On Apr 6, 4:48*am, Benj wrote:
On Apr 6, 1:44 am, "FrediFizzx" wrote:

"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium
called the quantum vacuum. *This is the new ether of the 21st century.
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields
transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent
different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."

Actually this doesn't make much sense either! *I don't mean the
existence of some medium which is the basis of the four basic
interactions, but rather the name "quantum vacuum". *It is obvious
that since it represents properties of space, it cannot be a "void" or
a "vacuum". *It should properly be called the "quantum aether" to
eliminate the misleading name. *But establishment physics is SO set on
denying the existence of classical aether that they spew the "vacuum"
dogma even in the face of irrefutable evidence that space is filled
with some kind of interesting substance. *

Same as with the so-called 'free space'.

Which raises and even MORE
interesting question: If space is filled with Quantum Aether, is it
somehow possible to create a "hole" in that aether which would
actually BE a "true" vacuum or void? In other words a space devoid of
all properties (including the four interactions).

I am starting to think that matter pops up where there is too little
or less dense, as if it were Nature fighting against fragmentation,
giving rise to objects like Seyferts and Quasars where it is less
dense and black holes where there is too much.

"The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which
the field strength or the energy density are particularly high..." ---
Albert Einstein

The way I see it, what keeps a whirlpool rotating is space tension
(which is where the stress-energy tensor comes from).

--
Laurent



Most likely we just don't know what all the quantum objects are yet. *Or
their possible interactional configurations. *Hopefully we will get some
more clues after the LHC has been running for awhile.

Well, provided it doesn't open a black hole and the earth gets sucked
into it...

On Apr 6, 1:44*am, "FrediFizzx" wrote:
"Laurent" wrote in message

...

Aether is the empty space on which the Universe sits.

Well, that doesn't make much sense. *You don't help your case much with
a statement like that. *Empty space (the void) is the stage that ether
and *other* quantum objects play on.

Volovik says it like it is very well in his book "The Universe in a
Helium Droplet" page 461 sect. 33 Conclusion;

"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium
called the quantum vacuum. *

Also know as aether...

This is the new ether of the 21st century.
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields
transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent
different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."

The quantum vacumm moves? Isn't it a void, as in 'not matter'? How can
an immaterial substance move?


Most likely we just don't know what all the quantum objects are yet. *Or
their possible interactional configurations. *Hopefully we will get some
more clues after the LHC has been running for awhile.

The quantum refers to a quantum of energy, in other words, an amount
of energy... the smallest amount of energy as far as we know.
Information (geometry) starts with the quantum. Existence starts with
the quantum. Before the quantum there is the aether. There can be an
aether without quanta but there can be no quanta without an aether.
The aether is before matter and it is dimensionless, like a point...
yet, it contains the Universe.

--
Laurent


Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator *sci.physics.foundations

On Apr 9, 5:32*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
wrote:
Those concepts did not disappear, they became better understood and
renamed. *Now, we have Oxygen, heat, electrons, and metabolism.

Similarly the aether is still with us, only you must now use words
such as "electromagnetic field", "space-time", or even "quantum
foam".

I won't repeat the 1920s Einstein quote you know so well about how the
aether does exist.

The word needs to be avoided when possible in publications now.
However nobody will deny that in empty space there exists:

An electromagnetic field, a gravitational field (g_uv if you like).

Whether you like to consider this as "substance", "aether" or
something else is up to you.

Also, we have are two current diametrically-opposed models of physics
telling us two things. We're told that Relativity disproves the Aether,
but Einstein himself only said that it only removes the need to consider
it in calculations, not that it doesn't exist. Meanwhile, we have the
Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics happily telling us that space must
be composed of something (i.e. there are absolute reference frames in
QM), which might as well be the Aether.

The old model of the solid Æther may be dead, but a fluid æther seems to
be emerging. Even in cosmology, there's the new theory that combines
Dark Matter with Dark Energy which is being called Dark Fluid. Dark
Fluid by any other name is aether.

* * * * Yousuf Khan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Right. GTR is an aether theory, if not, how could it say that
everything is related... related through what? GTR says the universe
exists in a continuum. It is ONE single process. Empty space is not
what separates us, it is what unites us!

--
Laurent

On Apr 9, 5:35*pm, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
wrote:

Those concepts did not disappear, they became better understood and
renamed. *Now, we have Oxygen, heat, electrons, and metabolism.

Similarly the aether is still with us, only you must now use words
such as "electromagnetic field", "space-time", or even "quantum
foam".

EM fields are NOT space filling substances. They are not substances.

Right, fields are space itself. Matter and space are one and the same
thing. But space and empty space are not the same thing.

Empty space is dimensionless. Space is geometry.


Fields, yes. No aether.

Again, there can be an aether without fields but there can be no
fields without an aether.


If you call a tail a leg how many legs does a dog have?

Answer: 4. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.

Bob Kolker

When thinking about empty space try to not think in terms of size or
duration, try to think in terms of state.

--
Laurent

Laurent wrote:



The Standard Model has no real explanation, just like it can't explain
gravity, inertia nor action-at-a-distance.

It predicts accurately and has never been falsified. That is all that
matters. There is no why. There is only what, when and how.

Bob Kolker

Laurent wrote:


No, space is material (grainy) and gravitation is caused space flowing
into matter. Space flow being caused by electromotive forces. Space
curvature is caused by matter in space, space being an extension of
matter. Matter and space are one and the same thing.

Gravitation obeys different laws from electrodynamics. Gravitational
fields gravitate. Electromagentic fields have no charge.


And there is no aether. Anything explained by aether can be exaplained
without aether and it has never, ever been detected or measured. Ever.

Bob Kolker

On Apr 9, 4:08*pm, Laurent wrote:
On Apr 5, 8:03*am, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:

Laurent wrote:
But the gravitational aether can be felt.

Gravity is curvature of the spacetime manifold. It is not a substance.

Bob Kolker

gravitation is caused space flowing
into matter. Space flow

--
Laurent

Timeless acceleration

Dear Laurent:

"Laurent" wrote in message
...
On Apr 5, 11:28 am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
....
Explain particle pair creation without aether
or any energy sources. Isn't there a law
against that in your text book?

Without "energy sources"? Where did that
idiocy come from? Explanations without
aether are simple a straightforward.

Then, tell us where does that energy comes
from?

The Big Bang. Or if you like to only discuss pair creation, the
interaction of a propagating gamma photon with a virtual photon
responsible for expressing charge on an electron or proton.

Give us your simple and straightforward
explanation.

Done.

....
Right, space is an extension of matter.

.. and energy. But only in classical theories.
In QM, space is nonsequitur... so far.

In QM space is grainy.

It is *not* grainy. It is not part of the "equation". QM cares
naught for space, time, time's arrow, or entropy.

Empty space is not. Empty space has the
same properties of a point, it is
dimensionless.

I think you mean "without extent". Space *does* have
dimension...

....
Light is wave and particle, it's called photons
or quanta.

These labels you attach to light are a function
of the model used to describe them in relation
to the system you define.

Oh, so what labels do you attach to light?

Light.

What labels do you attach to a car? Because it is both an
expression of one's individuality, and a taxable asset.

That depends on what your definition of a
substance is.

In aether, light is "ripples in"... no substance
inherent to light there either.

That's in 19th century aethers. In Einstein's
GTR the aether does not exist,

*He* never said that, nor did Lorentz.

that's why he says the Universe in background
free.

"The source of spacetime is the field," or words to that effect.
Doesn't sound "background free" to me.

....
Right, just like there are no point particles.

Who said that? Electrons and photons... there
is no collision where "bumpers" meet, where
new unique particles resolve.

The Billiard Ball model is obsolete.

Used in particle physics all the time. Smash the watch and
anaylze the gears...

Particles have a volume, a diameter, therefore,
can't be considered to be points.

Disproven by experiment.

The points in a line a not real, neither are the
lines. Those are mathematical objects.

....
Aether is empty space and fields are shapes
drawn by matter as process (spacetime) takes
place. Matter and space are one and the same
autopoietic process.

Word salad.

To you.

So you intend to be mysterious. Fine by me.

And we again come full circle.

In a diffraction experiment, any finite geometry
yields non-zero diffraction. Both the diffracted
particle and the slit "material" are expressed
across each bit of "empty" space. Subtract
that effect out, and the need for an aether
ceases to be.

What?

Which word? Subtract out the effect of each bit of matter and
energy in the Universe, and there is no spacetime, no space
filling aether, no interaction. *We* are the aether, the medium
of all propagation.

David A. Smith

On Apr 9, 8:54 pm, Laurent wrote:

I am starting to think that matter pops up where there is too little
or less dense, as if it were Nature fighting against fragmentation,
giving rise to objects like Seyferts and Quasars where it is less
dense and black holes where there is too much.

There is the "bud" theory of matter, but I used to hang with a
physicist who used to always say that "electrons don't exist"! His
theory (and it's not a particularly new one) was that electrons
actually ARE the proverbial "true vacuum" of space represented by a
"hole" in the aether. Matter supposedly works like this. electrons
are vortexes in space that in fact open a "true vacuum" hole and hence
are actually LESS than nothing. The vortex in the aether that creates
this hole actually spews aether out in to the fourth dimension. That
"wormhole" actually arcs over and comes to rest on a positive charge.
Now protons are NOT vortex "hole" entities, but rather tiny "frozen"
bits of solid aether. Light and radiation tend to cause them to want
to expand back up to a gaseous state but the aether supplied by the
electron's "wormholes" stabilizes the Proton and hence one gets what
we see as matter with a reasonable degree of stability. "Atomic"
energy is actually simply the energy represented by the mass of the
proton expanding back to a gaseous state. You can see that
electrostatic "coulomb" forces are actually due to the elasticity of
the aether-transporting wormhole in the 4th dimension.

That's it.

Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Laurent wrote:



The Standard Model has no real explanation, just like it can't explain
gravity, inertia nor action-at-a-distance.

It predicts accurately and has never been falsified. That is all that
matters. There is no why. There is only what, when and how.

It tends to falsify Relativity, doesn't it? Relativity has as a basic
principle, no absolute reference frame, but Standard Model depends on an
absolute reference frame. Background dependence vs. background
independence. Take your pick, both are true depending on which model you
pick.

Yousuf Khan