Has work been done, ala Mach or others, for the possibility of creating space?
From a thermodynamics standpoint, it has always bothered me that "empty" space has
physical constants associated with it ("free"space permiability/permitivity). Wouldn't the implicit
presence of order/rules in "empty" space require the space itself to require some energy or conversion of energy. I also realize there is really no such thing as completly empty space. Photons are present everywhere in the process of thermodynamic equlibrium for the materials within space.
But the photons within a given region of a bounded vacuum are limited in wavelength.....
Well if it takes energy to make space then what would
happen to that space if we removed the energy?
There would be a hole!
happen to that space if we removed the energy?
There would be a hole!
QUOTE (Nick+Aug 29 2005, 05:51 AM)
Well if it takes energy to make space then what would
happen to that space if we removed the energy?
There would be a hole!
Now that is too simplistic...
If space is something, and it has to be, it may be possible for it to be created...
However: keep in mind that all matter is iside space, and if you destroy it, you destroy matter as well...and, the Law of Matter Conservation says you can not do that...
So I am kind of 50-50 wtih this one...
happen to that space if we removed the energy?
There would be a hole!
Now that is too simplistic...
If space is something, and it has to be, it may be possible for it to be created...However: keep in mind that all matter is iside space, and if you destroy it, you destroy matter as well...and, the Law of Matter Conservation says you can not do that...
So I am kind of 50-50 wtih this one...
hello,
Space is actually full of energy. Things called "Planck particles" or hbar/2 are supposedly fermions w/ spin 1/2. They are virtual particles in the sense that they don't hang around for too long, but QM demands that they exist.
Further, the atoms that make up you are actually 99.999999999999% vacuum and yes, that's the correct number of '9's. The reason is that the difference in distances b/t electrons and nuclei are so vast, relative to their size, which is considerably great as well. Yet, that distance is still too small for any atoms to be there, so that is vacuum as well.
An interesting paper came out in 1989:
Physical Review A 39 (5) 2333 - 2342
which talks extensively about this zero-point energy fluctuation and uses it to come up w/ some pretty remarkable solutions. I strongly recommend it, as it is a good read.
-ss
Space is actually full of energy. Things called "Planck particles" or hbar/2 are supposedly fermions w/ spin 1/2. They are virtual particles in the sense that they don't hang around for too long, but QM demands that they exist.
Further, the atoms that make up you are actually 99.999999999999% vacuum and yes, that's the correct number of '9's. The reason is that the difference in distances b/t electrons and nuclei are so vast, relative to their size, which is considerably great as well. Yet, that distance is still too small for any atoms to be there, so that is vacuum as well.
An interesting paper came out in 1989:
Physical Review A 39 (5) 2333 - 2342
which talks extensively about this zero-point energy fluctuation and uses it to come up w/ some pretty remarkable solutions. I strongly recommend it, as it is a good read.
-ss
You do not need to make space. We are in space. You would need to overcome the stuff that we are in.
QUOTE (solidspin+Aug 29 2005, 07:57 PM)
hello,
Space is actually full of energy. Things called "Planck particles" or hbar/2 are supposedly fermions w/ spin 1/2. They are virtual particles in the sense that they don't hang around for too long, but QM demands that they exist.
Further, the atoms that make up you are actually 99.999999999999% vacuum and yes, that's the correct number of '9's. The reason is that the difference in distances b/t electrons and nuclei are so vast, relative to their size, which is considerably great as well. Yet, that distance is still too small for any atoms to be there, so that is vacuum as well.
An interesting paper came out in 1989:
Physical Review A 39 (5) 2333 - 2342
which talks extensively about this zero-point energy fluctuation and uses it to come up w/ some pretty remarkable solutions. I strongly recommend it, as it is a good read.
-ss
Glad you brought that up, because I was thinking the same. Also within General Relativity there is Dark Matter, which could be the alternative to Planck particles.
I need to check out that review there. Sounds interesting.
Space is actually full of energy. Things called "Planck particles" or hbar/2 are supposedly fermions w/ spin 1/2. They are virtual particles in the sense that they don't hang around for too long, but QM demands that they exist.
Further, the atoms that make up you are actually 99.999999999999% vacuum and yes, that's the correct number of '9's. The reason is that the difference in distances b/t electrons and nuclei are so vast, relative to their size, which is considerably great as well. Yet, that distance is still too small for any atoms to be there, so that is vacuum as well.
An interesting paper came out in 1989:
Physical Review A 39 (5) 2333 - 2342
which talks extensively about this zero-point energy fluctuation and uses it to come up w/ some pretty remarkable solutions. I strongly recommend it, as it is a good read.
-ss
Glad you brought that up, because I was thinking the same. Also within General Relativity there is Dark Matter, which could be the alternative to Planck particles.
I need to check out that review there. Sounds interesting.
QUOTE (Guest+Aug 30 2005, 06:47 AM)
You do not need to make space. We are in space. You would need to overcome the stuff that we are in.
What about destroying space?
If we remove the energy that makes
space what are we left with?
A hole where space used to be?
That doesn't make any sense.
I don't think energy makes space.
Mitch -- Light Falls --
What about destroying space?
If we remove the energy that makes
space what are we left with?
A hole where space used to be?
That doesn't make any sense.
I don't think energy makes space.
Mitch -- Light Falls --
Nick -
You can't destroy space. Also, it has been proven (look up the Casimir effect, for example) that vacuum is full of planck particles (hbar/2) which are a necessary feature of spacetime.
ss
You can't destroy space. Also, it has been proven (look up the Casimir effect, for example) that vacuum is full of planck particles (hbar/2) which are a necessary feature of spacetime.
ss
Hi,
Supposedly space is being created all the time by the expansion of the universe. I believe that the dark energy said to be responsible for the continuied and accellerated expansion is supposed to pervade all space.
It is possible that this dark energy along with the virtual particle flux is the basis for the properties that space exhibits.
z
Supposedly space is being created all the time by the expansion of the universe. I believe that the dark energy said to be responsible for the continuied and accellerated expansion is supposed to pervade all space.
It is possible that this dark energy along with the virtual particle flux is the basis for the properties that space exhibits.
z
I like where this is going, and with this 'removing energy' from space..
Well theres the possibility that it could be extremely hard to do because the 'pressure' of space could well collapse it back in again without you even noticing, just as the air separates when lightning happens, then clashes back together, but because in space, the planck particles are just too small and weakly interacting that you dont feel/hear/see anything when it 'clashes' back together again..
As for actually doing it someway, removing energy, the theory behind planck particles is that they pop in and out of existence is it not..or in other words, it could be them hopping around alot? (im actually asking, im not sure again...) Could possibly be the best example of Quantum Tunneling i guess..
So in a way, no matter how hard you try, some energy will get in some way, and since in theory you are creating 'non-space', just like an air-to-vacuum scenario, that non-space would fill in an instant because the 'space' would expand to fill all the space...lol
Pretty interesting topic and i'd love to see others ideas
Who knows where this could take us, possibly a way of making a potential FTL spacecraft..you could just rip a hole in space and travel in 'non-space' if it exists..or should i say doesnt exist... :S lol
And protect the ship with some very strong electromagnetic field to stop the ship ripping apart, fill the space in the field with particles, so in a way, you have made your own universe bubble
Btw im just thinking out loud, its all theory just now, but theres the chance one day it could be right, we just need to test, wait and see the results
Well theres the possibility that it could be extremely hard to do because the 'pressure' of space could well collapse it back in again without you even noticing, just as the air separates when lightning happens, then clashes back together, but because in space, the planck particles are just too small and weakly interacting that you dont feel/hear/see anything when it 'clashes' back together again..
As for actually doing it someway, removing energy, the theory behind planck particles is that they pop in and out of existence is it not..or in other words, it could be them hopping around alot? (im actually asking, im not sure again...) Could possibly be the best example of Quantum Tunneling i guess..
So in a way, no matter how hard you try, some energy will get in some way, and since in theory you are creating 'non-space', just like an air-to-vacuum scenario, that non-space would fill in an instant because the 'space' would expand to fill all the space...lol
Pretty interesting topic and i'd love to see others ideas
Who knows where this could take us, possibly a way of making a potential FTL spacecraft..you could just rip a hole in space and travel in 'non-space' if it exists..or should i say doesnt exist... :S lol
And protect the ship with some very strong electromagnetic field to stop the ship ripping apart, fill the space in the field with particles, so in a way, you have made your own universe bubble
Btw im just thinking out loud, its all theory just now, but theres the chance one day it could be right, we just need to test, wait and see the results
QUOTE (thezman+Aug 30 2005, 09:52 PM)
Hi,
Supposedly space is being created all the time by the expansion of the universe. I believe that the dark energy said to be responsible for the continuied and accellerated expansion is supposed to pervade all space.
z
Space is being created inbetween the galaxies?
I call that the space-stretch. And the space stretch
is accelerating.
The space-stretch stretches the light traversing it.
It isn't velocity that creates the redshift but the
space-stretch. That's the reason for Hubble's Law.
Space-stretching inbetween and and velocity have
the same redshift effect. They must be equivalent
or cosmology looks very strange!
Supposedly space is being created all the time by the expansion of the universe. I believe that the dark energy said to be responsible for the continuied and accellerated expansion is supposed to pervade all space.
z
Space is being created inbetween the galaxies?
I call that the space-stretch. And the space stretch
is accelerating.
The space-stretch stretches the light traversing it.
It isn't velocity that creates the redshift but the
space-stretch. That's the reason for Hubble's Law.
Space-stretching inbetween and and velocity have
the same redshift effect. They must be equivalent
or cosmology looks very strange!
Nick: Is space really stretching in a physical fashion?
Correct me if I am wrong, (physics-wise I am an amateur but dedicated fan), but my understanding for Red-shifting light was a change in the frequency of light, not the speed (which is an absolute constant).
So since light is at the speed of light, the speed is constant, but the increased relative motion causes TIME to shift (frequency is a measurement of cycles per time period) relative to the observer.
Solidspin: About the "quantum foam", or "Planck particles"
I fail to find the argument for "quantum foam" to be convincing. I am desperately trying to attack the mathematical basis to assist in my better understanding, but so far not with much success I have to admit.
I find the approach of String theory to hold much promise, but my own humble opinion is that many current problems unreconcilable today are artifacts of the not understood additional dimensions postulated in string theory.
To me, the Uncertainty principal may be just a workaround to explain how particles interact with these additional dimensions. As you may have guessed, I am more of an Einstein classic physics fan. Quantum Physics cannot be ignored, but "quantum foam" exists in a realm that is beyond the physical possibility of measurement. It is seems obvious to me that the uncertainty in the principle is the unmeasured interaction with additional dimensions and the undescribed forces/laws of conservation that apply to those dimensions as they interact with our universe. Had I the time/ability I would focus on how the obvious departures from our observed reality (as defined in Quantum Physics) may help us to describe and eventually discover these additional dimensions.
My reach greatly exceeds my grasp however...hehe.
Correct me if I am wrong, (physics-wise I am an amateur but dedicated fan), but my understanding for Red-shifting light was a change in the frequency of light, not the speed (which is an absolute constant).
So since light is at the speed of light, the speed is constant, but the increased relative motion causes TIME to shift (frequency is a measurement of cycles per time period) relative to the observer.
Solidspin: About the "quantum foam", or "Planck particles"
I fail to find the argument for "quantum foam" to be convincing. I am desperately trying to attack the mathematical basis to assist in my better understanding, but so far not with much success I have to admit.
I find the approach of String theory to hold much promise, but my own humble opinion is that many current problems unreconcilable today are artifacts of the not understood additional dimensions postulated in string theory.
To me, the Uncertainty principal may be just a workaround to explain how particles interact with these additional dimensions. As you may have guessed, I am more of an Einstein classic physics fan. Quantum Physics cannot be ignored, but "quantum foam" exists in a realm that is beyond the physical possibility of measurement. It is seems obvious to me that the uncertainty in the principle is the unmeasured interaction with additional dimensions and the undescribed forces/laws of conservation that apply to those dimensions as they interact with our universe. Had I the time/ability I would focus on how the obvious departures from our observed reality (as defined in Quantum Physics) may help us to describe and eventually discover these additional dimensions.
My reach greatly exceeds my grasp however...hehe.
If the universe is getting bigger by the space inbetween
the galaxies growing I don't see how the space-stretch
wouldn't be a physical reality DB.
the galaxies growing I don't see how the space-stretch
wouldn't be a physical reality DB.
hmmm...okay how bout this?
Maybe I am not understanding but...
If objects move apart, they do not take the space with them, they move thru space, yes? So even though the distances between objects in the Universe are expanding, I do not see how this means that Space-time itself is expanding?
Unless...due to the time-shifting relative to each object expanding, no that wont work either. If you travel back toward the other object, the time shift retracts I think. Do I have this fundamentally wrong somehow?
hmmm..I be confused
I am gonna go surf thru that website Realitycheck posted an see if that helps me
Maybe I am not understanding but...
If objects move apart, they do not take the space with them, they move thru space, yes? So even though the distances between objects in the Universe are expanding, I do not see how this means that Space-time itself is expanding?
Unless...due to the time-shifting relative to each object expanding, no that wont work either. If you travel back toward the other object, the time shift retracts I think. Do I have this fundamentally wrong somehow?
hmmm..I be confused
I am gonna go surf thru that website Realitycheck posted an see if that helps me
YIKES that didnt help. That website is not based on Einsteinian General Relativity, with no absolute reference frames. If you declare space a reference frame, then relativity does not work, as far as I understand it.
We could argue that when I hit the lightswitch, the "darkabsorber" in the bulb is activated, making the room appear brighter. Why not stick with General Relativity as it has a serious amount of scientific experimental proof?
Why do we want to make space a "fluid" at all? The Ether theory has been proven wrong, has it not?
We could argue that when I hit the lightswitch, the "darkabsorber" in the bulb is activated, making the room appear brighter. Why not stick with General Relativity as it has a serious amount of scientific experimental proof?
Why do we want to make space a "fluid" at all? The Ether theory has been proven wrong, has it not?
If space isn't a frame how would be know the size
of anything or its movement in the universe? We
can calculate absolute movement through space
for the universe as a whole. That is the space
frame.
Everyone thinks that Einstein got rid of the Aether.
But what they don't know is he also brought it back.
In the 1920's he said it had to be immaterial and
likened it to his curved space-time.
How can the emptiness of space-time curve?
You gotta give it substance.
The Aether is that substance.
of anything or its movement in the universe? We
can calculate absolute movement through space
for the universe as a whole. That is the space
frame.
Everyone thinks that Einstein got rid of the Aether.
But what they don't know is he also brought it back.
In the 1920's he said it had to be immaterial and
likened it to his curved space-time.
How can the emptiness of space-time curve?
You gotta give it substance.
The Aether is that substance.
hehe, thanks for the replies, I am rereading and trying to get a grip on what you are saying, not quite there yet.
You are correct about my comfort level, I find Einstein and General Relativity comforting and easily understandable. I have great difficulty trying to establish a "big picture" with space-time as a fluid.
Don't get me wrong, I am not disagreeing with you, I do not understand your arguments well enough to be able to judge for myself. I am open to new ideas I like to think. I am aware that QM is in complete disagreement with GR, and the press of science to find a Theory of everything is where it is at.
Here is my problem, I have always thought of space as non-interacting, neutral, and undifferentiated. Are you saying that space itself has or should have measureable properties that affect particles and energy in a interactive manner? That is my difficulty, I see space as non-interactive, the background upon which the play is performed.
Note that I did not include time. Time as a dimension is measureable and able to interact in a measureable manner. It is just particularly hard to grasp in a big picture view that way. In my own manner I have done that, but space was always assumed to be constant an non-changing.
I see space-time curving, with TIME being the interacting and changing dimension. Its like a 3d picture of a black hole that looks like a funnel, except the 3D picture is really missing the 4th dimension and does not accurately represent a Black hole. It could be done say in a 3D diagram, but a 4th dimension could be represented by instead a color gradient. It would change from a Funnel shape into a intensely brightly colored ball expanding and decreasing in intensity in all directions at once. But represented that way, the space is actually constant. The apparent curve in the space would be caused by the relative differences in Time represented by the changing color. But the Space would actually be constant.
*Edit* the classical funnel shape usually refers to gravity, not time. However a black hole would accelerate light itself, so a corresponding Time funnel could be constructed as well I am thinking, slowing as it approaches. Gravitational Lensing has been observed so I think this should be a valid test.
Are there any simple explanations that might help me visualize what you are asserting? The Drain and plug hole seems enticing. How would this relate to a Black Hole for instance (the Fluid I mean).
You are correct about my comfort level, I find Einstein and General Relativity comforting and easily understandable. I have great difficulty trying to establish a "big picture" with space-time as a fluid.
Don't get me wrong, I am not disagreeing with you, I do not understand your arguments well enough to be able to judge for myself. I am open to new ideas I like to think. I am aware that QM is in complete disagreement with GR, and the press of science to find a Theory of everything is where it is at.
Here is my problem, I have always thought of space as non-interacting, neutral, and undifferentiated. Are you saying that space itself has or should have measureable properties that affect particles and energy in a interactive manner? That is my difficulty, I see space as non-interactive, the background upon which the play is performed.
Note that I did not include time. Time as a dimension is measureable and able to interact in a measureable manner. It is just particularly hard to grasp in a big picture view that way. In my own manner I have done that, but space was always assumed to be constant an non-changing.
I see space-time curving, with TIME being the interacting and changing dimension. Its like a 3d picture of a black hole that looks like a funnel, except the 3D picture is really missing the 4th dimension and does not accurately represent a Black hole. It could be done say in a 3D diagram, but a 4th dimension could be represented by instead a color gradient. It would change from a Funnel shape into a intensely brightly colored ball expanding and decreasing in intensity in all directions at once. But represented that way, the space is actually constant. The apparent curve in the space would be caused by the relative differences in Time represented by the changing color. But the Space would actually be constant.
*Edit* the classical funnel shape usually refers to gravity, not time. However a black hole would accelerate light itself, so a corresponding Time funnel could be constructed as well I am thinking, slowing as it approaches. Gravitational Lensing has been observed so I think this should be a valid test.
Are there any simple explanations that might help me visualize what you are asserting? The Drain and plug hole seems enticing. How would this relate to a Black Hole for instance (the Fluid I mean).
QUOTE (Nick+Aug 31 2005, 01:07 AM)
If the universe is getting bigger by the space inbetween
the galaxies growing I don't see how the space-stretch
wouldn't be a physical reality DB.
As RealityCheck statues in this topic "the only difference between the two in reality is that the 'natural' medium for light propagation does NOT allow LIGHTWAVE SOURCES to propagate faster than the wave disturbances they produce" - and this is very good (and natural) explanation!
The only source of conceptual difference between air and ether is given by the fact, we aren't looking on it using the same waveform, as we're doing in ether/vaccuum. With respect of this, the common relativistics effects of air are observable using sound source and detector. If you can't believe, try to derive Lorentz transform for speed of sound, or at least have look to this applets, which are explainin' the concept by visual demonstration: relativistic doppler effect, twins paradox or the primary source of other informations and images - currently in Czech only, but these pictures are rather self-explanatory, as I hope.
It means, the relativity concept isn't special property of light by any way - but all of energy waves in the universe!
So analogy E=m.c^2 really exists for all convoluted dimensions of space (with it's own speed of light, of course).
the galaxies growing I don't see how the space-stretch
wouldn't be a physical reality DB.
As RealityCheck statues in this topic "the only difference between the two in reality is that the 'natural' medium for light propagation does NOT allow LIGHTWAVE SOURCES to propagate faster than the wave disturbances they produce" - and this is very good (and natural) explanation!
The only source of conceptual difference between air and ether is given by the fact, we aren't looking on it using the same waveform, as we're doing in ether/vaccuum. With respect of this, the common relativistics effects of air are observable using sound source and detector. If you can't believe, try to derive Lorentz transform for speed of sound, or at least have look to this applets, which are explainin' the concept by visual demonstration: relativistic doppler effect, twins paradox or the primary source of other informations and images - currently in Czech only, but these pictures are rather self-explanatory, as I hope.
It means, the relativity concept isn't special property of light by any way - but all of energy waves in the universe!
So analogy E=m.c^2 really exists for all convoluted dimensions of space (with it's own speed of light, of course).
Very interesting...Okay I have been doing some surfing, and am starting to find Aether theory very possibly exciting. Especially in regards the Twin paradox.
Alright. So Einstein wasn't really wrong, per se, this is a modification of STR Kinda to my thinking. Hear me out. If presented that way, its much more palatable.
Okay, so Einstein's Space-Time would instead be Aether. And Space is not a fixed grid, but I am beginning to understand the fluid-like properties of Aether. This makes excellent sense so far as I can tell, and seems to answer some of the shortcomings of STR that the Big E was struggling with as well.
The possibility of absolute reference frames is a shock. However, as far as I see it, there still is no absolute reference frame, due to the properties of the Aether causing matter contraction that amazingly makes itself undetectable. And if that is so, the comparative motion of all of the objects relative to one another, all taking the fluid with them, well to my mind there still is no absolute reference frame, unless you could somehow freeze the fluid? Maybe that helps explain Bose-Einstein condensate as well. hmm but I know less about that than I know about this.
The rub I see, and obviously others as well, is that if the Aether is so superbly mathematically oriented and constructed so as to cancel out its own effects no matter what method is used to measure Aether Velocity, then why bother with it at all? If we cannot ever measure Aether velocity, because its effects are exactly cancelled out by matter contraction, what advantage does this theory offer over STR?
So, (hehe) to revisit my earlier pun, is this a lightbulb or darkabsorber? What I meant by that is that is this just a restatement of the original in slightly different (and more complicated) terms? Effectively the Aether seems to make itself irrelevant even if it were true. The answer to the Twin paradox however is most interesting. Is there further application for it that makes it appealing I guess would be my next question?
Alright. So Einstein wasn't really wrong, per se, this is a modification of STR Kinda to my thinking. Hear me out. If presented that way, its much more palatable.
Okay, so Einstein's Space-Time would instead be Aether. And Space is not a fixed grid, but I am beginning to understand the fluid-like properties of Aether. This makes excellent sense so far as I can tell, and seems to answer some of the shortcomings of STR that the Big E was struggling with as well.
The possibility of absolute reference frames is a shock. However, as far as I see it, there still is no absolute reference frame, due to the properties of the Aether causing matter contraction that amazingly makes itself undetectable. And if that is so, the comparative motion of all of the objects relative to one another, all taking the fluid with them, well to my mind there still is no absolute reference frame, unless you could somehow freeze the fluid? Maybe that helps explain Bose-Einstein condensate as well. hmm but I know less about that than I know about this.
The rub I see, and obviously others as well, is that if the Aether is so superbly mathematically oriented and constructed so as to cancel out its own effects no matter what method is used to measure Aether Velocity, then why bother with it at all? If we cannot ever measure Aether velocity, because its effects are exactly cancelled out by matter contraction, what advantage does this theory offer over STR?
So, (hehe) to revisit my earlier pun, is this a lightbulb or darkabsorber? What I meant by that is that is this just a restatement of the original in slightly different (and more complicated) terms? Effectively the Aether seems to make itself irrelevant even if it were true. The answer to the Twin paradox however is most interesting. Is there further application for it that makes it appealing I guess would be my next question?
No - of course he didn't. In fact, Einstein just replaced the conception of ether (erroneously understanded at the time of writing of SRT) by some ad-hoc postulate set, which could be derived from wave ether idea easilly, thought. In the course of one hundred years the Einstein's advance could be evaluated as a certain logic jump (but still experimentally supported by the Maxwell theory of light). But it's not the first case in the science history at all.
...but I am beginning to understand the fluid-like properties of Aether...
That's perfect, really. The basic nature of Aether remains a weavy though (i.e. forms a system of interferring waves), but it could be described in some aspect as a system of virtual particles - like those ones, which are producing a scattering of light in an elastic atmosphere/ocean thick layers... This is behavior of system particles, which are forming a fluid look&feel at the long distances. The wave character of Aether will more obvious from the light spreading animation http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=2787
The potential existence absolute reference frame couldn't be so suprising, because of the Aether theory simply explains, why it's unreachable for the wave system onto it's "surface". But if we admit the idea of universe creation from nothing, then we have to found a natural original position of this "nothing". Aether theory gives simple answer at this case, too.
The Aether conception is based on wave equation theory - so it forms a theoretical background of M-theory, which postulates ad hoc, that universe is formed by the "strings". This conception could be easily understood by now and we can simulate, even using the common PC's, how these "vacuum strings" really looks like. But it can serve as a theoretical background of the other modern theories as well: as I've demonstrated on the case of scattering, the strict low-level wave description couldn't be always so effective in description for example, the dark matter effect (which is result of that scattering, maybe).
Einstein's common relativity theory suggests a deep insight even in the scope of Aether. I believe, it could be extended by introducing an concept of hidden dimension's with no respect of Aether theory, but Aether theory gives a better understanding of this basic principle either.
...but I am beginning to understand the fluid-like properties of Aether...
That's perfect, really. The basic nature of Aether remains a weavy though (i.e. forms a system of interferring waves), but it could be described in some aspect as a system of virtual particles - like those ones, which are producing a scattering of light in an elastic atmosphere/ocean thick layers... This is behavior of system particles, which are forming a fluid look&feel at the long distances. The wave character of Aether will more obvious from the light spreading animation http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=2787
The potential existence absolute reference frame couldn't be so suprising, because of the Aether theory simply explains, why it's unreachable for the wave system onto it's "surface". But if we admit the idea of universe creation from nothing, then we have to found a natural original position of this "nothing". Aether theory gives simple answer at this case, too.
The Aether conception is based on wave equation theory - so it forms a theoretical background of M-theory, which postulates ad hoc, that universe is formed by the "strings". This conception could be easily understood by now and we can simulate, even using the common PC's, how these "vacuum strings" really looks like. But it can serve as a theoretical background of the other modern theories as well: as I've demonstrated on the case of scattering, the strict low-level wave description couldn't be always so effective in description for example, the dark matter effect (which is result of that scattering, maybe).
Einstein's common relativity theory suggests a deep insight even in the scope of Aether. I believe, it could be extended by introducing an concept of hidden dimension's with no respect of Aether theory, but Aether theory gives a better understanding of this basic principle either.
The fact that extreme gravity can bend space shows that space has a mass like component which gives it substance. Pure empty space without this mass component would not be bent by gravity. The bending of space near stars might imply nuclear fusion adding to the mass component to space as mass is converted to energy.
QUOTE (MDT+Sep 2 2005, 05:51 PM)
The fact that extreme gravity can bend space shows that space has a mass like component which gives it substance. Pure empty space without this mass component would not be bent by gravity. The bending of space near stars might imply nuclear fusion adding to the mass component to space as mass is converted to energy.
It seems, you're completelly right at the first part of your statement - but the mass component of space deformation has probably weak impact to the equilibrium of nuclear reactions in common cases - but nevertheless it's clearly observable as the well known dark matter effect.
You can imagine this as the cummulation of the mass-energy fluctuation of vaccuum in the proximity of the massive stellar objects, like gallaxies and quasars. Event in the Sun neighborhood is this effect observable as far as it slowens the motion of Pioneer and other satellites by about 1%.
It seems, you're completelly right at the first part of your statement - but the mass component of space deformation has probably weak impact to the equilibrium of nuclear reactions in common cases - but nevertheless it's clearly observable as the well known dark matter effect.
You can imagine this as the cummulation of the mass-energy fluctuation of vaccuum in the proximity of the massive stellar objects, like gallaxies and quasars. Event in the Sun neighborhood is this effect observable as far as it slowens the motion of Pioneer and other satellites by about 1%.
Okay so this is pretty cool. I have a question though...
from REALITYCHECK's earlier statement
QUOTE
PARTIAL ANALOGY: If I shot a simultaneous stream of electrons and a stream of positrons to coincide just before reaching a common a target some distance away, the two streams would 'annihilate' into Gamma Ray Photons just before 'hitting', and would thus have totally different pressure/collision 'physical- effectiveness profile' to that of each of the positron/electron streams separately and in their original state. Of course, this is only a half-hearted analogy. The 'TRUE NEGATION' of the coinciding fluid constituents in any good Aether Model system would actually REMOVE ALTOGETHER, from 'our' level, any and all the incoming fluid's physical effectiveness, by producing lesser SUB-photonic 'wave-particle' constituents of the universal fluid which at some later stage would aggregate once more to physically-effective PHOTONS etc. (just as gamma rays produced by electron-positron pair annihilation may eventually coincide to re-produce electron-positron pairs once more---something which is observed to happen all the time).
UNQUOTE
Specifically where he states "by producing lesser SUB-photonic 'wave particle' constituents of the universal fluid"
Okay, so this means that the Aether occupies a dimension? See here I am confused, the website referred to earlier says that Time is not a dimension in the Aether theory, as was before postulated by Einstein . So the Aether assumes that dimension instead? Oops skipped a step, the "wave particle" constituents of the Aether would not be detectable at "our" level as quoted, so must be outside our 3 (or 4?) dimensions and in the Aether one? Do I have that right?
EDIT: Or is it more that they are in the area (sizewise) of Plancks constant, and just too small to detect?
Hehe By the way, I love String theory, (what I understand of it, got a couple excellent books I find fascinating) so the fact that this might help tie it all together is very exciting. What a cool time to be a physicist. (I am not, just a devoted physics fan).
from REALITYCHECK's earlier statement
QUOTE
PARTIAL ANALOGY: If I shot a simultaneous stream of electrons and a stream of positrons to coincide just before reaching a common a target some distance away, the two streams would 'annihilate' into Gamma Ray Photons just before 'hitting', and would thus have totally different pressure/collision 'physical- effectiveness profile' to that of each of the positron/electron streams separately and in their original state. Of course, this is only a half-hearted analogy. The 'TRUE NEGATION' of the coinciding fluid constituents in any good Aether Model system would actually REMOVE ALTOGETHER, from 'our' level, any and all the incoming fluid's physical effectiveness, by producing lesser SUB-photonic 'wave-particle' constituents of the universal fluid which at some later stage would aggregate once more to physically-effective PHOTONS etc. (just as gamma rays produced by electron-positron pair annihilation may eventually coincide to re-produce electron-positron pairs once more---something which is observed to happen all the time).
UNQUOTE
Specifically where he states "by producing lesser SUB-photonic 'wave particle' constituents of the universal fluid"
Okay, so this means that the Aether occupies a dimension? See here I am confused, the website referred to earlier says that Time is not a dimension in the Aether theory, as was before postulated by Einstein . So the Aether assumes that dimension instead? Oops skipped a step, the "wave particle" constituents of the Aether would not be detectable at "our" level as quoted, so must be outside our 3 (or 4?) dimensions and in the Aether one? Do I have that right?
EDIT: Or is it more that they are in the area (sizewise) of Plancks constant, and just too small to detect?
Hehe By the way, I love String theory, (what I understand of it, got a couple excellent books I find fascinating) so the fact that this might help tie it all together is very exciting. What a cool time to be a physicist. (I am not, just a devoted physics fan).
QUOTE (deadbeat+Sep 3 2005, 02:36 AM)
Oops skipped a step, the "wave particle" constituents of the Aether would not be detectable at "our" level as quoted, so must be outside our 3 (or 4?) dimensions and in the Aether one? Do I have that right?
Yes, completelly right. But it's a very common topology behavior, not special property of Aether. Even onto water surface you will not be abble to observe the underwater sound waves and/or its absolute movement just using a surface waves. Try to suggest it - the deformation of surface (i.e. space analogy) compensates exactly the "deformation" of surface waves frequency (i.e. analogy of time) perceived.
So these Aether properties are in excelent agreement with both the theoretical assumptions of relativity theory, both the experimental results (but negative results cannot serve as the definitive proof here, of course).
Yes, completelly right. But it's a very common topology behavior, not special property of Aether. Even onto water surface you will not be abble to observe the underwater sound waves and/or its absolute movement just using a surface waves. Try to suggest it - the deformation of surface (i.e. space analogy) compensates exactly the "deformation" of surface waves frequency (i.e. analogy of time) perceived.
So these Aether properties are in excelent agreement with both the theoretical assumptions of relativity theory, both the experimental results (but negative results cannot serve as the definitive proof here, of course).
QUOTE (deadbeat+Sep 2 2005, 02:20 AM)
Very interesting...Okay I have been doing some surfing, and am starting to find Aether theory very possibly exciting. Especially in regards the Twin paradox.
The twin phenomenon is one sided. Only the one
that traveled rapidly *through space* has the effect.
This means that by speeding up you can catch up
to the aether.
By speeding up you can catch up to time.
Time is a movement at the that magical quantity
we know of as the constant of the speed of light.
The twin phenomenon is one sided. Only the one
that traveled rapidly *through space* has the effect.
This means that by speeding up you can catch up
to the aether.
By speeding up you can catch up to time.
Time is a movement at the that magical quantity
we know of as the constant of the speed of light.
Nick,
What about FLATLAND? Is it possible with all the dark matter/energy out there?
What about FLATLAND? Is it possible with all the dark matter/energy out there?
What is space? What are its properties? Is all space the same? Are space and time really different aspect of the same thing? 
Has work been done, ala Mach or others, for the possibility of creating space?
From a thermodynamics standpoint, it has always bothered me that "empty" space has
physical constants associated with it ("free"space permiability/permitivity). Wouldn't the implicit
presence of order/rules in "empty" space require the space itself to require some energy or conversion of energy. I also realize there is really no such thing as completly empty space. Photons are present everywhere in the process of thermodynamic equlibrium for the materials within space.
But the photons within a given region of a bounded vacuum are limited in wavelength.....
Amrit
energy can not be created and not destroyed, space is energy,
space is build up out of quanta of space QS that are eternal, no creation, no destruction
see more: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4321
amrit
From a thermodynamics standpoint, it has always bothered me that "empty" space has
physical constants associated with it ("free"space permiability/permitivity). Wouldn't the implicit
presence of order/rules in "empty" space require the space itself to require some energy or conversion of energy. I also realize there is really no such thing as completly empty space. Photons are present everywhere in the process of thermodynamic equlibrium for the materials within space.
But the photons within a given region of a bounded vacuum are limited in wavelength.....
Amrit
energy can not be created and not destroyed, space is energy,
space is build up out of quanta of space QS that are eternal, no creation, no destruction
see more: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4321
amrit
I've been speculating for a little while now, about time-space. MMC mentioned a few weeks ago" infinitely nested 1-D strings" (thought this was an excellent concept).........which eventually mutated into the following:
A bizarre notion has crossed my mind...what if photons do not move, but are merely timeless events occurring at specific zero space coordinates?
All 1-D "distance" photons traverse, would equate to that very location!
With regards to this point, photons arrive in a simultaneous instant (the timeless present); this makes the present a mixture of Omnitime, where from different perspectives, the past & future are all combiened in the now, and as such each zero-space aspect can be thought of its own referenced universe.
A bizarre notion has crossed my mind...what if photons do not move, but are merely timeless events occurring at specific zero space coordinates?
All 1-D "distance" photons traverse, would equate to that very location!
With regards to this point, photons arrive in a simultaneous instant (the timeless present); this makes the present a mixture of Omnitime, where from different perspectives, the past & future are all combiened in the now, and as such each zero-space aspect can be thought of its own referenced universe.
Cosmic space is build out of quanta of space QS.
Photon is mass-less, it does not move into space, it is jumping from one QS to another QS of space. Particles with mass move into space and have speed slower the light speed.
QS have a size of Planck, photon jumping (movement )from one QS to another is a Planck time.
Planck distance / Planck Time = speed of light
see more: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4321
amrit
With regards to this point, photons arrive in a simultaneous instant (the timeless present); this makes the present a mixture of Omnitime, where from different perspectives, the past & future are all combiened in the now, and as such each zero-space aspect can be thought of its own referenced universe.
we experience movement of the photon into "mind-time frame"
movement......perception (eyes)......elaboration (mind-time frame).........experience (observer)
Motion of photon has no duration. The sense of duration we give it when we experience it into mind-time frame
We are living into timeless present, Einstein calls it NOW
see more my post: time-mind-observer-consciousness
amrit
Photon is mass-less, it does not move into space, it is jumping from one QS to another QS of space. Particles with mass move into space and have speed slower the light speed.
QS have a size of Planck, photon jumping (movement )from one QS to another is a Planck time.
Planck distance / Planck Time = speed of light
see more: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4321
amritWith regards to this point, photons arrive in a simultaneous instant (the timeless present); this makes the present a mixture of Omnitime, where from different perspectives, the past & future are all combiened in the now, and as such each zero-space aspect can be thought of its own referenced universe.
we experience movement of the photon into "mind-time frame"
movement......perception (eyes)......elaboration (mind-time frame).........experience (observer)
Motion of photon has no duration. The sense of duration we give it when we experience it into mind-time frame
We are living into timeless present, Einstein calls it NOW
see more my post: time-mind-observer-consciousness
amritQUOTE (fivedoughnut+Jan 31 2006, 10:01 AM)
A bizarre notion has crossed my mind...what if photons do not move, but are merely timeless events occurring at specific zero space coordinates?
Its not so bizarre idea, because I believe, the motion of each the particle (the photon spreading isn't the exception) can be described as the redistribution of the energy density formed by the mutual interaction of some more fundamental particles.
Its not so bizarre idea, because I believe, the motion of each the particle (the photon spreading isn't the exception) can be described as the redistribution of the energy density formed by the mutual interaction of some more fundamental particles.
fivedoughnut: A bizarre notion has crossed my mind...what if photons do not move, but are merely timeless events occurring at specific zero space coordinates?
amrit: there is no timeless event into the universe, time is motion, without motion an event can not happen
amrit: there is no timeless event into the universe, time is motion, without motion an event can not happen
Hi All!
If you have not done so... check out these presentation.
You could then answer my last question.
What can we do to try to detect the structured spacetime?
jal
Yin_Yang of spacetime
Inverse Square Law
and
ENTROPY-POTENTIAL ENERGY
If you have not done so... check out these presentation.
You could then answer my last question.
What can we do to try to detect the structured spacetime?
jal
Yin_Yang of spacetime
Inverse Square Law
and
ENTROPY-POTENTIAL ENERGY
It's my birthday chaps,
Zeph'......I'm very glad we think similar
Amrit,
I'm equally glad of our differences
Gonna get even more pissed than usual......45 years old....sh!t, that's five years away from an old fossil.......bollocks!
Zeph'......I'm very glad we think similar
Amrit,
I'm equally glad of our differences
Gonna get even more pissed than usual......45 years old....sh!t, that's five years away from an old fossil.......bollocks!
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.