordingly. Find rock climbing partners with really deep voices. [...] >> A blast wave is something very specific. It starts out as an expanding >> volume, not a vibration. The particles do actually move out from the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Again, you're right that the collisions do affect the system - but >approximation as a collisionless system will do quite well. The _only_ interesting features are what the approximations leave out. For purposes of doing fundamental physics, what one wants first, is the physics from first principles after which one can make approximations to test different limits. >However perhaps I am being a bit incomplete - when the collisionless >Boltzmann equation is used to derive sound waves, an equation of state >is also used. The reasons that the equation of state are valid may >depend on collisions, so even if they aren't explicity there in the >derivation they are what forces the gas to be a Maxwellian >distribution. The maxwell distriution was already known to be wrong in the 19th century, which led to bolzmann counting. Boltzmann counting was an ad hoc procedure used to resolve gibb's paradox and was only explained fully through quantum mechanics and the spin-statistics theorem from quantum field theory. >> How far do you think a particle of air travels before it collides with >> another particle? > >At STP - maybe 10^-7 meters or so.. Amazing we can even move around >in this ultra-dense soup of an atmosphere :) Which also happens to be about the shortest wavelength that can propagate as a wave for precisely the reason that classical waves are collective phenomena associated with particle collisions (or inter-atomic binding forces). You can't have wave propagation if the particles have to travel further than the wavelength before colliding with another particle. > shevek4@yahoo.com: > [..] [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Depends on the frequency. You can hear the sound from a bass guitar > cabinet around a bend just fine. You are also hearing sound that has bounced of the floor, the walls, and the ceiling... > >You'll need wide > >open spaces to hear this effect - e.g. a common problem in rock [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Find rock climbing partners with really deep voices. That may help a little, but there are plenty of places where it won't. A rope-pulling signal and better yet established procedures to follow in the event of loss of verbal communication are essential. Especially if there is a bulk flow (wind). > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the particles have to travel further than the wavelength before > colliding with another particle. Taking the speed of sound as 331 m/s I get a frequency for that wavelength (10^-7 m) of 331MHz. That seems far outside of the range of sound in air. It's hard enough to get 300kHz to couple from your piezo transducer to the air. A counter example is magnetosonic waves (and many other plasma waves) in interplanetary space. The mean free path here is on the order of 100 AU - and wavelengths are much less. However the addition of charges in the equations makes a big difference.. Thanks - shevek > > Which also happens to be about the shortest wavelength that can > > propagate as a wave for precisely the reason that classical waves [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Thanks - shevek Trying to sum up this thread and identify issues: Bilge believes an ether is impossible because the ultraviolet spectrum of electromagnetic radiation has wavelengths so small that a medium could not carry them. Bilge believes an ether is impossible because light is a transverse wave, which is not possible in a medium (compressible or incompressible). Paul believes an ether medium has vortices similar to that illustrated in Maxwell's "On Lines of Physical Force" responsible for light propagation. Vern believes that vortices in an ether medium are only present where matter is present and that is consistent with Maxell's model. Shevek believes waves in a medium are not dependent on particle collisions in the medium. Vern vern@bealenet.com: >> > Which also happens to be about the shortest wavelength that can >> > propagate as a wave for precisely the reason that classical waves [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Trying to sum up this thread and identify issues: Don't summarize things - you always over generalize and over simplify. >Bilge believes an ether is impossible because the ultraviolet spectrum >of electromagnetic radiation has wavelengths so small that a medium [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Vern > Trying to sum up this thread and identify issues: I guess since it was meant to be a discussion on 'basic' properties, not beliefs..., in that sense, I don't think it got very far... > Bilge believes an ether is impossible because the ultraviolet > spectrum of electromagnetic radiation has wavelengths so small > that a medium could not carry them. Bilge, spouts bilge... He NEVER 'got it' that this isn't a problem since the interaction distance was for vortices, not the underlying basic medium... > Bilge believes an ether is impossible because light is a > transverse wave, which is not possible in a medium > (compressible or incompressible). Tell that to an earthquake... > Paul believes an ether medium has vortices similar to that > illustrated in Maxwell's "On Lines of Physical Force" > responsible for light propagation. Not entirely... Characteristics in matter, yes. But the vortex lattice is composed of fluidic entities who's spacing must be much less than theirs. But yes, EM 'fields' persist over vast distances the sponge must exit in free-space. > Vern believes that vortices in an ether medium are only > present where matter is present and that is consistent > with Maxell's model. How does one get a 'vector potential' in empty space then? > Shevek believes waves in a medium are not dependent on > particle collisions in the medium. I don't know about that. He believes they can be mathematically 'modeled as if' there are none. Paul Stowe Aetherist: > Bilge, spouts bilge... He NEVER 'got it' that this isn't You are welcome to try and prove that by posting your derivation for the propagation of light in your so-called medium. if you actually had such a derivation, I'm sure you would post it just to prove me wrong so wouldn't have to resort to anklebiting. > a problem since the interaction distance was for vortices, > not the underlying basic medium... [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Paul Stowe > Aetherist: [snip] > >> Vern believes that vortices in an ether medium are only > >> present where matter is present and that is consistent > >> with Max[w]ell's model. > > > > How does one get a 'vector potential' in empty space then? >From what I understand, vector potential is associated with a magnetic field. From an aether perspective, there is no empty space, only areas where the aether is in a state of total isotropic randomness with no sinks or sources affecting the movement of the particles (notwithstanding that gravity is caused by sinks, therefore even in "empty space" areas there is an general lengthening of the average collision-free distance of the particles towards whichever gravitational body is affecting that area), so I would have to say that there is no vector potential in areas of "space" where only gravitational forces are a |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message