Who said aether viscosity is ridiculously large ?

[ARANEV]

Who said approximately:

The viscosity of

the aether / vacuum state / zero-point-field / or whatever

is ridiculous / ridiculously large / great / high ?


This person had computed it using i.a. the c0 value of light speed.

What else was in the formula ?

/ Grateful for info ! / ARANEV

 

[Chalnoth]

Who said approximately:

The viscosity of

the aether / vacuum state / zero-point-field / or whatever

is ridiculous / ridiculously large / great / high ?


This person had computed it using i.a. the c0 value of light speed.

What else was in the formula ?

/ Grateful for info ! / ARANEV

Sorry, no idea. That model has been in the dustbin of history for a hundred years now. I never studied the details of it.

 

[Chronos]

It's an offshoot of the rigid aether thing.

 

[ARANEV]

ThankYou Chalnoth and Chronos for responding.

The "model" has indeed been in the "dustbin", but it appears, that like some other kinds of "dust" it has a tendency to creep out of the "dustbin" ! This may indeed try one's patience.

However, the who said "it" seemed to have reached a finite value (for whatever conditions), and the purpose of the statement was clearly exactly to put the "rigid aether theory" to "rest".
My reaction is, that finding some finite value does the opposite.

I heard "it" one or three years ago and haven't had an opportunity before to delve into it.

So, please, dear readers, every trace of "it" is of interest in order to lay the issue to rest
(or resurrect it), and every lead will be appreciated.

 

[Chalnoth]

ThankYou Chalnoth and Chronos for responding.

The "model" has indeed been in the "dustbin", but it appears, that like some other kinds of "dust" it has a tendency to creep out of the "dustbin" ! This may indeed try one's patience.

What's with all the spurious quotes? It's rather annoying...

But regardless, no, models generally don't creep out of the dustbin. Older models may sometimes inspire newer ones, but it isn't that common that a discredited model comes back. As in, almost never.

However, the who said "it" seemed to have reached a finite value (for whatever conditions), and the purpose of the statement was clearly exactly to put the "rigid aether theory" to "rest".
My reaction is, that finding some finite value does the opposite.

I heard "it" one or three years ago and haven't had an opportunity before to delve into it.

So, please, dear readers, every trace of "it" is of interest in order to lay the issue to rest
(or resurrect it), and every lead will be appreciated.

I do not understand what you are trying to say.

 

[George Jones]

Who said approximately:

The viscosity of

the aether / vacuum state / zero-point-field / or whatever

is ridiculous / ridiculously large / great / high ?


This person had computed it using i.a. the c0 value of light speed.

What else was in the formula ?

/ Grateful for info ! / ARANEV

Are you looking for a theoretical calculation of the cosmological constant?

 

[ARANEV]

ThankYou Chalnot and George Jones for responding.

To Chalnot: My quotes are not aimed at You. Please disregard them, if they pain You.
As for old theories sticking up their heads, this is common, even if they
still don't qualify. As for what I'm trying to say, I regret that I see no way
to be more clear. Please disregard it, if it pains You.

To George Jones: No, I am not looking for a theoretical value of the cosmological
constant. I am looking for who said "it" and how "it" was computed.

 

[Chalnoth]

To George Jones: No, I am not looking for a theoretical value of the cosmological
constant. I am looking for who said "it" and how "it" was computed.

What do you mean by it?

 

[ARANEV]

To Chalnot: I mean what I said initially, i.e. "Who said ..." etc.
and how the value was computed.

 

[Chalnoth]

To Chalnot: I mean what I said initially, i.e. "Who said ..." etc.
and how the value was computed.

Which value? The cosmological constant? Because that has never been computed. At least, no value has been computed that comes remotely close to the observed value.

The observed value came first from observations of Type IA supernovae from two separate groups, one led by Saul Perlmutter, and another led by Adam Riess, which discovered that the far-away supernovae were dimmer than expected. This result has since been confirmed by a wide variety of other observations, as well as further supernova observations.

Various calculations of the cosmological constant from first principles with different underlying assumptions yield values that are anywhere from $10^{30}$ to $10^{120}$ times larger than the observed value.

 

[ARANEV]

To Chalnot: As I observed in my response to George Jones, I am not interested in the
cosmological constant. As stated initially in this thread, I am interested
in viscosity. I didn't anticipate,that my interest would be regarded as so
opaque to comprehend. I'm sorry to have troubled You.

 

[Chalnoth]

To Chalnot: As I observed in my response to George Jones, I am not interested in the
cosmological constant. As stated initially in this thread, I am interested i.a.
in viscosity.

The viscosity of what?

 

[ARANEV]

To Chalnot:I refer You to the initial post on this thread.

 

[Chalnoth]

To Chalnot:I refer You to the initial post on this thread.

Then we're back to my original point. The Aether is a dead idea. Dead and buried.

 

[ARANEV]

To Chalnot: Indeed, some say so. Others don't.

 

[Chalnoth]

To Chalnot: Indeed, some say so. Others don't.

So far as I am aware, there are no reputable scientists pushing the aether theory.

 

[ARANEV]

If anybody else has a lead to the person mentioned in the initial post, I would be grateful to learn about it.

 

[ARANEV]

If anybody else has a lead to the person mentioned in the initial post, I would be grateful to learn about it.

 

[Bobbywhy]

ARENEV, it is always useful and helpful to post a question clearly and succinctly so that others can understand it. English appears to be not your first language, so I will make some attempt to "guess" what you are asking.

Aether does not exist, scientists believe. So, something that does not exist cannot have a viscosity.

 

[Bobbywhy]

“Viscous Gravitational Aether and the Cosmological Constant Problem”
Authors:Xiao-Mei Kuang, Yi Ling
(Submitted on 18 Jul 2009 (v1), last revised 29 Oct 2009 (this version, v2))

http://arXiv.org > gr-qc > arXiv:0907.3180Also, this “viscous aether” was discussed right here on PF more than five years ago:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=16150&st=15

 

[ARANEV]

To Bobbywhy: Most appreciative thanks ! Anyone else !?[ I'm still out to get (hold of) the person and formula mentioned initially ! ]

 

[Chronos]

The rigid aether thing goes all the way back to Maxwell, who was looking for a mechanical explanation. That obivously did not work.

 

[salvestrom]

You guys are making a really big meal out of this. The thread title was pretty clear. He wants to know if anyone can recall the name, and possibly additional details, of who said aether viscosity was ridiculously large.

 

[ARANEV]

To Chronos: Aristoteles' laws of movement also go a long way back.

To Salvestrom: A great chunk of thanks !
[Although it seems (almost) crüel to spoil their apetites ! ]

 

[ARANEV]

Anybody else have a lead ?

( Don't let any ... inhibit You ! )

 

[Chronos]

This was the best I could do -

"When Dr. Heinrich Hertz undertook his experiments from 1887 to 1889 his object was to demonstrate a theory postulating a medium filling all space, called the ether which was structureless, of inconceivable tenuity and yet solid and possessed of rigidity incomparably greater than that of the hardest steel."

Nikola Tesla, New Yord Herald Tribune September 22, 1929

Sir Oliver Lodge published the book 'Ether and Reality" in 1925, but, there is no online version.

 

[ARANEV]

To Chronos: The statement (approximately) cited initially, was made at most 3 years ago.
I expected, that by the wording it would be understood as recent.