Doesn't light's constant speed dictate an 'ether'?

[Nereid]

I read an article one time, and it might have bearing or enlightenment here on this topic. It was a Nobel Prize acceptance speech, I believe from one of the people that formulated weak interactions.

It was a very enlightening article. He (the author) talked about absolute quantities, like the speed of light, not as non-variating constants of nature, but as "non-observables" of symmetry breaking .. that is, we couldn't/didn't observe interactions that lead to that constant being broken in nature because of symmetry.

If anybody is interested, I could fish out the article, and cite a publication. It is a few pages long .. I couldn't post the whole article here. I could post it on a personal web site, but I'd have a hard time reproducing the formulas and special expressions/characters in it.

If it's as you say, then it should be available somewhere on the web; if you wouldn't mind taking the trouble to find it (or the author, title of the paper, date, ... something that PF members and guests who are dab hands at google can work on) then posting just a link would be helpful.

 

[Nereid]

Nereid - Although some experiments have been proposed to unambiguously determine which theory best describes reality - the issue may be more complex than a simple one or the other answer. If you read only a few of the many hundreds of articles that deal with the controversy, it is obvious that some of advocates on each side are very good at making their theory fit the facts. Moreover, there are some differences between relativists as to some issues (including the questions I have posed in my posts) and there are many differences among the Einstein Bashers.

Thanks yogi; this is partly why I used the words 'specific' and 'unambiguously'

If I can make a comparison with another area of physics: Alain Aspect performed an experiment to test Bell's Theorem. Specific predictions from competing theories were unambiguously different; Aspect's result was consistent with one theory (and subsequently other researchers have confirmed and extended Aspect's results).

What comparable examples can the 'ether' proponents give?

 

[russ_watters]

...there is a question pending for you and Janus - namely how do you explain the pion clock and the clock in the earth-alpha frame as posting different times when the pion arrives at alpha?? IS TIME DILATION REAL OR APPARENT?

Both of us already answered that question. How many times do you want it answered and in how many different ways?

Me:

Again, the usual problem people have with Einstein's Relativity is they are unwilling to make the jump from what the calculations say to the physically real: yes, yogi, I know its difficult to accept, but Einstein's Relativity is a mathematical model of a physically real phenomenon.

Janus:

The fact that triplet two measures the shorter distance is not just due to calculation, it is real for him.

I don't think we can state it any clearer than that.

 

[russ_watters]

yes, some of the persons who have acted as GPS consultants have advocated that the Lorentz ether theory better explains why you must use the Earth centered reference system in GPS.

So are you acknowledging now that SR works? It is mathematically equivalent to Lorentz ether...

You, like many anti-Relativity guys, seem to flip-flop between saying it works and it doesn't work. In fact, it's the various ether theories that only work where they are equivalent to Relativity.

Have another look at the title of this thread. Its a good question from someone who was admittedly ignorant: "Doesn't light's constant speed dictate [require] an aether?" Answer: unequivocably no. It doesn't rule one out eiter, but there is currently no evidence that can only be explained via an ether.

 

[billy_boy_999]

it's me, the ignoramus again...if i can hijack this monster I've created for a minute...

yes, russ, thank you for re-stating my question...the reason i started this thread was that i was struck with the notion that there must be something limiting light's speed...the thought that photons are dropped onto one of those moving luggage conveyers comes to mind...i thought the ether might explain why there is a speed limit...

so, to summarize and to try and grasp all of this stuff (alot of which is way over my head btw) the fact that light has a constant speed is not a result of an 'ethereal speed limit' a kind of 'ethereal density' that limits light propagation, but the value of 'c' is still very much tied to the properties of permeability and permittivity in vacuum...is that basically correct?

if so, then two more quick questions:

1. do maxwell's equations agree with/rely on these vacuum properties? or are they simply superfluous?

2. do modern ethereists(?) use these properties of vacuum to describe the new 'ether' (vacuum-ether?)?

...basically, i was just wondering - why exactly is c - c? 300,000km/s?

 

[quantumdude]

1. do maxwell's equations agree with/rely on these vacuum properties? or are they simply superfluous?

The permeability and permittivity constants are built into Maxwell's equations, as they are necessary for the numerical predictions to be correct. When one uses Faraday's and the Maxwell-Ampere law to derive the EM wave equation, those two constants combine in a particular way to form the constant c, the speed of light.

2. do modern ethereists(?) use these properties of vacuum to describe the new 'ether' (vacuum-ether?)?

Due to the lack of extant modern ether literature, I don't know. I think that kind of research is mostly found on, well, internet discussion boards.

...basically, i was just wondering - why exactly is c - c? 300,000km/s?

Because c=1/(e₀m₀)^1/2, and e₀=8.99E9 Nm²/C² and m₀=4pE-7 Tm/A.

Now if we could just figure out why those two constants have the value they do...

 

[yogi]

Russ - if you are saying that time dilation is real - fine - is that your unambiguous conclusion. If it is, it is in conflict with many relativists. I don't have a problem with it - but most relativists do - And from my previous discussions with janus I got the distinct impression that he regarded it as apparent. Apparently Einstein did not regard it as real because he introduced the notion of the acceleration at turn around to justify why the clocks could have different times when they were brought back together - an entirely unnecesary gimmick if in fact the clock attached to the traveling twin was already falling behind the stay-at-home clock before it begin its turn around.

Nereid - the most compelling aspect of the alternative theories is that they seek a physical explanation of "why" SR has proved to be a successful calculating tool - and if time dilation is real, then there should be a tie to physics - what is there about different reference frames that can account for time slippage? That is why persons like myself are intrigued with the subject - there is a mystery - and in spite of the criticism heaped upon us for not blindly endorsing SR, the doctrine creates questions. I never cease to be amazed at the cock sureness of the advocates on both sides. Near the end of his life Einstein expressed doubts about his own great legacy, so why should we not be allowed the same doubts.

As to the question originally posed by originator of this subject (billy boy) as to whether the constant velocity of c implies and ether, let me offer one other tid bit. Perhaps the velocity of light is determined by the velocity of expansion, rather than vice versa. Expansion creates spatial stress (Einstien referred to a stress-energy tensor) and Alan Guth has suggested that inflation may be an ongoing proposition - the permeability and permittivity of the void may be determined by this ongoing tension a la Hubble expansion. If so, then the velocity of light may be uniquely dependent upon the properties of the void. Since Russ has can pontificate that the vacuum doesn't determine the velocity of light - I will go on record otherwise.

 

[Nereid]

*SNIP

Nereid - the most compelling aspect of the alternative theories is that they seek a physical explanation of "why" SR has proved to be a successful calculating tool - and if time dilation is real, then there should be a tie to physics - what is there about different reference frames that can account for time slippage? That is why persons like myself are intrigued with the subject - there is a mystery - and in spite of the criticism heaped upon us for not blindly endorsing SR, the doctrine creates questions. I never cease to be amazed at the cock sureness of the advocates on both sides. Near the end of his life Einstein expressed doubts about his own great legacy, so why should we not be allowed the same doubts.

It seems that many folk are interested in SR from this "what's the physical reality" perspective. Seeing as how SR is 'just' a special case within GR, are you equally driven to examine alternatives to GR? Which such alternatives, that you are aware of, have as good a track record as GR of prediction and matching experiments and observations? How about QM/QFT? Aren't you even more interested to find alternatives which are less weird?

BTW, do you have a list of observational/experimental failures of SR or GR? To be frank, one of my frustrations is that none of the 'anti-s' has produced any.

Then there's utility - if GR and/or SR helps make the GPS work, or is necessary to calculate the band structures in semi-conductors (via QED), or explains the observed orbital decay rate in binary pulsars, ... why struggle with a set of much weaker alternatives?

 

[yogi]

As a mater of fact, there are very good reasons for considering alternatives to both GR and QED. GR is an incomplete theory because it does not predict the value of G - and it does not tell us why mass warps space. QED is but an alternative technique for resolving the perturbation expansion - Feynman searched diligently for a physical reality - ultimately proposing virtual photons. The fact that QED works great for the second order effect (gyromagnetic ratio) doesn't mean virtual photons really exist, QED does not explain at all why the electron has the charge it does - you have to put the numbers in by hand.

Why study alternatives? - to put the question is to answer it -- alternatives may lead to a better understanding of space - The inflow theory for example makes all the same predictions as GR To me, the fact that one has to put in the value of the constants by hand in all standard theories should provoke every thinking person to think further - i don't happen to believe that G, c, e, h or any of the other so called constants are God given values - there is a physical reason why they have the values they have - and existing theory(s) in general do not deal with these questions - yes GR, SR and QED are good tools - but some of us are not content with formulas just because they give right answers - whether the alternatives are "weaker" remains to be seen - you have been taught one way - if technically educated individuals cannot see beauty in the mysterious - the unknown, the yet to be discovered - that is unfortunate.

"It is a wonder that modern methods of instruction have not totally strangled the holy grail of curiosity" ... Albert Einstein

As for the failures of the standard theories - they cannot be called failures per se - it can always be asserted that standard theory gives an adequate account as did the geocentric theory (for a while). But by who's definition is a failure identified - things get subjective quickly - some results that can only be explained with difficulty in one theory dissolve within the framework of another.



"

 

[Nereid]

Thanks for the clarifications yogi.

What is 'the inflow theory'?

Do you have a list of observational/experimental failures of SR or GR?

 

[russ_watters]

Russ - if you are saying that time dilation is real - fine - is that your unambiguous conclusion. If it is, it is in conflict with many relativists. I don't have a problem with it - but most relativists do - And from my previous discussions with janus I got the distinct impression that he regarded it as apparent.

Set two clocks on Earth to the same time. Launch one into orbit for a few days, weeks, months, years. Return the traveling clock to earth. Compare the readings. The readings are now different. That is real.

I would very much like to see a citation of anyone who accepts relativity who doesn't accept this (seems like an oxymoron).

Apparently Einstein did not regard it as real because he introduced the notion of the acceleration at turn around to justify why the clocks could have different times when they were brought back together - an entirely unnecesary gimmick if in fact the clock attached to the traveling twin was already falling behind the stay-at-home clock before it begin its turn around.

No, its necessary to take into account the acceleration at turn around because it changes the inertial reference frame of that clock. That's the whole point of relativity (and the twins paradox) that you are calling "unnecessary."

it's me, the ignoramus again...if i can hijack this monster I've created for a minute...

Its your thread, you can do what you want. Hopefully, Tom had you covered there...

 

[Janus]

Russ - if you are saying that time dilation is real - fine - is that your unambiguous conclusion. If it is, it is in conflict with many relativists. I don't have a problem with it - but most relativists do - And from my previous discussions with janus I got the distinct impression that he regarded it as apparent. Apparently Einstein did not regard it as real because he introduced the notion of the acceleration at turn around to justify why the clocks could have different times when they were brought back together - an entirely unnecesary gimmick if in fact the clock attached to the traveling twin was already falling behind the stay-at-home clock before it begin its turn around.

I never meant to give the impression that I regarded time dilation as apparent. I consider it, as well as length contraction, as very real, as do most relativists.

When triplet 1 says that x amount of time passed for triplet 2 because time ran slower for triplet 2, that is real. When triplet 2 says that x amount of time passed for him because the distance separating him and triplet 1 is shorter, that is also real. Neither of these realities is any real than the other or has precedence, and there is no other level of reality that exists and has precedence over them. They are as real as real gets.

Relativity does not say that time and space appear differently in different frames of reference, but that time and space are different in different frames of reference.

 

[yogi]

Nereid - the inflow theory regards gravitational attraction as consequent to spatial inflow into masses - if space is substantive (and I don't mean that it is made of particles that have mass) then the theory assumes that matter absorbes space - so in essence space flows radially inwardly and its velocity at every point exactly corresponds to the escape velocity at the radius where the force is measured - other masses are carred along by the inflow and the force required to hold them at the same radial distance from the attraction corresponds to gravity - the equations lead to the same force field as GR . The best thing in its favor is that it nicely ties time dilation in SR with Time dilation in GR - that is - if you calculate what the clock rate should be in a frame that moves at velocity v relative to the Earth for example, this corresponds to the clock rate that corresponds to the same altitude for a clock in the Earth's G field. Tom Martin has a number of articles posted on the internet which give a mathematical description of the theory. Tom also has suggested several test which would show whether it makes better predictions than GR in the situation where the G field is balanced between the Earth and the moon. Having said on this - don't ask me to defend it .. my personal feeling is that it is enlightening - and it may lead to something - but I don't have any better feeling about why mass sucks in space than understanding how or why mass bends space.

 

[yogi]

Janus - I think we have a problem in semantics - the word "real" The question posed is" What does the pion clock read in the frame of the pion when it reaches alpha and decays vs what does the Earth clock read when the pion reaches alpha and decays" - it is not a question of what the Earth based twin interprets as the rate at which time passes in the other twins frame - that is a subjective reality. If the two clocks have logged different times when the event is ended (the pion reaches alpha and decays)
then time slippage is real - that is the reality to which my thought experiment was directed -- and if the two clocks have in fact logged different times when the decay takes place - how can it be argued that acceleration and frame changing is needed - as Russ asserts. If the two clocks run at different rates - there is no paradox - but there is an intrinsic asymmetry from the start --- and that obviates the need for any further speculation re changing frames - acceleration - passing off information etc

 

[yogi]

Janus - again - your comment with regard to the reality of the contraction indicates to me that you are using the word "real" but what you describe is apparent because it always entails observations from one frame to the other. Real length contraction properly belongs in Lorentz Ether Theory - and as you well know, the primary reason why the ether theory was suspect is because it required molecules, atoms, electron wave lengths, etc, whatever, to all shrink to fit the contraction hypothesis. The big appeal of SR was that it did not require ad hoc propositions that depended upon mechanical dynamics. If a high spped particle could traverse the universe in a short amount of time, - this doesn't mean the universe has physically shrunk. What is measured by the high speed particle is not the "real" size of the universe - it may appear to be smaller to the particle - and you can even say that the shorter travel distance appears "real" to the photon - but the operative word is "appears" , not "real"

 

[russ_watters]

I never meant to give the impression that I regarded time dilation as apparent. I consider it, as well as length contraction, as very real, as do most relativists.

Ugh, please don't call yourself that. You're a scientist. "Relativist" (like "evolutionist") is a label made up by non-scientists to invoke comparisons to religious beliefs.

Yes, yogi - the problem here is partially semantic. It appears that you don't like the word "real." We've explained it several times and it seems you just plain don't like it and don't want to accept it. Will the dictionary definition help? http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=real

1. Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence: real objects; a real illness.

You're bending the definitions of "real" and "apparent" because you don't like the fact that the phenomena that Relativity discuses are physically real. By saying the size of the universe (for example) that we measure is only "apparent," you imply that there is another size to the universe that is "real." There is not. No, the universe does not change size when measured by someone else, it is that size to someone else.

Maybe you don't like the idea that something can be two (or an infinite number) of different sizes at the same time. It doesn't make sense in traditional logic. I don't know what to tell you other than whether it makes sense in your version of logic or not doesn't matter. The universe doesn't have to conform to your wishes, it is what it is.

You do have a lot of company. A lot of people, even good scientists (even Einstein himself) have fallen into the trap of trying to set up the universe the way they want it and not the way it actually is.

 

[Janus]

To use an analogy.

Would you consider the kinetic energy of a bullet fired from a gun as real? (I'm sure you would if you were standing in its path.) But an object's kinetic energy is entirely dependent on on its relative velocity. To an ant riding on the bullet, its KE would be zero, To someone else moving relative to you it might be more or less. Does the fact that the KE is different for different observers make the KE only apparent to these observers and not real? When the bullet hits you does it only seem to carry a whallop?

Likewise, time and space are dependant on relative velocity, and the fact that they are different for different frames of reference does not make them any less real.

 

[yogi]

Janus - I see nothing negative in calling yourself a relativist - you have consistently presented the traditional interpretation of relativity on these boards - and I have yet to see you depricate others who have different views. I am now pondering your kinetic energy analogy - and will have something to say a little later - but the wife is calling me that its time to watch the Apprentice,. More later.

 

[yogi]

Back to janus - Energy, whether it be kinetic or potential, is not substantive in per se - it is a characteristic property of the relative-ness of two differences - in the case of potential energy, we can define the zero for example at the Earth's surface - and make measurements of the gravitation potential referred thereto - the same is true for kinetic energy - it can only have meaning with reference to something with respect to which it is moving - it is not something absolute - it is conceptual -- a property whose magnitude is defined by reference to something else. In the case of the universe, we can consider that total energy is always zero if we pick an initial negative potential that will cancel all the positive energy.

So yes - if you say there is a real energy difference between two moving bodies - that would be a correct statement - but I don't see how it can be said that either one has a real energy assocated with it. In the case I have been trying to make - we would say that a clock at rest with the high speed particle has a real (proper time) associated with it - it is not relative to anything and it goes on and ticks away at the same speed irrespective of the velocity of the particle. And the clock in the Earth frame measures the proper time for the event, and this is a real time that transpires whether or not high speed particles are traveling by or not. These two times I call real - there is a relative difference between the rate at which the two clocks run - I calal that real time dilation - but unlike the energy analogy, these two times exist independent of any interaction or experiment - contrary wise energy only has meaning where there is some reference by which it is measured.

 

[Nereid]

An answer to a simple question would be appreciated

yogi, I've asked this of you at least twice, but not seen any reply. May I ask again?

Thanks yogi; this is partly why I used the words 'specific' and 'unambiguously'

If I can make a comparison with another area of physics: Alain Aspect performed an experiment to test Bell's Theorem. Specific predictions from competing theories were unambiguously different; Aspect's result was consistent with one theory (and subsequently other researchers have confirmed and extended Aspect's results).

What comparable examples can the 'ether' proponents give?

Do you have a list of observational/experimental failures of SR or GR?

 

[yogi]

HI Nereid - yes - I know you have asked this question more than once - I apologize for not responding to it. To cite the several experimental results where some form of ether theory is more efficacious than SR would require a lot of explaining and the entire topic here would become a proliferating debate. Let may say first I am not an etherist in same sense as a Lorentz etherest - I have never been able to accept the idea of actual physical contraction of material objects - but I have reached some tenative conclusions of an aethereal dynamic - that space whatever it is, behaves as though it can move, and that motion with respect to it is not meaningless as posited by SR. Einstein ultimately rejected Mach's idea of distant matter being the casue of inertial reaction...in favor of a local property of space. I believe that is correct. The sagnac experiment can be explained with SR, GR or classically in terms of an ether - which is better is the cause of much debate. The anisotrophy of the CBR and the diurnal variation in the anisotropy strongly support the notion that the Earth's absolute speed with respect to some cosmic ethereal rest frame can be detected - this is in conflict with Einstein's fundamental premise upon which the second postulate is based (you might look-up some of the derivations put forth by Selleri as to how SR would need to be modified in connection therewith). The notion of a space in tension is supportive of the idea of a medium that admits of transverse electromagnetic wave propagations: And in connection with my posts above - if time dilation is real, there must be a physical reason for that result - SR does not propose any mechanism - but, it cannot be said that an ether is absolutely essential for the explanation - it simply simplifies the twin and triplet problems so there is not even an apparent illusion of a paradox - my own special interest has to do with the fact that expansion creates certain properties which predict the velocity of light, the value of the gravitational constant, and some other things which are off the subject. These consequences cannot exist if space is static void - so for me some form of dynamic ether is essential - but I am not an Einstien critic - It is to hs credit that he continually re-evaluated his contributions in the light of new data. I hope that sort of answers your query as to why I believe there is reason to continue one's thinking - lest we do not fall into the trap of accepting all we are taught as absolute truth - when that happens we will put an unjustified burden upon theoritical work at the forefront of physical research.

 

[russ_watters]

HI Nereid - yes - I know you have asked this question more than once - I apologize for not responding to it. To cite the several experimental results where some form of ether theory is more efficacious than SR would require a lot of explaining and the entire topic here would become a proliferating debate...

Translation: you know of no such observational/experimental failures of SR/GR.

The sagnac experiment can be explained with SR, GR or classically in terms of an ether - which is better is the cause of much debate.

No, which is better is determined by following the scientific method. The scientific method is clear on this point.

my own special interest has to do with the fact that expansion creates certain properties which predict the velocity of light, the value of the gravitational constant, and some other things which are off the subject. These consequences cannot exist if space is static void - so for me some form of dynamic ether is essential.

That is correct, but Relativity does not say space is a static void. There is no issue there.

 

[yogi]

Hi Russ - perhaps I can best summarize my view with regard to the special theory is that it describes a surface treatment of a deeper reality - it works for the same reason that abreviations work to convey an idea - the relativist (you will pardon the expression) can take solice in the fact that the short hand formulations are not going to be vitiated because they are exactly that - they are a proper mathematical representation that is derived by fiat (two postulates) which in actuality describes an underlying physical truth, but not yet discovered. As you point out, relativity doesn't assert anything about the void - being silent on the subject - we are left with a correlation problem - to conform the underlying physics so that the relativistic transforms are in agreement therewith (sort of a correspondence principle to borrow an idea from Bohr).

 

[billy_boy_999]

this might seem facile or naive, but its seems that if relativists (pardon) accept that the void is not essentially empty and etherists (pardon again) accept that there is no classical 'ether' then there really is nothing but semantics to argue...we all see that SR, GR make good predictions, and we also see that SR, GR are not complete 'unified' theories of physics and there must be something to add to it, or some new light to see it in...where is the argument?

i don't think anyone has made a good scientific argument to support a comprehensive ether theory...but then again i don't think that was the point, was it? 'ether' seems to be a valid and potentially significant tool for theoretical speculation...

 

[yogi]

Billy Boy - I would say that is a very good observation -

 

[jdavel]

bill boy said: "this might seem facile or naive..."

Yes it does!

"if relativists (pardon) accept that the void is not essentially empty"

I think I'm in the group you call relativists, so please explain what you mean by "the void" and what it means if I accept that it "is not essentially empty"

And what is " a classical ether"?

What is "a conmprehensive ether theory"?

Whether I'd agree with your statement that "'ether' seems to be a valid and potentially significant tool for theoretical speculation..." depends on your definition of ether, if you have one.

In short, since your post is so full of terminology that's either not defined in physics or is not defined the way you seem to be using it, the physics content of your post is negligible. The great progress in physics that began 400 years ago, began because people who called themselves physicists stopped talking this way and started ignoring people who didn't.

 

[billy_boy_999]

jdavel - if my terminology is unscientific or difficult to understand i apologize...

"the void" refers to the vacuum

the proposition that the vacuum "is not essentially empty" refers to the fact that there seem to be factors of permeability and permittivity that mean it is not a physically empty "void" - there seem to be physical properties of the quantum vacuum that cannot be discarded...as well it is "not static" (which may or may not be relevant)...

"classical ether" - i was referring to something like local-ether, or particulate ether...i admit to not understanding the complexities of 19th century ether theory...is this something close to a decent definition of "classical ether"...?

"a comprehensive ether theory" - a complete field theory that makes firm predictions (as Nereid has wisely suggested), especially ones that differ from SR or GR (Special Relativity or General Relativity)

Whether I'd agree with your statement that "'ether' seems to be a valid and potentially significant tool for theoretical speculation..." depends on your definition of ether, if you have one.

that is a bit like saying, it may be a valid area for theoretical speculation if your theory is good...which in a way is quite fair enough...but i think it is useful to draw a line between "theory" and "speculation"...surely you're not condemning "speculation" in theoretical physics?

on second thought, i think this argument is not really so much about semantics as much as it is about this physics forum - what is this forum for? fact or speculation? or more specifically, if an admitted ignoramus asks a question is it wise to answer only with fact? or is it good to add speculation?

i think it is good and edifying to add speculation because it shows the limit of current facts - where current knowledge stops...but then on this it is perhaps best to ask the ignoramus...

 

[Nereid]

What if that something, that aether/ether is distance itself. Distance gives you the ability to have dimension. Therefor that ether IS distance
here it is in math form
D=E(t)
Distance Energy Time respectively

(time is rate of time passage, NOT measuring from a starting point)

Can you account for the results from the various MMx (Michelson-Morley experiments) using this idea? Show us how!

 

[jdavel]

Can you account for the results from the various MMx (Michelson-Morley experiments) using this idea? Show us how!

Nereid,

In this thread (and most others here on SR) theories don't really have to account for any experimental result. Theories just are. Questioning the value of proposing theories that might be (even if they don't account for anything) is thought by most people still posting in these threads to be proof of a severely closed mind. So watch yourself!

The best thing to do is say something like "What if the ether is really the flow of time through the classical void (of course, Lorentz transformed), and the one-way premittivity of spacetime is just the essence of this flow, proving that the speed of light isn't constant?" Then sit back and wait for somebody to say, "That's a good point."

 

[selfAdjoint]

Theories that don't accept the discipline of comparison to reality are usually moved to the Theory Development board. They can be as righteous as they want there without confusing newbies.