The classical aether vs. the modern vacuum

[cyberdyno]

Why would one give the name "aether" to the vacuum (of QM) when it already has a perfectly good name?

Because that is its rightful name, given to it over four thousand years ago.

 

[cyberdyno]

Therefore, if you are an early 20th C physicist and you believe that the "aether" is Newton's absolute frame, then yes, you are wrong.

Einstein, Minkowski and Mach described a different aether. This twentieth century aether differs from earlier aethers in that in it objects are relative to other objects, not to empty space, therefore, there is no POR violation.

Empty space = aether

 

[cyberdyno]

So I pose this question again: what is all that different about a "stressed aether" giving rise to electric and magnetic fields, compared to an "excited vacuum" giving rise to an electromagnetic field?

Like Einstein said, there is no absolute space, space is an extension of matter. Space is not primary, nor fundamental, it does not exist by itself, it is a product, just as matter and time are products. Space is dynamic, it fluctuates, it tells matter where to go and matter tells it how to curve, remember? Empty space, on the other hand, is primary. You see, there is empty space and then there is material space, a mix of ZPR and CMBR particles. Einstein' spacetime is packed full of photons, that is where Inflation, the time cone, the time arrow, the Big Bang, 'false vacuum', etc., all come from. This why we now say space is grainy.

Locality, in spacetime, is a relation. Objects are relative to other objects, not to empty space.

The field is not to be seen as the ultimate irreducible reality, empty space is. But information starts with the field... with first quantum of action.

When we think about empty space we should stay away from notions that imply motion. Terms like infinity or velocity, size or duration... are not applicable. In this realm, we must think in terms of state, not in terms of process. Process happens in spacetime.

Because the aether is not composed of parts that follow a time line and the idea of motion is not applicable, we can safely say that the aether is one. Because it is one, there is no need for motion, there is no space or distance to cover, this is where non-locality and EPR phenomena come from. State, not knowledge, is registered throughout the Universe instantaneously, Mach was right.

---------

"...in topological quantum field theory we cannot measure time in seconds, because there is no background metric available to let us count the passage of time! We can only keep track of topological change."

"The topology of spacetime is arbitrary and there is no background metric."

"Quantum topology is very technical, as anything involving mathematical physicists inevitably becomes. But if we stand back a moment, it should be perfectly obvious that differential topology and quantum theory must merge if we are to understand background-free quantum field theories. In physics that ignores general relativity, we treat space as a background on which the process of change occurs. But these are idealizations which we must overcome in a background-free theory. In fact, the concepts of 'space' and 'state' are two aspects of a unified whole, and likewise for the concepts of 'spacetime' and 'process'. It is a challenge, not just for mathematical physicists, but also for philosophers, to understand this more deeply." ------ John C. Baez (from "Higher-dimensional algebra and Planck scale physics", as it appeared on the book "Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale" by Craig Callender and Nick Hugget)

 

[gamburch]

Cyberdyno:

Perhaps my overly long discussion of the difference between a space with four real coordinates and a time parameter containing an aether that has inertial and elastic properties is a bit obscure. Please be assured I am trying to keep its properties to the simplest I believe relevant. I thus ask you to envision a space with four real spatial dimensions. In this space is an aether with properties such that waves can propagate or the aether can flow as time goes by as seen by creatures in the four-space (if such creatures exist). Further suppose such creatures can cause disturbances in the aether that propagate at the speed of light with respect to the aether. The situation is no more complicated than a man in a boat dropping stones in the water or an airplane traveling through air. The leap I'm asking you to take is that this aether can be described with four spatial dimensions and that changes in the aether take place with respect to a universal time parameter. Please note this has nothing to do with any concept (that I know of) that was discussed in depth by Einstein, Mach, of anyone else.

Let us now consider that this ather is observed from frames of reference that move through the aether at the speed of wave propagation in the aether. Presumably such observations can only be imagined if observers are composed of waves traveling in some direction in the aether. The question is: What does such an observer see? In our world a analogous situation might be that of an airplane traveling at the speed of sound that can only send and receive sonic waves. In the case of the airplace that answer is discussed, for example, in Morse and Feshbach (Methods of Theoretical Physics( MacGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY. 1953, p 168). In summary, the pilot only "sees" a two dimensional subspace.

In the case of four-space an observer sees other observers, moving in slightly different directions, as traveling with respect to him in a three space at speeds slow compared to the speed of wave propagation. As the angle increases between observers, each will note effects exactly like Special Relativity. Thus in this model, we are really creatures of a four dimensional space, which space need have properties normally associated with the kind of causality envisioned before Special Relativity. We observe Special Relativity not because it is fundemental, but because we observe the aether from a frame of reference moving at the speed of signal propagation in the aether.

I have no argument if you insist that Special Relativity "is" because it is. After all there is nothing more to say. What I seek is an explanation for why the logical appeal of causality does not seem to apply with Special Relativity. Here is an explanation, however outlandish it might seem at the outset.

I don't believe it appropriate to discuss such matters here, but the set of assumptions involved with the model I presented do imply the validity of Mach's principle, the value of inertial forces, the pleasing concept that such forces do indeed arise from all other matter, Generl Relativity, and classical mechanics. As you note the concepts are purely classical so that and quantum effects are not discussed.

 

[Hurkyl]

Because that is its rightful name, given to it over four thousand years ago.

Seeing how the theory of quantum physics wasn't known four thousand years ago, I have trouble believing that one of its technical terms was named during that era.

 

[russ_watters]

Reading the first few posts, I fail to understand how the thread got this far. The OP correctly notes that the the classical ether is different from Einstein's ether and different from the QM vacuum. I'd have preferred it if Einstein hadn't used the word "ether" in that speech, but then the word "plane" is also used to describe utterly different things as well, so how big of a deal should that really be? Just because the same word is used, that doesn't make the concepts identical. Kids learn that concept in elementary school when learning to read. There really isn't anything else to this beyond that.

[note: yes, I see that this is a resurrected thread]

 

[russ_watters]

Seeing how the theory of quantum physics wasn't known four thousand years ago, I have trouble believing that one of its technical terms was named during that era.

Put another way, just because someone selected a pre-existing word to describe a new concept, that doesn't mean the new concept is the same as a previous concept that was given the same name.

I'm quite certain I could make a 4 year old understand this. It is sooooo trivial.

 

[cyberdyno]

Reading the first few posts, I fail to understand how the thread got this far. The OP correctly notes that the the classical ether is different from Einstein's ether and different from the QM vacuum. I'd have preferred it if Einstein hadn't used the word "ether" in that speech, but then the word "plane" is also used to describe utterly different things as well, so how big of a deal should that really be? Just because the same word is used, that doesn't make the concepts identical. Kids learn that concept in elementary school when learning to read. There really isn't anything else to this beyond that.

[note: yes, I see that this is a resurrected thread]

This notion of a primordial substance is a very old one, also known as Akasha or Brahman, and many times described as pure energy or spiritual fire. It has been anthropomorphized by man since the times of Plato and Aristotle, the Chaldeans and the Akkadians. It has been called by the names of Zeus, Jupiter, Brahma and other.

We are talking about a notion, not just a word.