Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:hnwHc.55676$XM6.18922@attbi_s53...


Mitchell wrote:

The Aether is beyond any physical concept.

Then it is nonsense.

Bob Kolker



Just answer this - Is empty space real, can you observe and measure
it?

--
Laurent

"Laurent" wrote in message
...

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:emwHc.39081$JR4.38618@attbi_s54...


Laurent wrote:
You use physics to solve practical problems, that's good. I use
it
to find out why and how I am.

Why, in the ultimate sense, is an unaswerable question and if you
need
physics to figure out how you are, you are not thinking clearly.

Your most profound questions have no answer. Get used to it.

Bob Kolker


And the Apocalypse is inevitable, right?

People like you end up believing in supersticion.

Do you also go to church and read the Bible?


This is a science forum - not one for discussing your religious beliefs.

Bill

"Laurent" wrote in message
...

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:hnwHc.55676$XM6.18922@attbi_s53...


Mitchell wrote:

The Aether is beyond any physical concept.

Then it is nonsense.

Bob Kolker



Just answer this - Is empty space real, can you observe and measure
it?

Empty space is a concept that does not exist in nature - introducing a
measuring instrument would no longer leave it empty. Take your
philosophical waffle to a philosophy forum.

Bill

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Laurent" wrote in message
...

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:hnwHc.55676$XM6.18922@attbi_s53...


Mitchell wrote:

The Aether is beyond any physical concept.

Then it is nonsense.

Bob Kolker



Just answer this - Is empty space real, can you observe and
measure
it?

Empty space is a concept that does not exist in nature -
introducing a
measuring instrument would no longer leave it empty. Take your
philosophical waffle to a philosophy forum.

Bill



David Bohm was a world class physicist, yet, most of writings are
deeply philosophical, same with Einstein and many others.

--
Laurent

-------------------------------------------------

"Well, perhaps we should finish with this business about empty
space.

If you follow through the mathematics of the present Quantum Theory,
it treats the particle as what is called the quantized state of the
field, that is, as a field spread over space but in some mysterious
way with a quantum of energy. Now each wave in the field has a
certain quantum of energy proportional to its frequency. And if you
take the electromagnetic field, for example,in empty space, every
wave has what is called a zero point energy below which it cannot
go, even when there is no energy available. If you were to add up
all the waves in any region of empty space you would find that they
have an infinite amount of energy because an infinite number of
waves are possible. Now, however, you may have reason to suppose
that the energy may not be infinite, that maybe you cannot keep on
adding waves that are shorter and shorter, each contributing to the
energy. There may be some shortest possible wave, and then the total
number of waves would be finite and the energy would also be finite.

Now, you have to ask what would be the shortest length and there
seems to be reason to suspect that the gravitational theory may
provide us with some shortest length, for according to general
relativity, the gravitational field also determines what is meant by
"length" and metric. If you said the gravitational field was made up
of waves which were quantized in this way, you would find that there
was a certain length below which the gravitational field would
become undefinable because of this zero point movement and you
wouldn't be able to define length. Therefore, you could say the
property of measurement, length, fades out at very short distance
and you'd find the place at which it fades out would be about
10^ -33 cm. That is a very short distance because the shortest
distances that physicist have ever probed so far might be 10^ -16
cm. or so, and that's a long way to go. If you then compute the
amount of energy that would be in space, with that shortest possible
wave length, then it turns out that the energy in one cubic
centimeter would be immensely beyond the total energy of all the
known matter in the universe.

Present theory says that the vacuum contains all this energy which
is then ignored because it cannot be measured by an instrument. The
philosophy being that only what could be measured by an instrument
could be considered to be real, because the only point about the
reality of physics is the result of instruments, except that it is
also said that there are particles there that cannot be seen in
instruments at all. What you can say is that the present state of
theoretical physics implies that empty space has all this energy,
and matter is a slight increase of the energy, and therefore matter
is like a small ripple on this tremendous ocean of energy, having
some relative stability, and being manifest. Now, therefore, my
suggestion is that this implicate order implies a reality immensely
beyond what we call matter. Matter itself is merely a ripple in this
background.

If you take a crystal which is at absolute zero it does not scatter
electrons. They go through it as if it were empty. And as soon as
you raise the temperature and (produce) inhomogenities, they
scatter. Now, if you used those electrons to observe the crystal
(e.g., by focusing them with an electron lens to make an image), all
you would see would be these little inhomogeneities and you would
say they are what exists and the crystal is what does not exist.
Right? I think this is a familiar idea, namely to say that what we
see immediately is really a very superficial affair. However, the
positivist used to say that what we see immediately is all there is
or all that counts, and that our ideas must simply correlate what we
see immediately.

So now, with this vast reserve of energy and empty space, saying
that matter itself is that small wave on empty space, then we could
better say that the space as a whole (and we start from the general
space) is the ground of existence, and we are in it. So the space
doesn't separate us, it unites us. Therefore it's like saying that
there are two separate points and a certain dotted line connects
them, which shows how we think they are related, or to say there is
a real line and that the points are abstractions from that.The line
is
the reality and the points are abstractions. In that sense we say
that
there are no separate people, you see, but that 'that' is an
abstraction
which comes by taking certain features as abstracted and
self-existent." --- David Bohm

-----------------------------------------------------

"Such was the state of things when H. A. Lorentz entered upon the
scene. He brought theory into harmony with experience by means of a
wonderful simplification of theoretical principles. He achieved
this, the most important advance in the theory of electricity since
Maxwell, by taking from ether its mechanical, and from matter its
electromagnetic qualities. As in empty space, so too in the interior
of material bodies, the ether, and not matter viewed atomistically,
was exclusively the seat of electromagnetic fields. According to
Lorentz the elementary particles of matter alone are capable of
carrying out movements; their electromagnetic activity is entirely
confined to the carrying of electric charges. Thus Lorentz succeeded
in reducing all electromagnetic happenings to Maxwell's equations
for free space.

As to the mechanical nature of the Lorentzian ether, it may be said
of it, in a somewhat playful spirit, that immobility is the only
mechanical property of which it has not been deprived by H, A.
Lorentz. It may be added that the whole change in the conception of
the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about,
consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality,
namely, its immobility." --- A. Einstein

---------------------------------------

"that one body may act upon another at a distance
through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by
and through which their action and force may be conveyed
from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I
believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a
competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity
must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to
certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial
I have left to the consideration of my readers." --- Newton

Laurent wrote:

Just answer this - Is empty space real, can you observe and measure
it?

I walk around in it. And I can measure some of it with a yard-stick.

Bob Kolker

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:f_yHc.22916$WX.8619@attbi_s51...


Laurent wrote:

Just answer this - Is empty space real, can you observe and
measure
it?

I walk around in it. And I can measure some of it with a
yard-stick.

Bob Kolker


You may measure distance or separation between two objects with a
stick, but not empty, free or absolute space (however you prefer to
call it). You can't tell how big it is because it isn't matter, it
is dimensionless. You can't see it even if you are looking at it,
yet, it contains the whole universe.

--
Laurent

"MorituriMax" wrote in message ...
Mitchell wrote:
The Aether is beyond any physical concept.

Ketchup, like vengeance, is best served cold.

Boo hoo...

"Laurent" wrote in message
news

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Laurent" wrote in message
...

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:hnwHc.55676$XM6.18922@attbi_s53...


Mitchell wrote:

The Aether is beyond any physical concept.

Then it is nonsense.

Bob Kolker



Just answer this - Is empty space real, can you observe and
measure
it?

Empty space is a concept that does not exist in nature -
introducing a
measuring instrument would no longer leave it empty. Take your
philosophical waffle to a philosophy forum.

Bill



David Bohm was a world class physicist, yet, most of writings are
deeply philosophical, same with Einstein and many others.

Tell me, exactly what papers of Einstein and Bohm are philosophical? -
examples please. Not the popular writings or lectures but the actual
scientific papers they had published in journals. For example on the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies is a first class scientific paper - not
philosophy. It is obvious your primary interest is philosophy - post on a
philosophy forum.

Bill


--
Laurent

-------------------------------------------------

"Well, perhaps we should finish with this business about empty
space.

If you follow through the mathematics of the present Quantum Theory,
it treats the particle as what is called the quantized state of the
field, that is, as a field spread over space but in some mysterious
way with a quantum of energy. Now each wave in the field has a
certain quantum of energy proportional to its frequency. And if you
take the electromagnetic field, for example,in empty space, every
wave has what is called a zero point energy below which it cannot
go, even when there is no energy available. If you were to add up
all the waves in any region of empty space you would find that they
have an infinite amount of energy because an infinite number of
waves are possible. Now, however, you may have reason to suppose
that the energy may not be infinite, that maybe you cannot keep on
adding waves that are shorter and shorter, each contributing to the
energy. There may be some shortest possible wave, and then the total
number of waves would be finite and the energy would also be finite.

Now, you have to ask what would be the shortest length and there
seems to be reason to suspect that the gravitational theory may
provide us with some shortest length, for according to general
relativity, the gravitational field also determines what is meant by
"length" and metric. If you said the gravitational field was made up
of waves which were quantized in this way, you would find that there
was a certain length below which the gravitational field would
become undefinable because of this zero point movement and you
wouldn't be able to define length. Therefore, you could say the
property of measurement, length, fades out at very short distance
and you'd find the place at which it fades out would be about
10^ -33 cm. That is a very short distance because the shortest
distances that physicist have ever probed so far might be 10^ -16
cm. or so, and that's a long way to go. If you then compute the
amount of energy that would be in space, with that shortest possible
wave length, then it turns out that the energy in one cubic
centimeter would be immensely beyond the total energy of all the
known matter in the universe.

Present theory says that the vacuum contains all this energy which
is then ignored because it cannot be measured by an instrument. The
philosophy being that only what could be measured by an instrument
could be considered to be real, because the only point about the
reality of physics is the result of instruments, except that it is
also said that there are particles there that cannot be seen in
instruments at all. What you can say is that the present state of
theoretical physics implies that empty space has all this energy,
and matter is a slight increase of the energy, and therefore matter
is like a small ripple on this tremendous ocean of energy, having
some relative stability, and being manifest. Now, therefore, my
suggestion is that this implicate order implies a reality immensely
beyond what we call matter. Matter itself is merely a ripple in this
background.

If you take a crystal which is at absolute zero it does not scatter
electrons. They go through it as if it were empty. And as soon as
you raise the temperature and (produce) inhomogenities, they
scatter. Now, if you used those electrons to observe the crystal
(e.g., by focusing them with an electron lens to make an image), all
you would see would be these little inhomogeneities and you would
say they are what exists and the crystal is what does not exist.
Right? I think this is a familiar idea, namely to say that what we
see immediately is really a very superficial affair. However, the
positivist used to say that what we see immediately is all there is
or all that counts, and that our ideas must simply correlate what we
see immediately.

So now, with this vast reserve of energy and empty space, saying
that matter itself is that small wave on empty space, then we could
better say that the space as a whole (and we start from the general
space) is the ground of existence, and we are in it. So the space
doesn't separate us, it unites us. Therefore it's like saying that
there are two separate points and a certain dotted line connects
them, which shows how we think they are related, or to say there is
a real line and that the points are abstractions from that.The line
is
the reality and the points are abstractions. In that sense we say
that
there are no separate people, you see, but that 'that' is an
abstraction
which comes by taking certain features as abstracted and
self-existent." --- David Bohm

-----------------------------------------------------

"Such was the state of things when H. A. Lorentz entered upon the
scene. He brought theory into harmony with experience by means of a
wonderful simplification of theoretical principles. He achieved
this, the most important advance in the theory of electricity since
Maxwell, by taking from ether its mechanical, and from matter its
electromagnetic qualities. As in empty space, so too in the interior
of material bodies, the ether, and not matter viewed atomistically,
was exclusively the seat of electromagnetic fields. According to
Lorentz the elementary particles of matter alone are capable of
carrying out movements; their electromagnetic activity is entirely
confined to the carrying of electric charges. Thus Lorentz succeeded
in reducing all electromagnetic happenings to Maxwell's equations
for free space.

As to the mechanical nature of the Lorentzian ether, it may be said
of it, in a somewhat playful spirit, that immobility is the only
mechanical property of which it has not been deprived by H, A.
Lorentz. It may be added that the whole change in the conception of
the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about,
consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality,
namely, its immobility." --- A. Einstein

---------------------------------------

"that one body may act upon another at a distance
through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by
and through which their action and force may be conveyed
from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I
believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a
competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity
must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to
certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial
I have left to the consideration of my readers." --- Newton

"Laurent" wrote in message
...

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:f_yHc.22916$WX.8619@attbi_s51...


Laurent wrote:

Just answer this - Is empty space real, can you observe and
measure
it?

I walk around in it. And I can measure some of it with a
yard-stick.

Bob Kolker


You may measure distance or separation between two objects with a
stick, but not empty, free or absolute space (however you prefer to
call it). You can't tell how big it is because it isn't matter, it
is dimensionless. You can't see it even if you are looking at it,
yet, it contains the whole universe.

And the testable predictions at variance with other hypothesis is? As I
said previously it is obvious your primary interest is philosophy - not
physics. Post elsewhere.

Bill

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Laurent" wrote in message
...

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:f_yHc.22916$WX.8619@attbi_s51...


Laurent wrote:

Just answer this - Is empty space real, can you observe and
measure
it?

I walk around in it. And I can measure some of it with a
yard-stick.

Bob Kolker


You may measure distance or separation between two objects with
a
stick, but not empty, free or absolute space (however you prefer
to
call it). You can't tell how big it is because it isn't matter,
it
is dimensionless. You can't see it even if you are looking at
it,
yet, it contains the whole universe.

And the testable predictions at variance with other hypothesis is?
As I
said previously it is obvious your primary interest is
philosophy - not
physics. Post elsewhere.

Bill



Bohm said - space does not separate us, it is what unites us.

If not, then how could there be wholeness in time and space.

--
Laurent

--------------------------------------

Here you can find some 'testable predictions at variance with other
hypothesis'.


http://www.quantumaetherdynamics.com/start.html

http://www.tshankha.com/index.htm

http://www.fervor.demon.co.uk/