As a physicist (specialty is in QCD physics) I would say your interest is motivated by a fundamental misperception, one that drove late 19th century physics into bad ideas through insistence on mechanical examples as they were used to them. The same intransigence led to utter confusion over quantum effects once they were noticed. Fundamental field entities are not based on a "waving" of anything. You are confusing the fact that the (differential) equations that describe particle dynamics have solutions that resemble those for mechanical waves in media for the entities themselves. In fact, once you give on such literal models and allow, e.g., for quantum entities to be represented as state vectors in a Hilbert space (the modern and correct view, as it turns out), the whole notion of waving of something becomes almost obsolete. One gets oscillatory (i.e., complex) terms once "into the grass" of making calculations with Lagrangians, one sees these as mathematical phases that belong in integrals, and not about the fundamental nature of the entities one is examining. The wave nature of light is an effective description of (interfering) photons that we see on a human scale. The effects are indeed as we all have witnessed in high school teachings using waves of water as a model, but this must NOT be taken too literally.
You have eloquently epitomized the misguided perspective of most modern physicists. You want to replace physical existence with math. This is nonsense; mathematical concepts don't have physical existence, they are man's mental tools for grasping quantitative relationships among physical existents. There are no integrals and Hilbert spaces in these physical phenomena, the physical phenomena have a particular nature and we invent these mathematical abstractions to describe that nature. The real power of science lies in identifying new physical existents and manipulating their properties for productive ends. Under your philosophy of science we cannot identify further physical existents because you say that looking for them is a misperception, and that we should focus just on math. This only allows us to describe the phenomena we are already aware of, it does not allow us to infer the existence of new phenomena. Your treatment of math as physically real is metaphysically nonsensical and is an epistemic dead-end. This is exactly what I seek to change.
@@Inductica It is clear that you are working under a category error. You wish to take an exposition - such as the description of physical entities, at one time given as waves -for the object itself. The is no other ontology than the wavefunction of objects, as I explained best explained by objects not involving waves in the first place. This by itself blows any attempt to seek answers about some putative underlying nature of some "wave object" described by the same logic that YOU claim. I would advise learning MUCH more of modern physics than you have latched on to, especially QFT (an especially successful description of the micro-structure of nature), and forget the search for human-like concepts which have only held us back for centuries. Honest to God, only metal tools? What do you call the epistomological status of the classical images you want to invoke?
@@ExistenceUniversity how the hell did this guy get through undergrad and a masters (or was it the application for a masters)??? I did a proper QED course, and I'm not even a physics major (I just got a minor).
We must renounce the efforts to understand sub-atomic phenomena. -Niels Bohr Karl Popper despised this view as it challenged the very essence of scientific inquiry and the possibility of understanding the natural world through empirical means. You sound like a Bohrian! I'm more of a Popperian! Structure the shell and the core or GTFO with abstract geometry that doesn't have a GEOMETRICAL REPRESENTATION! You are writing SCIENCE FICTION with Mythomatics but Star Wars does it better with words!
@@ffc1a28c7 That's not fair to say, regarding all of those who challenged existing theories and turned out to be right. Having an alternative theory does not mean you are inferior in handling the existing. @Inductica has a good point criticizing a pure theoretical framework (math) being taken as reality. It leads us to absurdities like singularities, where, from a physical standpoint, it's much more likely that the framework is incomplete. On the other hand, there is a strong argument against his view: "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences". The fact that math can explain reality so well in "simple" terms, is an indication for physics _being_ that simple. Instead of math being constructed by humans, we can say it's discovered by humans as a part of discovering reality. The relations in math _are_ part of our physical reality. How it's described, however, in terms of symbols and conventions, are human constructs.
"However, we will find here that particles do not exist at all! Everything we see as a particle is, in fact, a wave pulse which is propagating through space. Space is not a neutral void anywhere in the universe. Space always has intrinsic properties, being the ability to have electromagnetic fields. Space also has the energy which is contained in the electromagnetic fields. The goal then becomes to understand exactly what the properties of space are. It turns out that most of the work has already been done. Maxwell's equations in free space, by their form, virtually demand the interpretation as intrinsic properties of space. Furthermore, these equations have already been well supported experimentally. Every time one listens to the radio or watches television, Maxwell's equations are being verified." This is from the book "The Electromagnetic Universe 7th Ed." This book can give you the math to back up your general arguments.
The notion of particles as fundamental building blocks of matter is seen as an incomplete and inadequate description of physical reality. Instead, the idea of fields and their interactions is emphasized, and particles are seen as a manifestation of these fields in certain circumstances. Therefore, it can be argued that particles exist only as a useful mathematical abstraction, but they are not fundamental physical entities." J.C.Maxwell: “This medium of propagation, the Ether, must exist. This medium must be a prominent thought in our investigations” A. Einstein: "…… in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical, as we will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity. It does remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states…once again “empty” space appears as endowed with physical properties, i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to special relativity. One can thus say that the ether is resurrected in the general theory of relativity….Since in the new theory, metric facts can no longer be separated from “true” physical facts, the concepts of “space” and “ether” merge together." (“Grundgedanken und Methoden der Relativitätstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt,” Morgan Manuscript, EA 2070, as cited in Ludwik Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, 2000, p. 2.) P. Dirac 1951: “…..We have now the velocity at all points of space-time, playing a fundamental part in electrodynamics. It is natural to regard it as the velocity of some real physical thing. Thus with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aether”. R. Laughlin, Nobel price in physics 1993: “About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that an empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space confirmed everyday by experiment is a relativistic ether but we do not call it this because it's taboo." (A Different Universe, 2005) The Ether is envisioned as a medium that stores all available energy in the universe, acting as a reservoir for potential and kinetic energies. Energy creation and transformation take on new dimensions as the Ether allows for the generation, storage, and release of energy through interactions with fields, particles, and forces. Analogous to a capacitor in electrical circuits, the Ether accumulates and modulates energy, impacting the dynamics of particles, fields, and cosmic events. Energy exchanges within the Ether drive field interactions, particle behaviors, and emergent phenomena, shaping the energetic landscapes of the cosmos. Theoretical speculations on the Ether as an energy reservoir inspire imaginative explorations into energy dynamics, leading to new theoretical frameworks and experimental investigations. Considering the Ether's capacitive nature offers insights into alternative scenarios of cosmic evolution, energetic phenomena, and the interconnectedness of energy transformations in the universe's fabric. By integrating the concept of the Ether as an energy reservoir akin to a capacitor in cosmic dynamics, a speculative framework emerges that invites contemplation on the energetic foundations of the universe, energy creation mechanisms, and the dynamic interplay of energy forms within cosmic processes. This perspective sparks theoretical reflections, creative ponderings, and interdisciplinary discussions on the energetic dimensions of cosmic events beyond gravitational influences. if you'd like to explore any specific aspect further, feel free to let me know!
@@tinyear926 this "ether" isn't merely a "medium" that "stores" energy! It's what everything is made of! It's that "dialectical material" from Marx and Engels' "dialectical materialism"! The material simply has to be energized in a certain way for it to "become" "matter"!
"The Ether is envisioned as a medium that stores all available energy in the universe, acting as a reservoir for potential and kinetic energies." EXACTLY!
“The modern concept of the vacuum of space confirmed everyday by experiment is a relativistic ether but we do not call it this because it's taboo.”: may be it’s not because it would be taboo, and rather because it’s inadequate in at least one way: unlike what the word suggests, it’s not material and does not behave like it (unless proven otherwise): think about wind of aether. If what’s material emanates from it (as suggested), then it cannot be material itself. So far, sure the vacuum does not exists as in the common sense, but to give this physical reality, a name which would suggest it is as what this name suggested in the past (which is how it would be understood), would be misleading. Better avoid a word with two opposite definitions, this is a too good way to confuse non-interchangeable concepts.
Yes they are, a bunch of cavemen sitting in the more or less dark debating what the sparkling things in the night sky really are. They can tell you some things about them, but they don't have any real information.
Waves don't move, but their energy does. We see waves moving on the ocean, but the water is only displaced at 90 degrees to the ocean (amplitude of the wave) and does not move in the direction that the wave is travelling; we see the wave moving, but it is only the displacement energy that is moving. The wave peak is perceived as an object against the rest state of the ocean (ether). I can't help but wonder whether this is the same for 'particles'. Is it the wave/particle that is moving, or is it just the energy recreating that wave/particle at every moment?
Interesting thought. Mechanical waves behave in this way and have speed defined by the medium not related to the speed of the sender. That is why a plane can fly faster than the soundwave it creates. Sorry I have no clue if there is a relation here to light.
its not actually moving 90deg, it is tower of circular motions. watch vid from fractalwoman: An Aether Model of Electricity : The Missing Secret of Magnetism
feynman as an undergraduate saw this problem. he told his prof he could not visualize electromagnetic radiation. the prof said it was not possible to do that and what we have is a theory that is useful in making predictions and in making technology like radios and radar but the ultimate question of what it is remains open.
Feynman didn't produce a new theory. That shows you, I guess. What Feynman did do was create a shorthand in order to make many many calculations break down in a way that could be visualized on a chalk board. All that MATH is still there. But, it is a shorthand for being able to keep track of ALL of those probability curves, and all of that statistics and boiling it down so that the human brain didn't have to keep track as much. Neat trick, but not a new theory. It didn't turn science on its head. It made doing science and communicating it easier... The real physics is still in the mathematics. Feynman made a short hand. He didn't make a new theory. He usurped nothing. Quantum Mechanics, QED and QCD are based on working out all of the probabilities and possibilities. And you can't even begin to approach statistics without mathematics. Feynman's neat trick absolutely falls short when it comes to QCD becaue you would need a blackboard the size of god to draw all those neat pictures. That's why you need to rely on computers instead and do a lot of number crunching....because the number of calculations goes through the roof.
The key for the next revolution in physics is in bad understanding of what wave and waving in quantum physics means, so you have to pull old dead scientific phantoms as aether to try to explain something?? I don't think so. Waves in water or in air have nothing to do with what is unfortunately still called waves in quantum physics.
Talking about wave seems to save words, the exact term seems to be wave functions (two words instead of one). Also, there seems to be a good enough physical model (not exact) of these quantum level waves: th-cam.com/video/WIyTZDHuarQ/w-d-xo.html
@@Inductica I am saying that wave as a word has different meanings, when we talk about waves of water, waves of ait, and wave as in wave-particle duality, all those "waves" have slightly different meanings.
@@mntlblok yup. Oddly enough, I still remember what I saw as I was going under. Of course I didn't know what it was at the time, but it was the image of my own magnaelectric vibration, and it was spooky.
The problem with quantizing gravity isn't with putting together a quantum theory of gravity, it's with putting together one that has predictive power for phenomena that we have not yet observed. Naive approaches to quantizing gravity end up with an infinite number of free parameters that have to be specified, so you can basically use them to come up with any possible theory of quantum gravity. Meanwhile, physicists are looking out for Lorentz violations, which, among other things, could indicate the presence of an ether. But the fact is that the phenomena available for us to observe with our present technology simply don't provide us with the data we need to decide between different alternatives, so it makes the most sense to just specify the math that describes what we see and leave it at that until we see something new. I'll also note that it's quite possible that the underlying "what's waving" isn't necessarily accessible to us, and might not even be constant across the lifetime of the universe. Assume, for instance, that the universe is a computer simulation. In that case "what's waving" is a bunch of numbers in a computer's memory. But assuming no bugs in the simulation, in the compiler, or in the operating system or hardware, the particulars of the simulation environment would be entirely unobservable to us. And let's assume that a new computer model comes out. The simulation state is saved to disk, the simulator is recompiled on the new computer, for a different instruction set, different OS, different system libraries, using a new compiler, and then the simulation state saved on the old computer is restated on the new one. Assuming no bugs, we won't notice a thing: the universe will continue evolving and we won't even notice that it ever paused. Even if the representation of the data and the way the calculations are performed changes drastically, the behavior we see will be identical.
I think the point that some things are inaccessible to us through measurement is an extremely important one and that perhaps physicists should move beyond only the strictly observable and falsifiable and introduce other kinds of knowledge in the quest of pinning down the "theory of everything". For example, social sciences are sometimes frowned upon by physicists but there's no denying they can discover useful insights about reality, and I would dare to argue that such insights should also be used to decide between various theories/interpretations of reality. Useful would even be to assign Bayesian probabilities to various metaphysical interpretations so as to highlight the most likely reality we're living in. I think this would be much better than just saying "hmm, we can't observe this so we don't know".
The problem with quantizing gravity is that "they" don't know which formulas to use and/or how to combine them: do we have to use a "Riemannian-4-manifold" or a different one, do we have to use a "commutative" operator or an "anti-commutative" one? And other such too-abstract-too-"simple"-(mathematical)-concepts.
@@karinacollins1192 It's not knowledge you seek, it's qualification of oneself. Perhaps you might consider a different question? Waving; Prorogates; Space??? It's the paradigm one presupposes that induces the falsehood. Think outside the paradigm and ask a different question. Love your passion.
I feel like a lot of this is arguing over which semantic interpretation of a complex reality we want to use for the exact same phenomena. Spacetime/Aether/Ether/Cosmic Lasagna - we think the numerals we use to define quantities are better somehow than the languages we use are at describing actual phenomena. Math is a language. Telling you about the juicy apple I just ate compares to the actual experience in what way? An interpretive way. Is my interpretation accurate? Maybe to some degree, maybe most of the time, to most people. But not everyone, not everywhere. Math is a much more precise language, but it still suffers the same inadequacy of description. The equations are me telling you how juicy the apple is precisely. Just as far from the "actual" reality as any other description. Math is wonderful. I love it. But please, don't think it's perfect or ever should be.
Nope. If aether exists then Special Relativity is wrong. And since Einstein is a protected diety, his dogmas must be protected even if they are wrong. Hence, the theory of aether must stay obscured so that scientists keep ignoring it.
What strikes me is all the smug assertions of certainty in the comments when the comments are all so very different from one another whether they agree or disagree with the accepted answers. Each person seems to think that only they know the truth, even though they seem to disagree on what that truth is. I see a lot of ego but I'm not so sure ego is synonymous with the truth, in fact I have good reason to think the greater the ego the less likely the analysis is accurate. The desire to be correct does not tend to lead to understanding, it is the desire to be curious and explore that leads to understanding. Even if a person is incorrect the kind of adventurous spirit that is essential to innovation will consider their input and respect their person, they will not take a superior or insulting attitude as so commonly seen in the often condescending comments, this makes me think perhaps most persons, educated or not and in opposition or agreement do not really know what they are talking about even though each seems to feel certain that they do.
@@ExistenceUniversity Perhaps, but even the most fervent supporter admits that relativity breaks down at a certain point, but then past that point we get timid silence, no one dare question the scientific saint Einstein, that would involve presuming you are smarter than Einstein which can't be the case, so we get your tar pit or we get a sacred alter. Never mind that Einstein himself was not convinced that he had it right which is why he was still working on his theory of everything when he died. Egos on ether side of the fence and little curiosity I'd say. Further high intelligence has little to do with innovation since a great many highly intelligent people innovate NOTHING and many of them are blatantly wrong in ways far to elaborate for the unintelligent to follow. What does inspire innovation is an independent spirit and a lack of fear of not fitting in, which attitude tends to make one an academic pariah hence a certain stasis in the field. That the James Webb observations defied nearly every major prediction is just taken in stride as if that were not the case, a sure sign of stagnation. You just assume that if anyone disagrees with Einstein or has a different idea they must be both egotistical and wrong which is just as bad and just as short sighted as saying everyone who agrees with Einstein or has the same ideas must be right despit the many ongoing discrepancies thorough out physics. You in effect have judged what you have not yet considered to be egotistical garbage in advance of considering it. A study of the history of science tends to show that in any field at any time most people are wrong, some because they deviate to arrive at error, some because they conform to arrive at error, but a few who deviate are correct every once in a while, therefor faulting all deviation as inherently in error is the biggest error of all. Very often the new epiphany comes to a person as they correct the errors of someone else, if your unwilling to consider alternatives you will never arrive at any.
Quantum fields are basically the ether these days. Physicists generally do consider them to be things, rather than properties. That's why the fields themselves can _have_ properties, like energy and momentum. (I'm all for exploring different venues though.)
If they consider the quantum field to be an entity and not just a property, then why are they not trying to identify the underlying nature of that entity, which allows it to wave in the specific ways it does?
@@InducticaI would hope that they are looking into that type of thing, if it's possible. The reason we wouldn't know about it is probably because it's gated behind physics jargon, which is one of the unfortunate things that happen in academia. Either way, I would still encourage this type of inquiry you're doing.
Not really. Quantum Fields or Waves are the property of the matter that they eminate from - remember the equation e=mc^2 which means "matter is just a very condensed energy". Vibration of atoms is all over in matter.
@@ExistenceUniversity The field is the changing attribute, that attribute must be an attribute of something. That something is the ether. What I should have said originally to this comment is that we need a separate word for the medium and the properties of that medium, we should not say that the field is the medium, because we already use the word field to identify the property.
@@InducticaYou are using the strict mathematical definition, which differs from the current view of quantum fields in physics. Here's John Wheeler talking about it in his book Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam: "The field, *although nearly as ethereal as the ether itself,* can be said to have physical reality. It occupies space. It contains energy. Its presence eliminates a true vacuum." Funny that he compares it to the ether as well. :)
Was just thinking this, we *have* to get of this damn Electron particle model, I'm so tired of hearing people say that thing is a distinct entity and ignore what even its own discoverer considered them as, terminals of dielectric induction.
Thank you for providing such a simple and elegant argument for the existence of an ether, as well as a highly-informed breakdown of the confusions surrounding the Michelson-Morley experiment and special relativity. You are clearly a philosophical minded individual who is capable of thinking outside the box, in addition to being a very articulate and proficient public speaker. Looking forward to digging into your other videos!
Thank you very much! That means a lot coming from you! It's incredible that we both released such related videos within 4 hours of each other. I'll be asking you some questions on your discord server once I've made a more systematic study of your videos!
Can u gimme just one answer regarding luminiferous aether? If light is just a mechanical wave through aether, then aether has an extremely large young modulus. Since Aether fill up all of space, how does anything moves at all? And if Aether doesn't interact with anything in any way, then how's oscillation in aether interacts with anything at all? Also, what's the mass of aether. How on earth it fills up all of space and still has zero effect on the movement of everything. How does these happen? Do u hv any answer?
@@ExistenceUniversity From my understanding of EM you are mistaken in criticising Dialect there. I have not checked it in detail myself, but the deductions Dialect conducts in his latest video is very similar to the deductions Lorentz used in my video to predict the smashed table.
@@ExistenceUniversity I see what you are saying, but read Bell's paper, "How to Teach Special Relativity." He derives the same thing Dialect does , but in a different way.
@@aniksamiurrahman6365 I don't think it is a mechanical wave. I think it is a property at each location of the ether which gets greater and smaller over time. The reason the ether does not have an effect on bodies is because the bodies seem to be waves of that ether itself. Does sound get slowed down by air resistance?
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. There is a HUGE difference between the contraction introduced by Lorentz, and the one introduced by Einstein. For Lorentz, the contraction is REAL. He even apologized for it in his paper at the end. He basically said, what he was saying meant that the atoms either had to literally get smaller along on direction of the ether wind, OR, the atoms must get closer together along the direction of the ether wind. He was apologizing because if this was true there must be either very large effects that were measurable, but they had never been. Circuits would behave very differently every 6 months, but they don't. The contraction proposed by Einstein is COMPLETELY different. It's a relative effect, meaning when two completely different observers compare with each other, they will disagree. This is totally different. Each observe WILL NOT NOTICE ANY CONTRACTION AS THEY SEE THINGS IN THEIR REST FRAME. Lorentz's thinking was completely different. One, or even both, will LITERALLY SEE THINGS GET SMALLER. This is yours, and others confusion.
The proof is in the pudding. No theory can be "wrong" until someone applies their own theory to a device like a space ship that travels at the speed of light. Once that happens, only then can we say that all other theories are "wrong." Though even at that point other theories might still have facets that can help further define the correct theory. So really I dont think any theory is ever completely "Wrong."
Maybe i'm wrong. I'm sure someone will tell me that I am but I think the ether Is just a grid pattern that exists throughout the universe and is made of magnetic field lines that exist because of imbalance charges and are constantly changing.
You are on the right track. The assumption with which we’ve always unconsciously burdened the ether is that it must double as a frame of reference. M&M have already shown that is not the case, yet you are correct in asserting that something has to be waving. So let’s accept the ether but dump the baggage. The ether is what it is, and what the ether is NOT is a frame of reference.
@@insidejazzguitar8112 Aether is actually not made up of any thing manifest all though all things manifest are aether disturbed, or what we call energy, which should be called energy loss and its return.
Interesting presentation! The following research may contribute to this discussion: The speed of light is not a constant as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton. Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles. *TH-cam presentation of above arguments: th-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/w-d-xo.html *More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145 *Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1 Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
Nothing goes up forever Nothing goes down for long Everything stays together Everything goes on and on All or nothing in the mix This is where the mind plays tricks
Right after Einstein published the Special Theory of Relativity, Lorentz gave a lecture where he clearly demonstrated that he misunderstood Special Relativity. Lorentz, in applying the Gamma equation, which is displayed at 7:16, thought that it was the object that contracted instead of the space that the object was in.
Special relativity is wrong, so if Lorentz misunderstood it then it's a compliment to him. SR is a wrong theory requiring huge artificial effort to prevent it from being publicly rejected.
@@davidsalvia6294 Have you looked up the word in a dictionary? Space is like a shadow. Is a shadow a thing? Or is a shadow the absence of a thing? Space is no different.
Yeah, that'd be the case unless the Earth and its surrounding space are _entrained_ out to many radii of the planet. The whole ensemble would be transiting thru space as a unit, with the planet embedded at center, isolating it from any horizontally-flowing 'wind'. Even if there WERE a horizontal wind, Lorentz contraction in the apparatus would still give a null result, as the author explains in the vid. Either way, existence of the space medium is NOT disproven by the Michelson Morley experiment.
"the Michelson Morley experiment" Disproves well enough the existence of a medium (ether, aether) UNLESS as discussed by soopergoof this ether is entrained or is being dragged along by Earth. Repeating the experiment "out there" somewhere would potentially be useful or at least interesting.
Nice video and presentation. This was said in my comment to other channels. Let me reiterate on here. The proof of presence of air using the Air Current concept. If we can’t detect wind movement in a closed lab can we conclude air is absent? Likewise to the presence of Aether. M&M experiment can’t detect Aether wind can we conclude absence of Aether? No. The error assumption on Aether is that - we think it is a fluid that doesn’t drag with but blows through matter. Aether must attach to matter otherwise E and B fields will be decoupled to and from vacuum-aether consequently can’t wave the Aether for light. Likewise to air molecule must attached to the speaker diaphragm so we can wave the medium air for sound. Removing air removed the coupling removes sound wave. That M&M experiment didn’t find fringe activities is consistent to above reasoning. It is unnecessary to borrow high end quantum this or that to emphasis the point that Aether do exist and fills the vacuum and all voids in matter. What is Aether? It is an incompressible fluid that attaches to all matter from microcosm to macrocosm. It has no mechanical but electrical properties and e0 permittivity and u0 permeability are two of measurable attributes of Aether. Further researches on Aether? It is a medium also responsible for gravity and inertia forces. That is to say gravity isn’t an attribute of matter, it is an attribute of vacuum-Aether. Gravity is therefore an extrinsic force attached to all matter in order to complete the gravity effect. When we push an object forward in the Aether field we are effectively charging or steepening the gradient of Aether field in front to a new higher pulling force, that we call inertia.
As I recall, the dialect youtube channel showed Einstein's later papers where he said that in fact we can not say for certain that there is no ether. Presumably, this later work was just ignored by the physics community
I think that this website asks an interesting question : what is waving? But I can imagine a response: probabilities are waving. But this straw man argument i am making, assuming that someone would actually use it, does not satisfy me - you mean randomness in a mathematical sense is producing electrons?
If gravity and acceleration warp spacetime without bending it into a further dimension then spacetime must stretch and compress. Spacetime must be created and destroyed in this process, right?
The space-time field IS gravity, and it's not truly empty, at all and so not a true quantum vacuum. A true vacuum lacks any fields, including dimensions. Space-time is then a unified dimensional field, that entangles all other quantum, relative and emergent fields
James this is an excellent, short, and illustrative presentation. I really like how condensed you made the material. I look forward to the next installment. Will you be at OCON next week?
Man I wish I could come. I just live 25 miles away from the venue. I still have to earn money since my mental health recovery is almost complete. Maybe next year? I hope we can meet in the future James.
There is an issue with the section on special relativity. Special relativity is about two things involving speed. It doesn’t say anything about Aether. (Aether is the correct spelling. Ether is a class of chemical compounds in chemistry.) With special relativity there’s two things to consider. The first is that light isn’t instantaneous. It has a finite speed. The actual speed doesn’t really matter. Whether it’s the same speed for everyone does not matter either. But it turns out that based on the second issue that it should be the same for everyone. The second issue is that speed calculated is based on arbitrary measurements. Speed is a ratio between a change in distance(space) and a change in time. Velocity = Space/time For centuries we have always used arbitrary measurements of length. It used to be the length of someone’s foot. The meter is originally based on the distance between the equator and the north pole. Time is based on a spinning rock, 24 hours in a day for example. So how do you measure something that’s moving? You need a signal. Usually that signal is light, you see it at point A and then you see it at point B. You can physically measure the distance from A to B. But you need to see a moving object. However, there’s a delay between when you see it and where it actually is. That affects the calculation of speed. There’s something else to consider. How does one know how fast they’re going? You look out the window. You see yourself at point A then you measure how much time has elapsed when you see point B. Again to determine your own speed you need a signal. All measurements of speed is based on a signal. Despite how you’re moving. That signal has a finite speed. So the speed of that signal has to be included in the calculation of speed. Since speed is based on the ratio between a length and elapsed time, we can use that to determine actual length and time with perceived length and time in the moving object. That’s why there’s v²/c² In the Lorentz transformations. Lorentz got the right equation for the wrong reason. But Einstein went a step further. The simplest clock is a pendulum. Time is about motion. And the detection of that motion requires a signal. We use a signal to determine speed, distance and time. Everything we know about motion is based on a signal. That’s why the speed of light is the same for everyone. They’re all the signal with the same perspective.
But the speed of light is not the same for everyone and the Sagnac Experiment and the Modified Sagnac Experiment proved that. According to the reference frame of a rotating light path, light propagates at a different rate in the direction in which the light path is moving relative to a laboratory and the opposite direction. As such one cannot claim that light moves the same rate in all reference frames. If it did, there would be no observable fringe shift any reference frame during the Sagnac Experiment. However, there is always an observable fringe shift regardless of the reference frame in which the experiment is being observed. And before you go into "its the difference between an inertial and non-inertial reference frame" non sequitur, I will state that that is both completely irrelevant and completely incorrect. It is irrelevant because the claim is that light appears to have the same velocity in all reference frames, which it does not, which is demonstrated by the Sagnac Experiment. It is incorrect, because the laboratory physicists claim is "an inertial reference frame" is actually not an inertial reference frame as defined by Einstein as it is subject to numerous accelerations which can be easily displayed by dropping an item in the laboratory and watching it fall to the floor without any additional or external forces acting on it or by observing a Foucault pendulum change directions over time without any additional or external forces acting on it. At best, all they could claim is that it is the difference between two non-inertial reference frames, but that defeats their entire premise that light has a constant velocity regardless of the motions reference frame in which it is observed. Additionally, as Einstein posits that there is no absolutely reference frame, he has no way to claim whether something is at rest, has a constant velocity, or is being accelerated. Any claim to the contrary is a violation of his equivalence principle, which is the underlying premise of the entire theory. His completely subjective and arbitrary reference frames can only be defined as being stationary, having a constant velocity, or being under acceleration, but this has actually no ontological meaning at all as this is only relative to whatever object with which he happens to be performing an comparative analysis at that moment, and the same exact state of motion could be claimed of the other object while the inverse claimed of the first object. In the end, the completely subjective description provided by Einstein becomes meaningless as there is no way to extrapolate the motions as defined between two objects to the rest of the universe.
@@wesbaumguardner8829 Sorry but the Sagnac experiment didn't prove what you claim, it's a rotational movement and therefore it is normal to detect a difference in light's speed.
@@En_theo There is no absolute reference frame according to general relativity. There is no aether medium according to general relativity. All reference frames are equally valid and can consider themselves at rest, according to general relativity. The laws of physics should be the same in all reference frames, according to general relativity. There should be no observable difference in the speed of light propagating in two different directions according to the Michelson Morley Experiment. Also, the entire earth is a rotational reference frame as it is rotating on axis, yet it is claimed that it is not possible to detect a change in speed of the light propagating in different directions. Your argument is self contradictory.
Short and simple rebuttal. Einsteins Special theory of Relativity, which has been experimentally verified hundreds or even thousand of times up to ridiculous precision, is based on the proposition that the speed of light (or electromagnetic waves) is always the same for all observers. No matter what their speed. Now if, as the maker of this video proposes, light consisted of waves "in" some kind of physical medium (lets call this "ether"), the speed of that light would have to be proportional to that ether, just like the speed of sound is proportional to the speed of the air the sound is moving through. From this it follows that in this "ether hypothesis" the speed of light as its waves move through the ether can never be equal for all observers, who themselves move throught this ether with different speeds. Ergo the "ether" hypothesis is refuted by the Special theory of Relativity, and the "theory" that this commenter is trying to propose is proven to be false!
No you're wrong. When you move through the Ether, the Ether has compressed around you. Therefore the rate at which events happen for you has changed. If you like to call it "time", then time has changed proportionally to yourself.
@@colourinblack Sorry but that is a mistake. The essence of the Michelson Morley experiment, which was the basis and inspiration of the Special Theory of Relativity was that Michelson and Morley wanted to prove the existence of aether with a setup with mirrors which would show that the speed of light throught the aether would be different if the direction of the ligth was contrary to the movement of the earth through space (and thus through the assumed aether that would fill it) then when the direction of the light was in the same direction as the movement of the earth. This would necessarily be the case if the light would propagate through aether because in that case the speed of the light would be determined by its propagation through this medium. The strange thing however was that Michelson and Morley found no difference in the measured speed of light, whether it was measure in the direction of movement of the earth, or contrary to it. Which proves that the movement of light is not relative to some kind of aether, but only to the observer. Compression of aether has nothing to do with it. It is only about direction of movement and propagation.
@@FloorBoontjes-wo1hv You are not interpreting the result correctly. No matter what your velocity is in any direction, the speed of light is the same for you. So even if you change your velocity, the speed of light is still the same. Now, since this has to actually make sense, the only way this is possible is that you are affecting the local space and changing the rate at which electric and magnetic fields build and decay. In fact, in order to change your speed, you have to fight the ether and compress it. This is not difficult to think about or even calculate.
@@Inducticaquantum fields are real. But there’s air in the jar, probably a ton of other stuff too. And yes, quantum fields. They don’t just exist in the jar. They exist in the glass, the bell, everything. A proton can have charm quarks materialize within them then disappear. A quark that’s larger than the proton itself. You need to humble yourself dude. It’s great that you have a deep interest in science and physics but read about scientific rigor and the way to make a hypothesis in a serious manner. It’ll slow your roll.
I'm no physicist, but last I heard was that gravity is not a force, but rather a deformation of space-time. As a layman it occurs to me that space and time are similar in some respects - neither can be 'detected' or demonstrated other than by their effects on mass or light which also affect them in turn (everything is relative). It seems to me that space-time is a pretty good substitute for 'aether'.
Space is basically what a shadow is to Light, shadows don't have properties and cannot be deformed themselves. “It might be inferred that I am alluding to the curvature of space supposed to exist according to the teachings of relativity, but nothing could be further from my mind. I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.” -Nikola Tesla. “Pioneer Radio Engineer Gives Views On Power.” New York Herald Tribune, September 11, 1932.“
Light is not "Just like any wave". Is an EM (Electro-magnetic) wave, and this combination request Special Relativity because the electric field is just a magnetic field to an observer in relative motion. Start from Here! 😎
He is proof that there are different ways to look at things. Too many holes and conflicts in modern theories. They (modern theories) are a man-made construct that attempts to create a language (math based (another human construct)) that describes and helps understand the things around us. It is far from complete, has questions and issues that can't be solved, at least not yet. When you factor in things such as living organisms and the ability of atoms to manipulate and re-arrange other atoms at will, with a predetermined path for them to work... an unfathomable amount of complex math would have to be applied to explain the smallest version. It's not possible with modern methods. The things we see are shadows/reflections of something else and those shadows/reflections are NOT the something else.
Others like you said the same thing about many of the greatest minds that have ever existed. If I were transported back in time and put in the middle of a tribe just 300 years ago... then try to explain how a car or a computer or modern medicine works... different people are on different levels and see different things. Remember when we talk about physics, we are talking about the same stuff we are made of. Looking at things from different perspectives (whether you agree or not) can be a great tool for learning.
I am glad you are raising this issue, dealing with the interpretation of the field and wave phenomena rather than wrapping them in equations. I had similiar doubts how to look at it, eventually came to a conclusion that the key is not the notion of physicality of yhe fields but the physicality of the space-time itself. What I mean by physicality is whether the space-time is the basic primary entity where everything floats in, or rather it is a secondary entity resulting from something more basic. I am now inclining to think that the latter is the case. In particular space-time is a consequence of the existence of the electromagnetic bilinear vector operator in spinor space.
2024, and we still don't take mental health seriously, when you explain that Michelson had a nervous breakdown, it comes with laughter, would you also laugh about someone with throat cancer ? I've known 2 people who've end their lives due to severe mental crisis, it's just so weird to me that mental health is still treated like this.
It is ironic that the experiment designed to clarify a problem took such a massive toll on mental clarity and focus. If irony isn't your strong suit then isn't laughter the next best thing? Boltzman had such a terrible time of it and no one would argue that his fate was particularly ironic, in contrast to the aforementioned example. Sorry, did you mean to imply the Michelson Morley experiment is retarded?
"Teachers should emphasize that the mathematical wave representation often depicts the probability of finding a particle or energy at a particular point in space, rather than the particle literally traveling in a wave. In quantum mechanics, for example, the wave function shows the likelihood of a particle's presence in various locations. Over time and with many particles (like in the double-slit experiment), this probability pattern manifests as an interference pattern-a wave-like distribution. When we talk about adding or subtracting waves in this context, we're dealing with probabilities, not physical waves. When the first photon passes through a slit, we can't predict its exact landing spot, but the wave function gives us a 'carnival chance' map of where it might end up. Regarding water waves, it's important to note that they are driven by gravity: gravity pulls the wave down, while the surrounding water pushes it back up due to pressure differences. This interaction keeps the wave moving. However, in a standing wave in a medium with mass and gravity, there's no net energy gain because each peak (bump) has a corresponding trough (well). The wave itself doesn’t carry energy unless there’s an interruption or disturbance, which then transports energy. For fields that aren’t based in matter or gravity, like electromagnetic fields, the wave represents the probability of where the excitation (caused by an energy packet, such as a photon) will be at any given moment. Unlike a particle 'surfing' a wave in a classical sense, here we're talking about the likelihood of where the particle might be. If these energy packets can pop in and out of existence, all we can calculate is the probability of where and when they might be detected.
@guyvandenbroeck8405 " If these energy packets can pop in and out of existence, all we can calculate is the probability of where and when they might be detected." Since they pop in and out of existence with a wave-like probability, there IS a wave, it is NOT a surface (bi-pressure) wave, it is NOT a pressure wave, it IS an EM wave. Now if you could accept that they pop in and out of the aether, because that is what the aether is made of, we could conclude that we are almost speaking of the same thing and move on.
Space is the absence of something, and time is the measure of something so spacetime cannot be a thing. Its not that a warp drive is warping anything, it is actually converging through, which is not an accurate word, aether which is non cartesianal.
@@Andrew_Fernie Anti field, counter spatial, non spatial, sub spatial, zero point, Subspace. Yes they are fine words for aether, so what is it? Can you explain that?
What one might need to note most about the effect of propagating energy is that when the medium it is passing through has higher energy intensity levels, often being rather intense sources (such as that forming matter and defines its effective locality) then the paths of straight propagation are bent to an outside viewer perspective; while still being a straight path to the perspective of each minute point of energy itself. This effect is even one that makes a particle able to 'stably' contain the energy making it up. The energy is bent like the way light's path is altered by a lens. [For what it is worth, Maxwell noted an effect like this when studying the propagation of radio waves. The speed of propagation was slower in higher intensity areas that in weak ones. The factor is in his formulas describing things. And for the intensities he was able to generate, it was a very small one.] When there is apparently little such types of intense energy flows involved, then the mediating energy is what we call a vacuum. To make this clearer though, Physicist are calling it a 'quantum vacuum'. This is trying to inform the thinker that there are still propagation (enabling and) altering effects possible in what appears to be empty space to our sensing systems. Plus there can be relational states and energy levels that require an energy to show up and have a clearly notable effect on other energy flows when it forms a virtual particle for minute instance. Colliders likely cause events to happen that require such events to have happened to explain what is detected. Said by Physicist, after the detection of the Higgs boson [that was deemed to be a mass containing particle], was a statement that its existence was noted as a detection of an energy ledge in the rate of things 'cooling down' when it was present. Some went on to say that this was more evidence that there is an energy level below what we readily note in what we now call empty space. As for what is causing mass and gravity to have a source, to me it seems simply to be the effect of high energy intensities that exist in the particles and their make up. Noting Einstein's E=MC^2 formula, the intensity is quite evident. And when collider experiments show that even most of the space that a particle takes up is mainly 'empty' of their noted energy noted by their mass. The small point high intensity is critical to a particles stability. Allowing many others to pass each other without actually colliding. So that evidences the intensity at some points of it are, very, very intense. Some place else I noted a statement a year or so ago that stated that the gluon was also a mass causing 'particle'. It is not really detected directly, it is inferred. It is a way to describe in a sensible way, what is notable. To me it is simplest to say that gravity is caused by the fact that the energy passing through its field it is "redirected" by the gravity's variance in intensity across the area of the energy's propagation. That being farther way moves a tad easier, or faster, than that which is closer to the source where the field is a tad stronger. This has all the energy, having mass or not, apparently drawn toward the source of gravity. The amount of energy does not matter here. As for momentum, it is caused by the fact that energy has to relate to the gravity fields it is going through. An object with mass has a lot of intense energy that must related to the rest nearby in the relatively small space it is in. When a differing gravity field it encountered, the energy must readdress its relationships with the rest nearby, causing a resistance to a change in its propagation rate through the gravity fields. Since the change in a flow pattern requires an input from an energy source outside of those relationships for it to be modified. This might be more easily grasped should one also note that the energy in masses is in a very intense state; and thereby, time there is not passing by very fast relative to our clocks. This makes the demand for a change in flow patterns a 'stubborn', "time consuming" process to execute it in a form that is stable for the particle's existence, and in harmony with the energy conversion laws there that it must balance out in the time frames existing there. Satellites with internal clocks have noted gravity effected relationships, by noting that time ticks by at a rate more closely matching the area of earth below it more so when it is nearer to it. Thus a satellite orbiting in a direction that is opposite to the direction that the Earth is spinning below, its clock will tick by slower, as though it was moving faster, than one orbiting at the same speed in a direction that appears slower between it and the Earth below. The same goes for a satellite that is farther from the Earth's gravity. Its clock will tick faster than on one in a stronger gravity field. Probably why the title's stated "question is not being asked" is that to calculate the "goings on" according to some theory, takes a huge amount of computing power and time due to all the minute pieces of space and energy involved in trying to calculate it properly. And most theories already give pretty decent harmony using more general rules for what is happening well enough to suggest a valid way to execute most ideas presently needing to be engineered. There was one effort to calculate the interactions in a very small area of space with varying energy levels that was used to try to understand what states might have existed for energy at the very instance the universe started to exist. This effort suggested that the cosmic background radiation's pattern was in general a logical result of such conditions existing then. If forget the amount of time it took, but it was a long, long time, And that was super computer time that could be used to do other needed things. No doubt though, as opportunities arise such efforts to detail how energy behaves inside of what we note as our existence will find ways to happen more.
Don't get the math confused with what it describes. The Schrödinger "Wave" equation isn't a wave equation, it's a heat or energy diffusion equation that gives the probability density of particle states. There is no evidence that Fields actually exist, they are just a mathematical framework for describing relationships (i.e., just a coordinate system where reality has no coordinates.) Math describes the relationships between observed phenomena because we constructed the equations to match those observations. We cannot model what we cannot observe. The math we use doesn't necessarily match what is actually there. Worse "Energy" is really an abstraction of observed phenomena. In the end, we may not have the capability to observe the real substance, assuming there is any substance, anymore than an interference pattern on a pond surface could observe the water on which it was made. That's not very satisfying but humans have limits.
It’s true that we can’t directly see a lot of these phenomena, we must infer them from things we can see. It’s true that the probability wave may not be the actual physical phenomenon, but since it is able to make predictions it must have some kind of relationship to the actual physical phenomenon, this is exactly why we need to think in terms of an ether, to probe into the underlying facts which give rise to those probability distributions.
@@Inductica This is one of the problems with String Theory, it is a model built on a metaphysical idea rather than on observed phenomena. All the Ether models have this same problem. Building a model before you have evidence for the model specific relationships generally leads to a dead end. The quantum wave equation frustrates physicists because it correctly describes the relationships between observed phenomena, but it's metaphysical concept is practically non-existent. It works, but we don't know why.
@@Inductica Keep in mind the interference pattern produced in the two-slit experiment is caused by the probability distribution -- not the "particle" itself, assuming there is a particle. The problem is the probability distribution is real, the wave and the particle are metaphysical extrapolations that may be, and probably are, incorrect. Frustrating, I know.
Almost, @10:40 but that's not quite right. Fields are fictional accounting tools used because most theoreticians demand a Hamiltonian time evolution story. Feynman explained this way back, and Feynman never believed in the fields. The reason you need fields is to account for entanglement effects (which are ubiquitous) and hence interference. But to first order in scattering theory you only need particle momenta (and charge and spin, etc, all the invariants). These can always be considered particle properties. The Aether is however recovered, by supposing all the particles, and the entanglement structure, is spacetime topology. Then the Aether is very natural, and there is only one aether or field, it is spacetime. This is of course still only a model. But it's the best one around, and it works. (More efficient and effective than string theory, which is closely related of course.) Just look at the Standard Model of particle physics and the Lie algebra structure --- it can fit inside the Clifford spacetime algebra (16 dimensional graded algebra, with _several_ geometrically interpreted ℂ structures).
Spacetime carries the electromagnetic wave. Light is an electromagnetic wave. To make the comparison to sound traveling though air would be a gravitational wave traveling through spacetime; sound bends air and gravity bends spacetime. There is no analog to light or radio waves traveling through spacetime to something traveling through air.
@@chrishoward8473 Heat doesn't travel through a vacuum. There is nothing to conduct it. That's why I answered with infrared, because that is a form of heat that does travel through a vacuum.
Listen, I'm just a lowly EET. I like learning and following physics because I really enjoy puzzles. Physics is the greatest puzzle of all. Saying that, I respect him for asking the question because he has a point. I get how you can use math as a tool to predict how something, like how a particle will behave. I get how you can use math to show the waveform collapse. However, it doesn't answer the fundamental question of what is collapsing. My favorite one, is virtual particles come and go from nowhere. And I'm supposed to just accept this, however it sounds like magic to me. You can tell me that the math shows that we are all riding on a foam of virtual particles, And I don't disagree with the math, but it doesn't answer the question. What is a virtual particle and where does it come from? Math shows us that an electron is a wave in a field, but a field isn't a thing. A field is a property. What is it a field of? On a temperature map, the field doesn't make the temperature, The temperature measurements results in the field. Closest I've been able to get in my mind. It all comes down to the momentum of something. The momentum of virtual particles being chucked back and forth between two similar poles causes them to push apart, Great! What the hell is a vertical particle made of!!!
I really want to iterate, that I do not know anything compared to a true physicist. I wouldn't even call myself an amateur. However, I'm not going to bash this video for asking a question or trying to make a point. I think if a true physicist really wants to make a point that he's completely wrong. Make a video showing why he's so far off. My example of virtual particles comes down to something I commonly see with hardcore physicist explanations. The math says this, so and we're just going to call it a virtual particle. And then if I say well, that sounds like magic, a hardcore physicist will say you're just not smart enough. Here's an equation. Well, maybe it's true, perhaps I'm not smart enough. That also sounds like you're trying to tell me to have faith in the equation, or faith in your word.
I am a 67 year-old orthopaedic surgeon - which means, I am an idiot who knows nothing about maths or physics.I hear "fields" or "waves" and I realise these things are not possible without space. Space to me is not an "empty" Einsteinian chewing gum waiting to be distorted by masses (sorry, Albert). Space to me is a matrix consisting of gazillions of space units. Each unit comes with a very complex software. Space is my "ether". Is that real? What the heck is reality? My reality is different from yours or a dog`s or a bee`s. I like your channel! please keep asking questions!
No. Your reality is the same as mine. Anybody walking into a tree without looking will immediately come to the same conclusion. If it doesn't have mathematics which are corroborated by experiments, then it isn't physics. I challenge people who make such astronomically absurd statements to test them. Think your way to am has the smarts. Meanwhile, you might be a legend in your own mind, and it won't matter at all. You do you. Until then: PHYSICS REQUIRES MATHEMATICS AND EXPERIMENTS And pissing all over the current physics because you have a big bad "Nuh uh" is not going to brain some math into your head nor brain us into thinking you have experimental evidence on experiments which you had not conducted.
@@OceanusHeliosYour reality is much more emotional than mine. By the way: As an orthopedic surgeon I can assure you: When 100 people walk into a tree, you will see 100 different injury patterns and hear 100 different complaints.
@@OceanusHelios NO! IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT MATH! OTHERWISE IT WOULDN'T BE PHYSICS! IT WOULD JUST BE METAPHYSICS! IT HAS TO BE ABOUT PHYSICAL OBJECTS! THE MATH ONLY DESCRIBES THE PHYSICAL OBJECTS! IT'S NOT "MORE REAL" THAN THE PHYSICAL OBJECTS! IT ONLY DESCRIBES THEM!
Einstein was wrong about special relativity. It's one of those things which is being camouflaged by smart (but wrong) math, while the reality is disputing it. So, yeah, sir. As much as I dislike doctors, you're on the right track. And many smart physicist know the truth, but aren't allowed to say it openly.
03:07 "a property must be s property of something". Not really. A vacuum (nothing!?) has for example a magnetic permeabilty property and an electric permittivity property, both of which govern the speed of light in a vacuum - another property
This is exactly my point: "the vacuum" isn't nothing! It is also worth noting that nothing does not exist. To be is to be something. Only things that exist exist.
I see 2 fundamental mistakes here: First, it is false to say photons “are” waves. No, photons have wave properties but they cannot “be” waves because waves do not also have particle properties. That would be like calling me a dog if I exhibit dog properties by barking for example. Second, just because one gives something unknown in space the name “ether” does not mean it has any relation to something else that was called the aluminiferous ether. That would be like thinking that everybody with a first name “Rich” would be rich in the sense of having a lot of money.
@@rahulsubramanian6545 If I have understood it correctly an atom is a quark field superimposed with a gluon field surrounded by an electron field that sometimes exites a photon field. Is it clearer now :) ?
@@rahulsubramanian6545 Ok, sorry. If I have understood it correctly an atom is a quark field superimposed with a gluon field surrounded by an electron field that sometimes exites an EM field producing a photon. Is it clearer now :) ? He could have said Proton field, but I have given *my* interpretation.
@@marcoantoniazzi1890 Quarks are bound together by Gluons (carriers of Strong force possessing zero rest mass, much like photons). Residuary strong force binds the nucleus, keeping it together. Electrons exist like a cloud around the nucleus. What this guy said sounded like a bad opera that would give me a bleeding ear.
The speed of light is "controlled" (determined) by the refractive index (roughly proportional to the density) of the medium it is travelling in. And there have been no examples of light travelling in a (true) vacuum. All light travels VIA a transparent medium - mostly gasses. If light was somehow travelling inbetween atoms/molecules then the medium itself would have no effect on the light, and all matter has a proportionate effect on light. Example: total internal reflection. Take a 'D' shaped (semi-circular) glass prism and shine a ray of light (at a normal angle) on the curved surface so that it hits the 'back wall' at an angle greater than the critical angle. The ray of light will then be internally reflected inside the prism. The light has no problem entering the prism, travels through the prism in a straight line and is not reflected or deflected by anything until it gets to the back "wall" - which is the end point of all the galss molecules - at which point it is reflected. By what??! If light was somehow travelling inbetween the glass molecules of the prism then what prevents it from exiting the glass? Light must be travelling VIA atoms/molecules and the arrangement of these molecules and/or a change in size/shape/density at the boundry of the two media causes a change in the direction of travel. This same principle explains Snell's Law. And the fact that the speed of light is unaffected by the speed of its source also shows that light must be travelling via a medium - like sound, though both travel by different mechansims. Light travelling via the realtively still molecules of air would show no "interference" patter - this is an explanation of the MM experiment. There is no seperate ether. Light travels via ordinary transparent attoms/molecules - so it is the medium itself which is the ether.
Media INFLUENCE the travelspeed of light (EM radiation) but EM is not transmitted by them (like sound is the transmitted by movements of molecules). This was proven by the Michelson Morley experient. This experiment was set up in the 19th century by Michelson and Morley with then intent to prove (!) that light was transmitted by some kind of aether. To prove this Michelson and Morley invented a setup with mirrors that would be able to measure the difference in speed of light relative to the speed of the earth moving through the aether. Which of course means that the speed of light that goes in the same direction must be different on opposite side of the circle of movement of the earth, because the speed of light relative to the earth should differ by the rate of movement of the earth or its surface through the supposed aether. Nothing of this transpired. It turned out that the speed of light relative to the observer is always equal irrespective of the rate of travel of the observer, which disproves the theory that light or EMR is transmitted as a wave "in" some kind of aether. This finding was also the inspiration for Einsteins later theory of Special Relativity. The Michelson Morley experiment and Special Relativity (which has been proven thousands of times!) DISPROVE the existence of aether. There IS no such thing!
@@rientsdijkstra4266 You are wrong in almost everything you wrote - your biggest and most ignorant mistake is thinking the Michelson Morley (or indeed ANY) experiment can disprove the existence of anything. You didn't even attempt to answer my question regarding total internal reflection: what prevents light (EM radiation) from exiting the glass? The molecules of glass must be ("controlling" and) transmitting the light as there is no other thing there.
@@MartinSaintXXL Bruh. The Michelson Morley Experiment was Einsteins inspiration for creating the Special Theory of Relativity, that has been proven THOUSANDS of times. You simply declaring that it is wrong, or doesn´t prove anything is simply meaningless BS. Anybody can make any such statement. Please stop wasting my time?
@@rientsdijkstra4266 At no point have I stated that Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is wrong. Einstein assumed that the speed of light is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. The actual reason for this is that light travels via transparent matter ("ordinary" atoms/molecules) and that is entirely consistent with the findings of the MM experiment. Why can't you see the sun on a cloudy day? Because the clouds (atoms/molecules) have modified the light. Why does the light path bend when moving from air-to-water (or from water-to-air)? Because a change in matter (the density of atoms/molecules) has modified the light. More examples - like the total internal reflection example above - can be given to show that if light moved inbetween molecules then the matter would not modify the light at all. Light must travel via matter.
Thank you so much for making this video. Some people who have left comments think that re-naming something (like aether) makes it something else (like spacetime). It does not. Indeed, you cannot have a field properties if the field with Zero-value does not exist everywhere. Just because the field has Zero-value, does not mean the thing that contains the properties of such fields doesn't exist at a point. Let me give an example: point 2 north poles of 2 magnets directly at each other. The magnetic field exactly between the 2 north poles is Zero. Does this mean the magnets don't repel each other? No, of course not.
"magnetic field exactly between the 2 north poles is Zero. Does this mean the magnets don't repel each other? No, of course not." I have a doubt about that. These magnets know the other magnet is nearby as otherwise they could not repel. The magnetic fields pass each other by on the way to the other magnet. A point of observation can be made and directly between these magnets the field ought to be the SUM of both magnetic fields; that is the strength; their directional vectors will be opposite. The superposition of these measurements would seem to be zero, but that does not mean there is no magnetic field. Of course there's a magnetic field and it is very strong in this scenario.
@@thomasmaughan4798 The repulsion takes place not because of the value of the B-field between some space between the magnets, but rather due the value of the B-field of one magnet at the point where it interacts with the atoms of the other magnet, and this is never Zero unless you have a superconductor. So just because the field has Zero value in space due to another field's presence doesn't mean that the field will have Zero value elsewhere. The field's value is always the *total* sum of fields at any point, with its value calculated from the point of origin of the field.
I heard an physicist saying in a podcast that electromagnetic waves „ride“ on their own field. For my understanding he wanted to prove that the field is actually „waving“. He conceded that something must actually „waving“, but he didnt say a word about the aether.
The Schrödinger equation is quite explicit: the probability of interaction is what is waving. Finding a particle actually means to interact with the particle at a certain location, and interaction means to exchange energy.
Of course, but what is the cause of that probability distribution? It must be some entity acting. One reasonable hypothesis (by Bohm) is that there is a wave pushing particles around and that physical wave produces the probability distribution wave as a result of the specific ways it pushes the particle around.
@@Inductica I don't think so. I am not even sure there is any particle existing to push around outside the context of interactions. At least there is no evidence or indication of that . In order to get information of any object we need to interact with it. That probably means information is equal to interaction and everything outside of that is undefined.
But isn't psi even more abstract than probability density, since only after absolute squaring it becomes that? Could there be something like a Schrödinger equation acting directly on the squared (real) density??
Stephen Wolfram has a theory called "The Ruliad". I recently kind of understood it. It might have significance to this particular topic. Wolfram is undeniably a genius. Here's some text--> "Wolfram suggests this Ruliad isn't a theory about our specific universe, but rather a framework encompassing every conceivable universe. Our universe might be a specific region within this vast Ruliad, governed by a particular set of rules. The Ruliad's significance lies in its potential to offer a foundational explanation for the laws of physics and the intricate structures observed in the universe".
When Wolfram (or anyone) can do for gravity what Maxwell did for electricity and magnetics, then maybe we can talk about genius. And it won't be good for the tire business.
Unfortunately, unlike Einstein, Wolfram has failed to predict anything with his Ruliad. He went from trying to find one simple rule that reproduces the universe we live in, but when that did not work, he seems to have changed to claiming that an infinite number of all possible 'simple rules' may be required. Unfortunately, that adds nothing predictable either.
Absolutely agree that there is something in space which physically interacts with matter particles. Contemporary physics is living with incomplete interpretations, especially when it comes to Quantum Mechanics. Quantum mechanics enables calculations, however does not offer much physical understanding beyond what can be read from the equations and thus does little to help physics to delve deeper into the properties and structure of the universe we inhabit. Fundamental matter particles display wave characteristics because they have non-zero dimensions and physically spin in multiple modes at high frequencies. In order for there to be order amongst different matter particles (particles do not just disperse randomly and disconnect into independent far reaches of space) they interact with space which must contain (or consist of) matter made of the same (or compatible) material as the material matter particles are made of. This hints that currently known fundamental particles (electrons, quarks etc) are subdivided into (possibly multiple layers of many) even smaller particles. It is imperative that these smaller matter particles can move at highly superluminal speeds. The movement of larger composite particles (electrons etc) is however limited by the speed of light. From the above arguments, one would deduce that matter is made of sub-...-sub-atomic particles (let us call them vidons), somehow connected together and undergoing modes of circular motion. It would not surprise if space is also made of connected vidons, but moving very quickly in straight/geodesic lines. This would then be the aether. The above statements lend themselves to be structured into inductive reasoning.
The old spelling of the hypothetical substance permeating all space did used to be "ether" according to some mystics writings. Now we see the variation starting with "a" being used as "aether."
QFT anyone? QFT treats particles as excited states (also called quantum levels) of their underlying quantum fields, which are more fundamental than the particles.
GPS satellites correct for relativistic time dilation due to gravity, and that's part of what makes GPS so accurate. Particles with short lifetimes last longer when we make them go near the speed of light in accelerators. E-mc^2 was derived from special relativity and proven with the first atom bomb. Does your ether theory explain these things?
Who TF originally stated GPs goves Relativity any bearing on reality? No engineer uses Relativity. If I'm wrong, set me straight. th-cam.com/video/qS5e_mWdOQ8/w-d-xo.html
If you take a three dimensional stick cube, call it a tensor, 1 of 27, and shine a light through it, you see projected a two dimensional representation of three dimensional space. But if you take a conglomeration of over lapping patterns of waves that form interference patterns on a piece of film (a two dimensional object) and shine a laser through it, you see a three dimensional object. That object could be the stick cube tensor. If you have 27 tensor cubes and each one has a face with a different hologram of interference patterns and you shine lasers through each of the faces you get a four dimensional view of 3 dimensional space. Now give each face infinite layers (shells of holograms) that are constantly changing (motion picture holograms), you get time and space. How fast is this motion picture hologram? The speed of light.
I completely disagree with you but hey great job explaining everything! Even though I disagree with you, I'm going to give you a thumbs up because you did a great job on the video. That seems fair. Now, my take. The analogy with sound, the belief that light needs a medium like air, is where things go wrong. It's just an analogy when people say "light is a wave." Light is not really a wave of anything. I don't have a physics degree, this is just my understanding as a casual observer. Do I know if the aether exists? I'm not here to argue that; I'm focused on the problem with using the sound analogy. Saying that if sound needs a medium, then light also needs a medium is just wrong. Think about it. Light is a particle. Are there sound particles? Nope. See the issue with the analogy now? It's just an analogy, not a description of reality to say light is a wave similar to sound because light is a particle and sound is not a particle. They are actually nothing alike at all. Observing requirements for sound says nothing at all about requirements for light. Btw, it drives me nuts when people say light is both a wave and a particle. No, it's a particle that somehow behaves as if it were part of a wave. But that analogy is just our only way of expressing it. Drives me nuts!
@@ExistenceUniversity You seem a smart guy. I invite you to follow also a different path: start by assuming that light is ONLY an EM wave and see where this reasoning will take you. It is advisable that you PERFECTLY know what a wave is, how many types there are and how it can "travel" in a volume. It comes without saying that you should start without preconceptions and without being influenced by some mathematical knowledge or description or interpretation.
The electromagnetic field can play the part of a dynamic interactive aether. All that is needed is for photon ∆E=hf electron spherical 4πr² oscillations or vibrations to precedes everything forming greater degrees of freedom for statistical entropy and the irreversible processes of classical physics. Such as heat energy always spontaneously flowing from hot to cold and friction always changing motion into heat. We need to go back to r² and the three-dimensional physics of the Inverse Square Law is crucial. The spherical 4πr² geometry is key to this concept, grounded in Huygens' Principle from 1670, which states, "Every point on a wave front of light has the potential to create a new spherical 4πr² light wave." Each point can be considered a potential photon ∆E=hf electron interaction exchanging potential photon energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter in the form of electrons. We experienced this as a continuously emerging probabilistic future with the spherical 4πr² surface acting as a boundary condition or manifold for the uncertainty ∆x∆pᵪ≥h/4π encountered in daily life.
dude, this comment is entirely gibberish. there's more to talking about physics than just spouting random equations and hoping they make sense together.
The "what is waving" is a reasonable question but this is ... Tell me you don't know what an aether is ... What you are talking about here is MEDIA. What MEDIA do these waves propagate through... People now call it "quantum FOAM" which could also be a for of an aether. The aether isn't what's "waving" but rather light and matter are what's waving as they propagate through the quantum foam/aether
Thanks for your comment. I've never liked the phrase, "the wave propagates through the medium." We should think of it this way instead: "the wave is an effect consisting of the periodic increase and decrease of some property of each part of the medium."
I presume this is it. Quantum foam or aether, the elemental units of the universal media which stay and the observable phenomena like light or matter just propagates in it. They don't actually move. That is why the MM experiment did not bring what was expected and this is also why probably the light is the absolute observable maximum speed in the universe. The ultimate speed of propagation through the media. Propagation is certainly not via the physical movement of these units (that would require displacement and voids), rather the transfer of a change in their yet unknown property, from one to the other.
I personally think it's convincing... but I also know that at the smallest scales where any form of dynamics becomes much simpler things won't be waving like the classical fluids we know. So if there was another way of explaing this would be that "the waves aren't fluid but rather quantum interactions between whatever unit vectors that exist emerging as an oscillation in a network of these interactions.
It is true that the aether was not strictly disproven as much as the idea was abandoned in its 19th century form... but the discovery Higgs Boson and The Field complete the function of what had been called The Aether i.e. an invisible sea that fills the universe and which waves propagate through. Or am I missing something more subtle ?
"WHAT IS A FIELD?" It is the combination of two "sets of INFORMATIONS": the first "set" is the POSITION. The second set is a "TENSOR". If that tensor is a "0 rank" tensor, we call it a SCALAR. "Rank 1" is a VECTOR. Etc. In fact, the picture you are watching right now IS a "FIELD". Each pixel is defined by its (x,y) coordinates and 3 "colors" (scalars)... You could think of a video as a "vector" field if you could correctly "predict" how the (x,y) coordinates of each pixels would change from picture A to picture B... That's what the video compression algorithms try to do BTW: predict the movement of (groups of) pixels with vectors, and apply a small "correction" if needed! What if every "physical field" was, in fact, the exact same thing? But instead of "colors", they'd be build with informations like "gravitational mass", "electric charge" and "magnetic charge", or scalars like "temperature", "pressure", "density", etc? If so, it would mean that what particle physicists are trying to do is to "understand how a computer screen actually works by breaking it with a big hammer" (LHC at CERN), then naming and studying each individual "screen particle" while asking for more funds to build a bigger hammer (the future giant LHC). Wouldn't that be really dumb?
You are right about the first part, but how do we discover relations between different colors? We need to go to the scale where the colors are getting "created". The same is done in particle accelerators to find the relations, between properties especially the different charges but also mass.
@AM-bw3ze How could you possibly find "relations between different colors" by breaking up the screen? What I meant to say is: "The KEY to understand REALITY is to change our paradigm, our understanding of the Universe! We need to switch from a materialist paradigm (a.k.a.: "let's analyse the screen particles") to an INFORMATION centric Paradigm". That is the ONLY way we could possibly UNDERSTAND what a "UNIVERSE's PIXEL" is, what are its COLORS and how it relates to its peers. Unfortunately, that means we need to "imagine" certain objects we can't observe (and never will...). Exactly like the person who's trying to figure how an image appears on his (computer) screen needs to figure what a CPU (or GPU) is, how it works, what a MEMORY is, etc. You could argue that: "We can actually observe a CPU or a memory Chip". And I would answer: "All we can see is the physical object we call a CPU!" That doesn't truly help us to understand how it works. What really matters is what happens inside the CPU, doesn't it? And that, unfortunately, is INVISIBLE for us! And will remain so! Yet, we can understand it by studying the CPU's LOGIC, it's algorithms, functions! And we can test our proper understanding by programming it! In other words, "I.T.", the "Computer's Science" is SCIENTIFIC in nature (falsifiability) but differs from what we usually call "Science" (i.e. Physics) by the fact we can't directly observe anything that we're actually doing. All we can do is to get "indirect observations/confirmations"... Exactly like when you watch a screen, you don't actually see PIXELS but you see how the hardware (the screen) interpreted those instructions/informations (PIXELS) to produce "colors" (aka "emit a certain amount of photons of a certain wavelength per unit of time"). That's why I think it is mandatory for us to stop wasting time and ressources to "break the screen into ever smaller bits and pieces" and start using our BRAINS instead! In other words, we should start working on computer "SIMULATIONS of REALITY". The change of paradigm I'm asking for is huge, I agree! Many in the World of Physics will fight against such a paradigm shift! But are they right to do so? I don't think so! And the lack of actual progress in the world of Physics for at least 70 years is a strong evidence that I am correct in my assessment... But that's the only way forward! And that's what I'm working on myself by developing a "fully functional physical simulation" MODEL! It is actually WAAAY easier to do than what everybody thinks... As soon as you start working with the "right hypothesis"... You quickly find many answers to many "WHY" questions! For instance, "WHY the LORENTZ factor is needed to get the total ENERGY (Kinetic + Proper) of a moving particule? (without any "gravitation" effect)". Or "Why general relativity works as it does?". "Why is Quantum Mechanics a MUST HAVE for a computer simulation of reality to work properly?", "What is the TIME dimension exactly?", "What is EMERGENCE and how does it relate to the NETWORK we are running the simulation on?" Or "What is ENTROPY? Where does it come from? Why is this REQUIRED for our simulation?" And so on... I can't even count all those "mysteries/seemingly hard to answer questions" that are actually pretty easily answered once you start working on a SIMULATION model of REALITY! That's what I am going to explain it in English very soon, using YT videos... Because I'm pretty sure no "peer reviewed journals" would agree to publish anything I've found so far! So, I'm aiming the General Public instead of wasting my time chasing "peer reviewed" acceptance! My Public ? "Kids from 7 to 777"... Because everything is so simple to understand that any kid from 7 will get it very quickly! It's so fun... I actually already started to do so, but in French (my mother tongue), on my YT channel! Have a look if you want :)
@@metanoia7217 You don't break the screen but you need to look closer to see what is inside. And so you discover how to produce whatever color you want, because the underlying mechanism is the same. With nuclei it gets harder to look them, because looking at something requires the thing to send some information (light) to you. But the radiation of light is only possible by a change of energy and momentum, so you never see what is really there but you can measure how something changes instead. To see a nucleus change you need to do something to him and the best thing we have is smashing them together.
It's "Luminiferous Aether" not "Ether". Still I tried to follow until you invoked "common sense". I'm not convinced you know enough to know what you're saying
The archaic and stigmatic "Æ" word needs to be struck from the lexicon of science forever and replaced with *subPlanckian space medium*. The 120 year old :"vacuum" model of space is as if the science of Oceanography were predicated on non-existence of the ocean.
What's so malignant about the Æ word is this: WORDS HAVE MEANING. This one connotes some 'essence' that's extremely thin, vague, diaphanous, `almost' a pure vacuum and having as much utility and function. By contrast, common sense would know that space is a Plenum, the furthest thing there is from a vacuum (or near-vacuous "ether"). Common sense would also know that the Plenum's constituency has gotta be sub-Planckian, below our sensory and EM resolution, and that's why we've been perceiving it as 'void' or 'nothingness'... requiring invention of the reified surrogate "spacetime" to describe the 'nothing' mathematically *as if* it were something ontological. Granted, the math "works" splendidly (like GR's 'curvature of spacetime')... until it doesn't. It bogs down completely when confronting the 'Big Issues' like the causal mechanism of gravity, unification of gravity, dark matter, dark energy etc. The key to the next revolution in physics has gotta be to roll back the inverted 'vacuum' model of space to its inception and start fresh with the Plenum model.
Yes. Gamma rays can pop electron and positron out of the either. These are bubble and drop. When they inhilate each other they send a either pressure wave if high energy called a gammer ray. Matter is a state of ether. Like vapour bubbles. Gravity is a mutual shielding between two blobs of matter, of photons, waves, from the rest of the universe. It's not a pull between the blobs. It's a push from the rest of the universe. A simple computer simulation will show his this works. The either is seathing with the "quantum" field. Subatomic particles, are "bubbles" forming and popping. Like water being heated, makes that hissing sound, of bubbles forming and popping. The thousands of bubbles popping make the noise. The noise are sound waves. Reason why you can't shield gravity, it's effect is subatomic, and interstellar. But you can demonstrate it easy. TAKE TWO VERY SMOOTH PLATES, BRING THEM A FEW MICROMETERS APART, THEY EXPERIENCE A HUGE FORCE. Called the Cashmere force. That's just a simple demonstration yes gravity is a universal push cause by mutual shielding the rest of the universe.
I read a book on the Michaelson Morley experiment 50 years ago and later understood the concept of C being constant in a vacuum . I used it to derive the equations for a magnetic field from an electric field . It was all quite elegant . I don't want there to be an aether to mess up my whole world view now .
@@rientsdijkstra4266actually it's vice versa. Einstein's special relativity is wrong, as proven in many experiments, while theory of aether is probably right (never been disproven).
@@cinegraphics Really, as shown in many experiments? The theory of Special Relativity was proven by the Michelsen Morley experiment that was actually intended to prove the existence of aether, but ended up showing that the speed of light is independent of the movement of the earth, which actually disproves the existence of aether, and the thesis that the creators of the experiment wanted to prove. Short synopsis: if the earths moves "trough" some kind of aether that is supposed to "carry" electromagnetic radiation, then the speed of that radation should be dependent on whether the earth in its circular movement moves toward or away from the source of the light through the aether. This difference was not found, which disproves the theory that an aether is the carrier of EM radiation. So please tell, which scientifically proven, published and peer reviewed experiments "prove" that Special Relativity is wrong? I'd really like to look into this myself!
@@rientsdijkstra4266 Einstein replaced the aether with his reified spacetime which are absurdities. Space is the absence of some thing and time is a measure of something.
Nicholas Gisim experiment proved a photon is actually two photons that can be split apart but remain entangled. It travels helically E = γmc^2, where γ = 1/√(1 - (v^2/c^2)) this helical movement is the wave function. The detector splits the -w and +s boson or photon as you like to call it. The detector removes one of them eliminating the wave function the drafraction pattern goes away and will display light as a particle. Solving the dual slit experiment.
The video clearly confuses map with the actual territory. Btw some physicist do that too actually.:) The fields, waves and all that is just a model. A model to be able to describe some, not all, physical behaviour. The model has ,in fact, nothing to do with reality, it only emulates some of its behaviour we think we are aware of and can observe. Btw there's even a confusion what constitutes an observation. E.g. there's no any actual physical definition for it and yet we justify most of our models by it. Same like there's no actual physical definition of time and yet we measure it and use it everywhere. Also there's no any actual physical definition of what constitutes measurement. Especially In QM we don't even know whether the "measurement" is or isn't a part of what's being measured. So you see the notion that light is wave and a particle "at the same time" depending on how is it observed via measurement already contains all terms we have no physical definition for. It's just a model. The best we have.
I reject the idea that we can't know the actual nature of the physical world and that all we can know is to model it. Do you disagree that fields tell us how much of a certain property is at what location?
@@Inductica Rejecting it is of course perfectly fine. The rest of what you wrote is more of a philosophical question. To me the trouble answering it stems from the following: 1. All we do is measure, but we know neither what constitutes measurement nor whether the measurement is a part what we measure or not. 2. Now, take 'c' for example. - We cannot even measure it in both directions for the same photon since that measurements depends on knowing the 'c' beforehand. - we model it either as wave or as a particle depending on what is giving seemingly more accurate results based on our measurements (see the point 1. above) - speed of EM waves propagation ('c') comes out of Maxwells equations whereby that speed only depends on the properties of the media and nothing else otherwise all our EM theories would've fallen apart. - to say that 'c' is of the same one photon is the same relative to any frame of reference and their relative speeds to each other requires admission that we are lost.🙂 But yet, our model needs this to function. Hence we started saying that our intuition and intellect don't work and yet our very intellect and intuition created that very model which suggest these two things don't work😉 3. The math, we do believe in, has one fatal flaw which is called "Gödel Incompleteness Theorem". Tou may say it's just one, nevertheless it's enough to disregard it as a tool for any system reaching certain complexity used to prove that theorem to be correct.
@@niblick616 To reject the notion that we cannot understand the nature of the Physical world is the rational position to take as evidenced by the likes of Galileo and Newton. Is it your view that science cannot progress from where it is now?
It's been said that if the space medium exists, there's no way to detect it physically. Well, there's a little demo that goes like this: Get a barbell, say a 3 foot one with a 10 lb. weight on each end. While standing, pick it up from the middle, and try to 'torque' it in the horizontal plane. Notice the huge inertia against turning it (amplified by the long moment arms). That inertia is literally the resistance *of 'space' itself* against an object's acceleration. That very same property of space, accelerating straight down thru your bod and barbell, is creating 'weight', pressing your feet to the floor. It's a simple little demo of acceleration/inertia/weight equivalence. Gravity is simply the effect of spaceflow accelerating vertically. Properly understood, we are interacting with the space medium in the tangible, palpable and tactile sense every second of every day of our lives, literally.
@@robertsutherland7378 What GPB detected was a very slight torquing of the "frame" or gravity well, but without any explanation of what the frame(gravity) actually consists of. Over the last century, the Flowing-Space model of gravity has been deduced by a number of people worldwide, independently and without collaboration. Here's a couple of recent examples -- henrylindner.net/Writings/BeyondNewtonPE.pdf th-cam.com/video/hFlzQvAyH7g/w-d-xo.html
There are flaws in this video. First, fields represent the spatial distribution and evolution of physical quantities ... and while fields can have properties such as strength, direction, or curvature, they are not properties in the same sense as intrinsic attributes of particles. Second, to propagate, fields don't require a material medium in the traditional sense - spacetime is not a medium but is instead a geometric concept of the arena within which things happen.
Very large flaws. Aether was thought to be a gas-like substance as in 'matter' . Fields, on the other hand, are seen as an intrinsic condition of space itself rather than a thing that exists in space.
Ummm..... no. If I (as a non-physicist) understand it properly, there is a constant creation and annihilation of particles 'ex nihilo' from the quantum vacuum? In which case would that not provide the base structure for fields to exist? In simple terms, that there is never 'nothing' but always 'something' in the quantum vacuum? (And by the way, to use your own words "today, of course, we know that" electrons don't have a "circular orbit".)
Why not just do away with the semantics? The ether = quantum vacuum = space-time. In other words, the space-time field is the intrinsic field that is composed of all the others, or it is the intrinsic field that all the others exist within. Space-time is the base field so to speak.
Do you think the ether gives us key understanding gravity? If so can we make antigravity possible? What are the implications for understanding infinity?
The concept of Aether is century older than Special-Relativity. Yet it never pointed towards the understanig of gravity the way relativity did. There's nothing inbuilt in Aether theories that can point towards bending of Aether to create gravity.
The "null" result is not true. Michelson - Morley resulted in velocity values 1/6 to 2/3 of what they were expecting. It was Einstein first books/articles which magical did away with the ether, but before Einstein died he absolutely professed the need for the ether. Transverse waves need a boundary condition between two medias to exist. The refraction index of the ether might be explained by capacitance and inductance.
Quantum mechanics stands out as a domain where the both/and logic of the monadological framework finds profound relevance and application. The paradoxical behavior of quantum particles and systems has persistently challenged classical binary logic and representations rooted in strict separability and the mutual exclusivity of properties. Wave-Particle Duality One of the most famous quantum paradoxes is the wave-particle duality, where quantum entities like electrons and photons exhibit properties of both particles and waves depending on the experimental context. Classical logic would deem these to be contradictory and mutually exclusive properties - an entity cannot be both a localized particle and a delocalized wave simultaneously. However, quantum experiments have incontrovertibly demonstrated this seemingly impossible "wave-particle duality." The multivalent structure of the both/and logic allows us to formally represent and reason about these apparently contradictory wave and particle aspects. We can assign quantum entities like an electron a partial truth value between 0 and 1 for both the proposition "is a particle" and "is a wave" based on the specific experimental context. The coherence operator ○ in the logic allows quantifying the compatibility between the particle and wave properties. For instance, in a double-slit experiment setup, an electron could be assigned truth values of 0.7 for "is a wave" and 0.6 for "is a particle", with a coherence value ○(wave, particle) = 0.4 say. This reflects that in this context, the electron exhibits a high degree of both wave and particle properties, which are partially coherent or compatible with each other per the logic. The synthesis operator ⊕ further allows representing the integration of the particle and wave aspects into a higher-order unified description that transcends their apparent opposition in a creative/emergent way as per the quantum phenomenon. Electron ⊕ ~Electron could capture the genuine possibilistic superposition that transcends the classical dichotomies. Quantum Entanglement Another quintessential quantum paradox is the phenomenon of entanglement, where particles can remain indefinitely correlated in their properties over arbitrary distances, schematically violating the classical assumptions of separability, locality, and independence. Once in an entangled state, the individual particles lose their autonomy and must be modeled as a holistic, non-separable system exhibiting correlations that cannot be accounted for by classical probability theory. The both/and logic allows us to formally represent and reason about these non-local, holistic correlations. We can use the coherence operator to quantify how well separable vs. holistic descriptions fit the entangled system's behavior based on violations of Bell inequalities. We can assign entangled particles a high truth value for being in a unified, non-separable state and a low value for classical separability. The synthesis operator ⊕ comes into play to represent the transcendent, novel whole that emerges for the entangled system - one where properties are fundamentally de-localized and reciprocally coordinated across the individual particle descriptors. Descriptions like "SpinUp ⊕ ~SpinUp" capture the genuinely holistic and paradoxical condition evinced. The principle of holistic contradiction further allows logically deriving the non-separable correlations from any product state descriptor, formalizing how entanglement forces abandoning classical separability assumptions. Quantum Theory Interpretation More broadly, the both/and logic provides a coherent framework for interpreting and modeling the paradoxical phenomenology of quantum theory that has resisted reconciliation with classical representations. Principles like complementarity, uncertainty, non-locality, and wave-function collapse all involve apparent contradictions between operational predictions, measurements, and visualizable physical mechanisms. The multivalent structure allows assigning multiple dynamically-shifting truth values to propositions about particle/field properties, detecting vs not detecting events, local vs non-local causality, unitary evolution vs stochastic collapse etc. based on context. Coherence values between these assign degrees of compatibility. The synthesis operator captures the higher-order transcendence involved in intrinsically indeterminate or "complementary" variables. Holistic contradiction allows formalizing the genuinely paradoxical possibilistic condition where for instance, "SpinUp" and "~SpinUp" both arise as co-realizable eventualities for a single quantum event, in a way barred by classical logic. In essence, the both/and logic allows coherently representing and regimenting the intrinsically paradoxical phenomenology and interpretational paradoxes of quantum theory itself, in a way moving beyond the internal contradictions that have plagued classical analyses and models. Its paraconsistent, multivalent structure allows quantum theory's apparent contradictions and complementarities to be rendered formally consistent and expressible. By embracing the both/and logic native to quantum phenomena, the monadological framework promises fundamental advances in our capacity to model, predict, and perhaps even rationally steer the quantum realm. Where classical logic and models fail by being too restrictive, the both/and logic equips us with a radically expanded descriptive capacity befitting quantum theory's intrinsically paradoxical nature.
The table has no contraction at the lab rest frame. It will be contracted at the ether rest frame (if such exist) exactly the same as the wavelength of the corresponding table direction. But again the results showed that the speed of light is constant at all inertial frames, including the ether rest frame (if such exist). So if there's an ether rest frame it has no impact on the light speed, which is pretty weird for a medium of a wave.
Just ran onto your channel and concur wholeheartedly with your 'Induction' protocol prioritising _causal mechanisms_ over abstract descriptions of effects. For 120 years physics has been locked into and predicated on a TOTAL PARADIGM INVERSION that far eclipses the geocentrism>heliocentrism inversion. The space medium ('ether') was unceremoniously kicked out, transforming it to a vacuum or 'no-thing'. So "spacetime" became its reified surrogate, a pure abstraction allowing the 'no-thing' to be treated mathematically as 'something' ontological. Granted, GR's spacetime with its cryptic 'curvature' worked spectacularly well... until it didn't. It falls flat on its face confronting the 'Big Issues' in physics like the _causal mechanism_ of gravity, unification gravity in the UFT, relativity/QM conciliation, dark matter/dark energy etc. 'Space' is a universe-filling 'Ocean' or Plenum, the furthest thing there is from a vacuum(aka 'spacetime'). So how can we roll back the vacuum model to its inception, turn it on its head, and start afresh from a clean slate with the Plenum model? Conceptualizing the Plenum might be easier by way of analogy at first. Picture a fish deep in the ocean. He has no concept of "water" or "ocean", 'water molecules', pressure or density. To his perception, his domain is simply "space", a great void of 'nothing'. He feels no physical presence or pressure, because he's composed of and immersed in, the perceived "no-thing". He's neutrally buoyant in it. In like manner, our perception of "space" is a 'no-thing' or nothingness. We're oblivious that we, even down to our constituent atoms, are *full of and swimming in* one great 'Ocean', the Plenum of space. Our very atoms, down to their quantum and subquantum constituency, are FULL of It. It's said that an atom is 99.9999% or so "empty space", which translates to it being 99.9999% FULL of 'Plenum stuff'. As with Mr. Fish, we're also in hydraulic equalibrium with it, sensing no physical presence of it. And because its 'cellularity' is sub-Planckian, below our sensory and EM resolution, we go on perceiving It as 'void' or nothing, just as "water molecules" would be to Mr. Fish in his domain of "nothing". In like manner, we, our planet and our Cosmos are pressure dwellers in our element, the 'Ocean' of subPlanckian space. This little vid contains a neat metaphor of 'particles' popping out of and back into "nothing". Begins at 3: 40 th-cam.com/video/fY8pucNaaH0/w-d-xo.html The water represents subPlanckian space; the bubbles are metaphoric 'particles'. A noteworthy 'spinoff' or sidebar of the Plenum model would be the flowing-space model of gravity. Over the past century it has been deduced independently by a number of people independently and without collaboration, beginning with Gullstrand/Painlevé. Here's a couple of recent examples -- henrylindner.net/Writings/BeyondNewtonPE.pdf th-cam.com/video/hFlzQvAyH7g/w-d-xo.html And BTW, the cryptic 'curvature' of space would be the _rate of acceleration_ of flowing space, aka the 'strength' or force of gravity. Without acceleration there's no 'curvature', hence no gravity _irrespective of the actual velocity_ of a flow. Conversely, a non-accelerating object can coast frictionlessly thru space at any velocity per Newton's first law. Herein you have unification of gravity and inertia. Inertia and 'weight' are simply a 'viscous' effect of space resisting being accelerated thru an an object's atomic lattice. In the absence of any accelerative force or action, space is a perfect superfluid. So it's actually an "acceleration-mediated quasi superfluid". A rough analogy is seen in non-Newtonian fluids (like oobleck) in their stress-mediated variable viscosity. The anachronistic term 'ether' really needs to be replaced with something definitive/descriptive, like 'SubPlanckian Space Medium'.
Yes, acceleration and gravity are linked but not as force. Gravity, and acceleration are both the opposite of force. I know this is true because when I throw a ball up in the air with the force of my throw it goes up, curves and accelerates back to inertial Rest. That return, that acceleration has no force. Gravity is an anti field. Aether is not in space. Space is the shadow of aether. Space is no thing. Aether is non cartesianal that is what the Michaelson-Morley experiment showed u s.
"'Space' is a universe-filling 'Ocean' ": And then what is this "universe" thing you speak of? " his domain is simply "space", a great void of 'nothing'": Do you think fish have different sensors than you do? Space: three dimensions (Cartesian, polar, whatever)... that define where something can go and can be. Time: When it goes or be's there. Temperature: Another attribute that can change "orthogonal" to space and time. Why don't we hear people talking about Space-temperature or temperature-time? Pressure: Another attribute that can change but is "not orthogonal" to space and time and temperature. Raise the pressure and confine the space and temperature goes up. Do it faster and the temperature changes faster.
@@toddmarshall7573 You are on the right track, you just have it backwards. Is a shadow a thing? Certainly you can feel coolness in shadow, but that does not make shadow a thing that makes you cool does it? What makes you cool when you stand in a shadow? Space is like a shadow. It is not a thing and therefor it cannot be an ocean. A void of nothing is just no thing. Not an ocean. An Ocean is not a void, is not space.
@@toddmarshall7573 Did you answer the questions? Is space a thing? Go ahead, I am not going anywhere. look it up in the dictionary. I dare you. I double dare you.
I have been thinking along the same lines recently after watching a lot of TH-cam videos on the physics of light and electro magnetism. I think the whole term electromagnetic radiation is misleading. Instead of electromagnetic waves, the ideal term would be “space waves” because there’s no getting around the fact that any wave requires a medium. Light - a wave-travels through space, so it’s a space wave. In other words, a transmitted disturbance in the field of space. This disturbance is caused by, among other things, movement (displacement) through the spacefield of objects having mass and ‘electric’ and ‘magnetic’ charges. I imagine spacefield to be like a three dimensional network and mass-ive objects as spheres with 2 hooks - called electric charge hook and magnetic moment hook. These “hooks” catch on to the substance of the spacefield. So when the hooked sphere is moved through the spacefield (ether), the hooks strum the threads of the network of the spacefield and you have your “electromagnetic wave” propagating happily through the spacefield aka ether. It’s my simple self- evident explanation.
@@LeonelLimon-nj7tu The problem is this: There NEEDS to be ONLY SPACE & TIME at the bottom of the "what is everything made of?" stack. If you posit an "ether" that needs to be "waving" then you only beg the question: "What is the ether made of?" There CANNOT be a need for everything to be made of something more basic because then you need to figure out what that "more basic" thing is made of. The bottom of the "what is it made of?" stack MUST be NOTHING.
@@ThatBoomerDude56 well whatever it is, it takes the space of 3 Angstroms @ 11, thousand trillion pretubutaions per second. If this comes to question; ask AI.
There is no evidence for an ether. Electric and magnetic fields are properties of locations in spacetime. Is spacetime "something"? In some senses yes, in some senses no. But it's not a substance, not an ether.
@@Existidor.Serial137 Haha, no. I mean that it is an existent having particular properties and having the ability to act. Examples of entities: rocks, atoms, planets, the earth's atmosphere. Examples of non-entities: My emotions (I'm an entity, but my emotions are not, they are an aspect of me.) The color of your shirt (the shirt is an entity, but its color is a property.) I make a big deal about this because we need to be clear on the difference between the fields (a description of the capacity for action) and the actual entity committing these actions (the ether). We are confused about these fundamental categories of existence, and that is blocking progress in physics.
@@Inductica I agree with you in principle. However I would suggest that emotions are arguably entities in that they can be observed at one level of abstraction as discrete snapshots of brain chemistry and at another as a consequential behavioural expression. In my view time is the classic example of something that we all purport to understand but cannot in fact be shown at any level of abstraction to be observable as an entity.
The light is waving. Fix a rope at end. Flick the rope from the other end to create a wave travelling along the length of the rope. The wave doesn't require a medium, the rope itself expresses the wave. Similarly, light happens to propagate in a wave formation, and it doesn't need a medium for that to happen. So simple.
@@toddmarshall7573 In principle any speed will suffice. Only problem is that if the speed is to little the margin of measurement is to small. Actually the Michelson Morley experiment (which was intended to prove the existence of aehter!) proved already in the 19th century that the speed of light relative to earth is independent to the movement of earth, which disproves the existence of aehter as medium for light (EM radiation).
I can explain all this, and I have explained it at length on Quora/Jon Wiebold. But here is another explanation: Yes, the Aether exists. We know a list of facts about it but not everything. We know that something about it moves at c, and since normal matter cannot move at c, therefore the aether cannot be made of normal matter. We think photons do not propel themselves, they simply energize the aether, locally. We think it lends wavelike properties to the EM radiation. The photon is the particle and the medium provides the wave. When light moves slower through a lens material, it is because the aether , energized by the EM, is passing through the lens material, creating a mixed medium. This also explains why the light speeds up again upon exiting the lens material. As in all other cases, the medium determines the speed of the wave. An undersea radio antenna needs to be shortened by the index of refraction of light (n=1.33) to work correctly. The Aether penetrates and saturates the entire Earth. I wonder what the index of refraction of the core of the Earth is? The aether penetrates and energizes the subatomic matter in every atom, forcing the subatomics to maintain c. As the subatomics are captivated in the construct of normal matter, the subatomics are constantly accelerating in essentially every direction at once. Gravity? Any change in c causes a net acceleration amongst the subatomics, which translates to a force in the normal matter. Gravity is that simple. No matter how fast matter is moving, the subatomics are moving at exactly c, relative to the Aether, the medium of the galaxy. Thus, no speck of normal baryonic matter will ever move faster than c unless we can locally energize c and motivate it in the right vector. C is whatever speed the aether is moving. The aether moves in all directions at once as a superfluid. It is not captive and not accelerating. The speed of the aether is dependent on its energy to matter ratio. The aether slows as it nears great quantities of normal matter because it is rendering energy into that matter. This slowing causes gradients of time dilation, which cause the gravity mentioned earlier. Light, crossing a gradient will curve. the waves that stay in phase will curve. The non-accelerating aether interacts with with the subatomic to which it is rendering energy, not in a chemical way, in a physical way. Equivalence is constant. Mass is normal matter's resistance to acceleration, as produced by the same mechanics as gravity mentioned earlier, but with kinetic input instead of a chronic input. Michelson et al were not stupid to believe in the Aether, but they missed a few details.They expected the Luminous Aether to be something stationary that the Earth was ploughing its way through. They expected something through which light and the other EMs would propagate at the speed of light. They probably never wondered what kind of matter it was. The Quintescent Aether is a very different explanation. It's state of matter, the fifth state, lacks the construct of normal matter and is therefore massless. The physical properties are more important than its chemical properties. The QA has an energy / matter relationship that establishes how it move at c., the so called speed of light. It may make sense that photons do not propel themselves, they simply energize the Quintescent Aether that is already moving at that speed. When recirculating QA encounters itself at a sidereal 2c, there is no interaction and no resistance. Everything that moves at c moves at the same c, which is locally zero relative to the QA. The Q Aether slows as it encounters normal matter because it is rendering energy to that normal matter, maintaining the speed of all the subatomic particles in the normal matter. If the subatomics are all moving at c but not in a straight line, then, they are all accelerating. This acceleration can be perfectly internally balanced until a gradient in time dilation causes the local subatomics an imbalance of accelerations. Call it momentum, inertia or gravity, it is the interaction of the Quintescent Aether with every speck of normal matter. This interaction explains all of the "action at a distance" phenomena. Thanks for a great explainer video.
The whole universe is an electromagnetic field, so there is no real vacuum within the universe. The universe may still be expanding into a real vacuum, or it has stopped expanding and we're moving through the field, in our field of fields.
In the channel "dialect", the video "What Time Dilation ACTUALLY Is In Relativity " uses air to produce the same effect as light clock, the new video "How Superposition Causes Length Contraction" uses doppler effect to produce the length contraction effect. I like those explanations myself.
@@Inductica hello , i have some questions In Lorenz's explanation, only "matter" is compressed, but space is not. In Einstein's explanation, the entire space is compressed. Is there any way to do experiment to decide which explanation is correct？ Another question is, i don't understand the 7:00-7:20 in your video, why does the field of the nucleus change while moving in aether? why? is there any explanation? Could you please provide me with some resources to learn more? Thank you
@@陳力歐-d2d both your questions are answered indirectly in a paper titled “How to Teach Special Relativity,” by JS Bell (known for Bell’s theorem.) Bell gives a thought experiment demonstrating that space does not actually shrink, but that it is our measurement instruments that shrink.
Fields are aether disturbed which makes aether Pure Potential, or Rest, which is Energy, what we call energy is aether disturbed which gives rise to force and motion at the end of which is the complete impotence of aether, which is its shadow, space, the curve is aether returning it Rest which is accelerative and an anti field we call gravity. Hello.
As a physicist (specialty is in QCD physics) I would say your interest is motivated by a fundamental misperception, one that drove late 19th century physics into bad ideas through insistence on mechanical examples as they were used to them. The same intransigence led to utter confusion over quantum effects once they were noticed.
Fundamental field entities are not based on a "waving" of anything. You are confusing the fact that the (differential) equations that describe particle dynamics have solutions that resemble those for mechanical waves in media for the entities themselves. In fact, once you give on such literal models and allow, e.g., for quantum entities to be represented as state vectors in a Hilbert space (the modern and correct view, as it turns out), the whole notion of waving of something becomes almost obsolete. One gets oscillatory (i.e., complex) terms once "into the grass" of making calculations with Lagrangians, one sees these as mathematical phases that belong in integrals, and not about the fundamental nature of the entities one is examining.
The wave nature of light is an effective description of (interfering) photons that we see on a human scale. The effects are indeed as we all have witnessed in high school teachings using waves of water as a model, but this must NOT be taken too literally.
You have eloquently epitomized the misguided perspective of most modern physicists.
You want to replace physical existence with math. This is nonsense; mathematical concepts don't have physical existence, they are man's mental tools for grasping quantitative relationships among physical existents. There are no integrals and Hilbert spaces in these physical phenomena, the physical phenomena have a particular nature and we invent these mathematical abstractions to describe that nature.
The real power of science lies in identifying new physical existents and manipulating their properties for productive ends. Under your philosophy of science we cannot identify further physical existents because you say that looking for them is a misperception, and that we should focus just on math. This only allows us to describe the phenomena we are already aware of, it does not allow us to infer the existence of new phenomena.
Your treatment of math as physically real is metaphysically nonsensical and is an epistemic dead-end. This is exactly what I seek to change.
@@Inductica It is clear that you are working under a category error. You wish to take an exposition - such as the description of physical entities, at one time given as waves -for the object itself. The is no other ontology than the wavefunction of objects, as I explained best explained by objects not involving waves in the first place. This by itself blows any attempt to seek answers about some putative underlying nature of some "wave object" described by the same logic that YOU claim. I would advise learning MUCH more of modern physics than you have latched on to, especially QFT (an especially successful description of the micro-structure of nature), and forget the search for human-like concepts which have only held us back for centuries.
Honest to God, only metal tools? What do you call the epistomological status of the classical images you want to invoke?
@@ExistenceUniversity how the hell did this guy get through undergrad and a masters (or was it the application for a masters)??? I did a proper QED course, and I'm not even a physics major (I just got a minor).
We must renounce the efforts to understand sub-atomic phenomena.
-Niels Bohr
Karl Popper despised this view as it challenged the very essence of scientific inquiry and the possibility of understanding the natural world through empirical means.
You sound like a Bohrian!
I'm more of a Popperian!
Structure the shell and the core or GTFO with abstract geometry that doesn't have a GEOMETRICAL REPRESENTATION!
You are writing SCIENCE FICTION with Mythomatics but Star Wars does it better with words!
@@ffc1a28c7 That's not fair to say, regarding all of those who challenged existing theories and turned out to be right. Having an alternative theory does not mean you are inferior in handling the existing. @Inductica has a good point criticizing a pure theoretical framework (math) being taken as reality. It leads us to absurdities like singularities, where, from a physical standpoint, it's much more likely that the framework is incomplete. On the other hand, there is a strong argument against his view: "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences". The fact that math can explain reality so well in "simple" terms, is an indication for physics _being_ that simple. Instead of math being constructed by humans, we can say it's discovered by humans as a part of discovering reality. The relations in math _are_ part of our physical reality. How it's described, however, in terms of symbols and conventions, are human constructs.
"However, we will find here that particles do not exist at all! Everything we see as a particle is, in fact, a wave pulse which is propagating through space. Space is not a neutral void anywhere in the universe. Space always has intrinsic properties, being the ability to have electromagnetic fields. Space also has the energy which is contained in the electromagnetic fields.
The goal then becomes to understand exactly what the properties of space are. It turns out that most of the work has already been done. Maxwell's equations in free space, by their form, virtually demand the interpretation as intrinsic properties of space. Furthermore, these equations have already been well supported experimentally. Every time one listens to the radio or watches television, Maxwell's equations are being verified."
This is from the book "The Electromagnetic Universe 7th Ed." This book can give you the math to back up your general arguments.
The notion of particles as fundamental building blocks of matter is seen as an incomplete and inadequate description of physical reality. Instead, the idea of fields and their interactions is emphasized, and particles are seen as a manifestation of these fields in certain circumstances. Therefore, it can be argued that particles exist only as a useful mathematical abstraction, but they are not fundamental physical entities."
J.C.Maxwell: “This medium of propagation, the Ether, must exist. This medium must be a prominent thought in our investigations”
A. Einstein: "…… in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical, as we will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity. It does remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states…once again “empty” space appears as endowed with physical properties, i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to special relativity. One can thus say that the ether is resurrected in the general theory of relativity….Since in the new theory, metric facts can no longer be separated from “true” physical facts, the concepts of “space” and “ether” merge together." (“Grundgedanken und Methoden der Relativitätstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt,” Morgan Manuscript, EA 2070, as cited in Ludwik Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, 2000, p. 2.)
P. Dirac 1951: “…..We have now the velocity at all points of space-time, playing a fundamental part in electrodynamics. It is natural to regard it as the velocity of some real physical thing. Thus with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aether”.
R. Laughlin, Nobel price in physics 1993: “About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that an empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space confirmed everyday by experiment is a relativistic ether but we do not call it this because it's taboo." (A Different Universe, 2005)
The Ether is envisioned as a medium that stores all available energy in the universe, acting as a reservoir for potential and kinetic energies.
Energy creation and transformation take on new dimensions as the Ether allows for the generation, storage, and release of energy through interactions with fields, particles, and forces.
Analogous to a capacitor in electrical circuits, the Ether accumulates and modulates energy, impacting the dynamics of particles, fields, and cosmic events.
Energy exchanges within the Ether drive field interactions, particle behaviors, and emergent phenomena, shaping the energetic landscapes of the cosmos.
Theoretical speculations on the Ether as an energy reservoir inspire imaginative explorations into energy dynamics, leading to new theoretical frameworks and experimental investigations.
Considering the Ether's capacitive nature offers insights into alternative scenarios of cosmic evolution, energetic phenomena, and the interconnectedness of energy transformations in the universe's fabric.
By integrating the concept of the Ether as an energy reservoir akin to a capacitor in cosmic dynamics, a speculative framework emerges that invites contemplation on the energetic foundations of the universe, energy creation mechanisms, and the dynamic interplay of energy forms within cosmic processes. This perspective sparks theoretical reflections, creative ponderings, and interdisciplinary discussions on the energetic dimensions of cosmic events beyond gravitational influences. if you'd like to explore any specific aspect further, feel free to let me know!
@@tinyear926 this "ether" isn't merely a "medium" that "stores" energy! It's what everything is made of! It's that "dialectical material" from Marx and Engels' "dialectical materialism"! The material simply has to be energized in a certain way for it to "become" "matter"!
@@joeyrufo Agreed, sound, light, magnetism, electricity, matter are different modalities of the same thing.
"The Ether is envisioned as a medium that stores all available energy in the universe, acting as a reservoir for potential and kinetic energies."
EXACTLY!
“The modern concept of the vacuum of space confirmed everyday by experiment is a relativistic ether but we do not call it this because it's taboo.”: may be it’s not because it would be taboo, and rather because it’s inadequate in at least one way: unlike what the word suggests, it’s not material and does not behave like it (unless proven otherwise): think about wind of aether. If what’s material emanates from it (as suggested), then it cannot be material itself. So far, sure the vacuum does not exists as in the common sense, but to give this physical reality, a name which would suggest it is as what this name suggested in the past (which is how it would be understood), would be misleading. Better avoid a word with two opposite definitions, this is a too good way to confuse non-interchangeable concepts.
@@yannickduchene305 My personal opinion is there is no such thing as sky vacuum.
To hide the bell, just suck out all the luminiferous aether.
Don't mess with the simulation. It needs it's pixels.
-hyperdimensional gamer
You'd have to tell me how you suck aether , collapse space into a black hole? ...that would indeed hide the bell's interior.
I will say this, the comments for this video are a great read 👍🏾
Yes they are, a bunch of cavemen sitting in the more or less dark debating what the sparkling things in the night sky really are. They can tell you some things about them, but they don't have any real information.
Better than the original video, which is drivel
...and heavily censored at that.
@@northdallashs1lol another cult member.
Waves don't move, but their energy does. We see waves moving on the ocean, but the water is only displaced at 90 degrees to the ocean (amplitude of the wave) and does not move in the direction that the wave is travelling; we see the wave moving, but it is only the displacement energy that is moving. The wave peak is perceived as an object against the rest state of the ocean (ether).
I can't help but wonder whether this is the same for 'particles'. Is it the wave/particle that is moving, or is it just the energy recreating that wave/particle at every moment?
so this is a waving energy, behaving as a water?
"...but the water is only displaced at 90 degrees to the ocean (amplitude of the wave)" so water is moving then!
Interesting thought. Mechanical waves behave in this way and have speed defined by the medium not related to the speed of the sender. That is why a plane can fly faster than the soundwave it creates. Sorry I have no clue if there is a relation here to light.
wow interesting questions
its not actually moving 90deg, it is tower of circular motions. watch vid from fractalwoman: An Aether Model of Electricity : The Missing Secret of Magnetism
feynman as an undergraduate saw this problem. he told his prof he could not visualize electromagnetic radiation. the prof said it was not possible to do that and what we have is a theory that is useful in making predictions and in making technology like radios and radar but the ultimate question of what it is remains open.
Feynman didn't produce a new theory. That shows you, I guess. What Feynman did do was create a shorthand in order to make many many calculations break down in a way that could be visualized on a chalk board. All that MATH is still there. But, it is a shorthand for being able to keep track of ALL of those probability curves, and all of that statistics and boiling it down so that the human brain didn't have to keep track as much. Neat trick, but not a new theory. It didn't turn science on its head. It made doing science and communicating it easier...
The real physics is still in the mathematics. Feynman made a short hand. He didn't make a new theory. He usurped nothing. Quantum Mechanics, QED and QCD are based on working out all of the probabilities and possibilities. And you can't even begin to approach statistics without mathematics. Feynman's neat trick absolutely falls short when it comes to QCD becaue you would need a blackboard the size of god to draw all those neat pictures.
That's why you need to rely on computers instead and do a lot of number crunching....because the number of calculations goes through the roof.
@@OceanusHelios explain to me. I admit ignorance. Why do you need the Turin machine Three of them with derivatives
@@OceanusHelios What is this "god" you speak of?
@@brendawilliams8062 The root of ignorance is "ignore". So what do you think you're ignoring?
@@toddmarshall7573 🤣
The key for the next revolution in physics is in bad understanding of what wave and waving in quantum physics means, so you have to pull old dead scientific phantoms as aether to try to explain something?? I don't think so. Waves in water or in air have nothing to do with what is unfortunately still called waves in quantum physics.
@@ozymandiasultor9480 so you are saying that nothing is actually waving?
Talking about wave seems to save words, the exact term seems to be wave functions (two words instead of one). Also, there seems to be a good enough physical model (not exact) of these quantum level waves: th-cam.com/video/WIyTZDHuarQ/w-d-xo.html
@@Inductica I am saying that wave as a word has different meanings, when we talk about waves of water, waves of ait, and wave as in wave-particle duality, all those "waves" have slightly different meanings.
Ether is an old anaesthetic. It's 'aether'.
I experienced that when I was two and still remember it.
@@jeffxanders3990 I was six. Took a bunch of em to hold me down. Exactly like being murdered.
@@mntlblok yup. Oddly enough, I still remember what I saw as I was going under. Of course I didn't know what it was at the time, but it was the image of my own magnaelectric vibration, and it was spooky.
@@jeffxanders3990 I also remember what I saw - alternating rows of X's and O's in black and white. Weird. Maybe white letters on a black background.
Retorik😅
Is the ether required for the existence of stationary electric and magnetic fields? If not, then why would it be needed for oscillating EM fields?
It's aether. Ether is an primitive anaesthetic.
The problem with quantizing gravity isn't with putting together a quantum theory of gravity, it's with putting together one that has predictive power for phenomena that we have not yet observed. Naive approaches to quantizing gravity end up with an infinite number of free parameters that have to be specified, so you can basically use them to come up with any possible theory of quantum gravity.
Meanwhile, physicists are looking out for Lorentz violations, which, among other things, could indicate the presence of an ether. But the fact is that the phenomena available for us to observe with our present technology simply don't provide us with the data we need to decide between different alternatives, so it makes the most sense to just specify the math that describes what we see and leave it at that until we see something new.
I'll also note that it's quite possible that the underlying "what's waving" isn't necessarily accessible to us, and might not even be constant across the lifetime of the universe. Assume, for instance, that the universe is a computer simulation. In that case "what's waving" is a bunch of numbers in a computer's memory. But assuming no bugs in the simulation, in the compiler, or in the operating system or hardware, the particulars of the simulation environment would be entirely unobservable to us. And let's assume that a new computer model comes out. The simulation state is saved to disk, the simulator is recompiled on the new computer, for a different instruction set, different OS, different system libraries, using a new compiler, and then the simulation state saved on the old computer is restated on the new one. Assuming no bugs, we won't notice a thing: the universe will continue evolving and we won't even notice that it ever paused. Even if the representation of the data and the way the calculations are performed changes drastically, the behavior we see will be identical.
I think the point that some things are inaccessible to us through measurement is an extremely important one and that perhaps physicists should move beyond only the strictly observable and falsifiable and introduce other kinds of knowledge in the quest of pinning down the "theory of everything". For example, social sciences are sometimes frowned upon by physicists but there's no denying they can discover useful insights about reality, and I would dare to argue that such insights should also be used to decide between various theories/interpretations of reality. Useful would even be to assign Bayesian probabilities to various metaphysical interpretations so as to highlight the most likely reality we're living in. I think this would be much better than just saying "hmm, we can't observe this so we don't know".
I hope God didn't chose Microsoft. I don't want my simulation to be grounded.
The problem with quantizing gravity is that "they" don't know which formulas to use and/or how to combine them: do we have to use a "Riemannian-4-manifold" or a different one, do we have to use a "commutative" operator or an "anti-commutative" one? And other such too-abstract-too-"simple"-(mathematical)-concepts.
@@PremierSullivan xD
As an electrical engineer, I wholeheartedly agree! Another EE, Distinti, also says it well in his EM03 01 video.
Hey! I am an ee myself and have been pondering about these things for some time now. All I can say is: I AGREE. A 100%%.
"What is Waving?" It's the Universe Twerking!
4 mins in and the hole you are digging is getting bigger. Who gave you the shovel? Take a holiday and have a think.
What is your view then on the question of what is actually waving when light propagates as a wave through space?
@@karinacollins1192 It's not knowledge you seek, it's qualification of oneself. Perhaps you might consider a different question? Waving; Prorogates; Space??? It's the paradigm one presupposes that induces the falsehood. Think outside the paradigm and ask a different question. Love your passion.
@@quinktap I see, so you consider the OP to be wrong but cannot explain why and have no view of your own!
I feel like a lot of this is arguing over which semantic interpretation of a complex reality we want to use for the exact same phenomena. Spacetime/Aether/Ether/Cosmic Lasagna - we think the numerals we use to define quantities are better somehow than the languages we use are at describing actual phenomena. Math is a language. Telling you about the juicy apple I just ate compares to the actual experience in what way? An interpretive way. Is my interpretation accurate? Maybe to some degree, maybe most of the time, to most people. But not everyone, not everywhere. Math is a much more precise language, but it still suffers the same inadequacy of description. The equations are me telling you how juicy the apple is precisely. Just as far from the "actual" reality as any other description. Math is wonderful. I love it. But please, don't think it's perfect or ever should be.
Nope. If aether exists then Special Relativity is wrong. And since Einstein is a protected diety, his dogmas must be protected even if they are wrong. Hence, the theory of aether must stay obscured so that scientists keep ignoring it.
What strikes me is all the smug assertions of certainty in the comments when the comments are all so very different from one another whether they agree or disagree with the accepted answers. Each person seems to think that only they know the truth, even though they seem to disagree on what that truth is.
I see a lot of ego but I'm not so sure ego is synonymous with the truth, in fact I have good reason to think the greater the ego the less likely the analysis is accurate. The desire to be correct does not tend to lead to understanding, it is the desire to be curious and explore that leads to understanding.
Even if a person is incorrect the kind of adventurous spirit that is essential to innovation will consider their input and respect their person, they will not take a superior or insulting attitude as so commonly seen in the often condescending comments, this makes me think perhaps most persons, educated or not and in opposition or agreement do not really know what they are talking about even though each seems to feel certain that they do.
@@ExistenceUniversity
Perhaps, but even the most fervent supporter admits that relativity breaks down at a certain point, but then past that point we get timid silence, no one dare question the scientific saint Einstein, that would involve presuming you are smarter than Einstein which can't be the case, so we get your tar pit or we get a sacred alter.
Never mind that Einstein himself was not convinced that he had it right which is why he was still working on his theory of everything when he died.
Egos on ether side of the fence and little curiosity I'd say.
Further high intelligence has little to do with innovation since a great many highly intelligent people innovate NOTHING and many of them are blatantly wrong in ways far to elaborate for the unintelligent to follow.
What does inspire innovation is an independent spirit and a lack of fear of not fitting in, which attitude tends to make one an academic pariah hence a certain stasis in the field. That the James Webb observations defied nearly every major prediction is just taken in stride as if that were not the case, a sure sign of stagnation.
You just assume that if anyone disagrees with Einstein or has a different idea they must be both egotistical and wrong which is just as bad and just as short sighted as saying everyone who agrees with Einstein or has the same ideas must be right despit the many ongoing discrepancies thorough out physics.
You in effect have judged what you have not yet considered to be egotistical garbage in advance of considering it.
A study of the history of science tends to show that in any field at any time most people are wrong, some because they deviate to arrive at error, some because they conform to arrive at error, but a few who deviate are correct every once in a while, therefor faulting all deviation as inherently in error is the biggest error of all.
Very often the new epiphany comes to a person as they correct the errors of someone else, if your unwilling to consider alternatives you will never arrive at any.
I couldn't agree with you more. For a properly objective debate I recommend chatgpt.
Quantum fields are basically the ether these days. Physicists generally do consider them to be things, rather than properties. That's why the fields themselves can _have_ properties, like energy and momentum. (I'm all for exploring different venues though.)
If they consider the quantum field to be an entity and not just a property, then why are they not trying to identify the underlying nature of that entity, which allows it to wave in the specific ways it does?
@@InducticaI would hope that they are looking into that type of thing, if it's possible. The reason we wouldn't know about it is probably because it's gated behind physics jargon, which is one of the unfortunate things that happen in academia. Either way, I would still encourage this type of inquiry you're doing.
Not really. Quantum Fields or Waves are the property of the matter that they eminate from - remember the equation e=mc^2 which means "matter is just a very condensed energy". Vibration of atoms is all over in matter.
@@ExistenceUniversity The field is the changing attribute, that attribute must be an attribute of something. That something is the ether. What I should have said originally to this comment is that we need a separate word for the medium and the properties of that medium, we should not say that the field is the medium, because we already use the word field to identify the property.
@@InducticaYou are using the strict mathematical definition, which differs from the current view of quantum fields in physics.
Here's John Wheeler talking about it in his book Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam:
"The field, *although nearly as ethereal as the ether itself,* can be said to have physical reality. It occupies space. It contains energy. Its presence eliminates a true vacuum."
Funny that he compares it to the ether as well. :)
I'm proud of you for asking the question. Your next step should be to read what Stienmez, Heaviside, Tesla & and Dollard, say about electrons.
Was just thinking this, we *have* to get of this damn Electron particle model, I'm so tired of hearing people say that thing is a distinct entity and ignore what even its own discoverer considered them as, terminals of dielectric induction.
Thank you for providing such a simple and elegant argument for the existence of an ether, as well as a highly-informed breakdown of the confusions surrounding the Michelson-Morley experiment and special relativity. You are clearly a philosophical minded individual who is capable of thinking outside the box, in addition to being a very articulate and proficient public speaker. Looking forward to digging into your other videos!
Thank you very much! That means a lot coming from you! It's incredible that we both released such related videos within 4 hours of each other. I'll be asking you some questions on your discord server once I've made a more systematic study of your videos!
Can u gimme just one answer regarding luminiferous aether? If light is just a mechanical wave through aether, then aether has an extremely large young modulus. Since Aether fill up all of space, how does anything moves at all? And if Aether doesn't interact with anything in any way, then how's oscillation in aether interacts with anything at all?
Also, what's the mass of aether. How on earth it fills up all of space and still has zero effect on the movement of everything. How does these happen? Do u hv any answer?
@@ExistenceUniversity From my understanding of EM you are mistaken in criticising Dialect there. I have not checked it in detail myself, but the deductions Dialect conducts in his latest video is very similar to the deductions Lorentz used in my video to predict the smashed table.
@@ExistenceUniversity I see what you are saying, but read Bell's paper, "How to Teach Special Relativity." He derives the same thing Dialect does , but in a different way.
@@aniksamiurrahman6365 I don't think it is a mechanical wave. I think it is a property at each location of the ether which gets greater and smaller over time. The reason the ether does not have an effect on bodies is because the bodies seem to be waves of that ether itself. Does sound get slowed down by air resistance?
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. There is a HUGE difference between the contraction introduced by Lorentz, and the one introduced by Einstein. For Lorentz, the contraction is REAL. He even apologized for it in his paper at the end. He basically said, what he was saying meant that the atoms either had to literally get smaller along on direction of the ether wind, OR, the atoms must get closer together along the direction of the ether wind. He was apologizing because if this was true there must be either very large effects that were measurable, but they had never been. Circuits would behave very differently every 6 months, but they don't. The contraction proposed by Einstein is COMPLETELY different. It's a relative effect, meaning when two completely different observers compare with each other, they will disagree. This is totally different. Each observe WILL NOT NOTICE ANY CONTRACTION AS THEY SEE THINGS IN THEIR REST FRAME. Lorentz's thinking was completely different. One, or even both, will LITERALLY SEE THINGS GET SMALLER. This is yours, and others confusion.
Sorry but you are wrong
The proof is in the pudding. No theory can be "wrong" until someone applies their own theory to a device like a space ship that travels at the speed of light. Once that happens, only then can we say that all other theories are "wrong." Though even at that point other theories might still have facets that can help further define the correct theory. So really I dont think any theory is ever completely "Wrong."
He is really talking about space. Please simplify and the universe becomes simple and understandable
we don’t know. Yet.
Maybe i'm wrong. I'm sure someone will tell me that I am but I think the ether Is just a grid pattern that exists throughout the universe and is made of magnetic field lines that exist because of imbalance charges and are constantly changing.
You are on the right track. The assumption with which we’ve always unconsciously burdened the ether is that it must double as a frame of reference. M&M have already shown that is not the case, yet you are correct in asserting that something has to be waving. So let’s accept the ether but dump the baggage. The ether is what it is, and what the ether is NOT is a frame of reference.
But I thought that’s partly why we stopped believing in an ether, because how could a thing not have a frame?
@@insidejazzguitar8112 That, Lieutenant Spooner, is the right question.
The Aether is non cartesianal. This is what the Michaelson-Morley experiment showed us.
@@insidejazzguitar8112 Aether is actually not made up of any thing manifest all though all things manifest are aether disturbed, or what we call energy, which should be called energy loss and its return.
@@bobann3566 ...ah, "energy"...the perpetual can-of-worms.
Interesting presentation! The following research may contribute to this discussion:
The speed of light is not a constant as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion.
Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton.
Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles.
*TH-cam presentation of above arguments: th-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/w-d-xo.html
*More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
*Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1
Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
@@ExistenceUniversityProve it!
@@ExistenceUniversityNo but your comments are clearly showing your lack of manners.
The thread is electrogravidics
Nothing waving.
Nothing is waving.
Nothing waves.
Nothing is a wave...
Everything waves. Everything is waving. Everything is a wave. The ether Is made of electromagnetic field lines.
@MikeSmith-cl4ix All Is magnetic/electric and operates on pressure mediation --- Ken Wheeler on magnetism.
Nothing goes up forever
Nothing goes down for long
Everything stays together
Everything goes on and on
All or nothing in the mix
This is where the mind plays tricks
@@jeffxanders3990 I agree
@@jeffxanders3990 What exactly is 'pressure mediation'?
Right after Einstein published the Special Theory of Relativity, Lorentz gave a lecture where he clearly demonstrated that he misunderstood Special Relativity. Lorentz, in applying the Gamma equation, which is displayed at 7:16, thought that it was the object that contracted instead of the space that the object was in.
Special relativity is wrong, so if Lorentz misunderstood it then it's a compliment to him. SR is a wrong theory requiring huge artificial effort to prevent it from being publicly rejected.
If space is no thing, an absence of a thing, than how can an object be in it? That is not logical.
@@bobann3566 who claimed that space is no thing?
@@davidsalvia6294 Have you looked up the word in a dictionary? Space is like a shadow. Is a shadow a thing? Or is a shadow the absence of a thing? Space is no different.
Pretty easy to disprove aether theorems experimentally. The simplest being just turning an 19th century interferometer and observing the pattern
Yeah, that'd be the case unless the Earth and its surrounding space are _entrained_ out to many radii of the planet. The whole ensemble would be transiting thru space as a unit, with the planet embedded at center, isolating it from any horizontally-flowing 'wind'. Even if there WERE a horizontal wind, Lorentz contraction in the apparatus would still give a null result, as the author explains in the vid. Either way, existence of the space medium is NOT disproven by the Michelson Morley experiment.
@@soopergoof232 That is easy to disprove as well, through the path of light coming from different galaxies and pulsar timing.
"the Michelson Morley experiment"
Disproves well enough the existence of a medium (ether, aether) UNLESS as discussed by soopergoof this ether is entrained or is being dragged along by Earth. Repeating the experiment "out there" somewhere would potentially be useful or at least interesting.
@@zhanzo Explain that in detail, please.
Nice video and presentation.
This was said in my comment to other channels. Let me reiterate on here.
The proof of presence of air using the Air Current concept. If we can’t detect wind movement in a closed lab can we conclude air is absent? Likewise to the presence of Aether. M&M experiment can’t detect Aether wind can we conclude absence of Aether? No.
The error assumption on Aether is that - we think it is a fluid that doesn’t drag with but blows through matter.
Aether must attach to matter otherwise E and B fields will be decoupled to and from vacuum-aether consequently can’t wave the Aether for light.
Likewise to air molecule must attached to the speaker diaphragm so we can wave the medium air for sound. Removing air removed the coupling removes sound wave.
That M&M experiment didn’t find fringe activities is consistent to above reasoning.
It is unnecessary to borrow high end quantum this or that to emphasis the point that Aether do exist and fills the vacuum and all voids in matter.
What is Aether?
It is an incompressible fluid that attaches to all matter from microcosm to macrocosm. It has no mechanical but electrical properties and e0 permittivity and u0 permeability are two of measurable attributes of Aether.
Further researches on Aether?
It is a medium also responsible for gravity and inertia forces.
That is to say gravity isn’t an attribute of matter, it is an attribute of vacuum-Aether. Gravity is therefore an extrinsic force attached to all matter in order to complete the gravity effect.
When we push an object forward in the Aether field we are effectively charging or steepening the gradient of Aether field in front to a new higher pulling force, that we call inertia.
As I recall, the dialect youtube channel showed Einstein's later papers where he said that in fact we can not say for certain that there is no ether. Presumably, this later work was just ignored by the physics community
In 1920 he said there has to be an ether for the mathematics of general relativity to work.
@@robertsutherland7378 thanks for commenting
I think that this website asks an interesting question : what is waving? But I can imagine a response: probabilities are waving.
But this straw man argument i am making, assuming that someone would actually use it, does not satisfy me - you mean randomness in a mathematical sense is producing electrons?
@@robertsutherland7378 I’m as static as the best of them. No position in the first place. I’m just trying to to understand others in their get go
If gravity and acceleration warp spacetime without bending it into a further dimension then spacetime must stretch and compress. Spacetime must be created and destroyed in this process, right?
The space-time field IS gravity, and it's not truly empty, at all and so not a true quantum vacuum. A true vacuum lacks any fields, including dimensions. Space-time is then a unified dimensional field, that entangles all other quantum, relative and emergent fields
James this is an excellent, short, and illustrative presentation. I really like how condensed you made the material. I look forward to the next installment. Will you be at OCON next week?
I sure will!
Man I wish I could come. I just live 25 miles away from the venue. I still have to earn money since my mental health recovery is almost complete. Maybe next year? I hope we can meet in the future James.
There is an issue with the section on special relativity. Special relativity is about two things involving speed.
It doesn’t say anything about Aether. (Aether is the correct spelling. Ether is a class of chemical compounds in chemistry.)
With special relativity there’s two things to consider.
The first is that light isn’t instantaneous. It has a finite speed. The actual speed doesn’t really matter.
Whether it’s the same speed for everyone does not matter either. But it turns out that based on the second issue that it should be the same for everyone.
The second issue is that speed calculated is based on arbitrary measurements. Speed is a ratio between a change in distance(space) and a change in time.
Velocity = Space/time
For centuries we have always used arbitrary measurements of length. It used to be the length of someone’s foot. The meter is originally based on the distance between the equator and the north pole.
Time is based on a spinning rock, 24 hours in a day for example.
So how do you measure something that’s moving?
You need a signal. Usually that signal is light, you see it at point A and then you see it at point B.
You can physically measure the distance from A to B.
But you need to see a moving object. However, there’s a delay between when you see it and where it actually is.
That affects the calculation of speed.
There’s something else to consider. How does one know how fast they’re going?
You look out the window. You see yourself at point A then you measure how much time has elapsed when you see point B.
Again to determine your own speed you need a signal.
All measurements of speed is based on a signal. Despite how you’re moving.
That signal has a finite speed. So the speed of that signal has to be included in the calculation of speed.
Since speed is based on the ratio between a length and elapsed time, we can use that to determine actual length and time with perceived length and time in the moving object.
That’s why there’s
v²/c²
In the Lorentz transformations. Lorentz got the right equation for the wrong reason.
But Einstein went a step further.
The simplest clock is a pendulum. Time is about motion. And the detection of that motion requires a signal.
We use a signal to determine speed, distance and time. Everything we know about motion is based on a signal.
That’s why the speed of light is the same for everyone. They’re all the signal with the same perspective.
But the speed of light is not the same for everyone and the Sagnac Experiment and the Modified Sagnac Experiment proved that. According to the reference frame of a rotating light path, light propagates at a different rate in the direction in which the light path is moving relative to a laboratory and the opposite direction. As such one cannot claim that light moves the same rate in all reference frames. If it did, there would be no observable fringe shift any reference frame during the Sagnac Experiment. However, there is always an observable fringe shift regardless of the reference frame in which the experiment is being observed. And before you go into "its the difference between an inertial and non-inertial reference frame" non sequitur, I will state that that is both completely irrelevant and completely incorrect. It is irrelevant because the claim is that light appears to have the same velocity in all reference frames, which it does not, which is demonstrated by the Sagnac Experiment. It is incorrect, because the laboratory physicists claim is "an inertial reference frame" is actually not an inertial reference frame as defined by Einstein as it is subject to numerous accelerations which can be easily displayed by dropping an item in the laboratory and watching it fall to the floor without any additional or external forces acting on it or by observing a Foucault pendulum change directions over time without any additional or external forces acting on it. At best, all they could claim is that it is the difference between two non-inertial reference frames, but that defeats their entire premise that light has a constant velocity regardless of the motions reference frame in which it is observed. Additionally, as Einstein posits that there is no absolutely reference frame, he has no way to claim whether something is at rest, has a constant velocity, or is being accelerated. Any claim to the contrary is a violation of his equivalence principle, which is the underlying premise of the entire theory. His completely subjective and arbitrary reference frames can only be defined as being stationary, having a constant velocity, or being under acceleration, but this has actually no ontological meaning at all as this is only relative to whatever object with which he happens to be performing an comparative analysis at that moment, and the same exact state of motion could be claimed of the other object while the inverse claimed of the first object. In the end, the completely subjective description provided by Einstein becomes meaningless as there is no way to extrapolate the motions as defined between two objects to the rest of the universe.
very good!
@@wesbaumguardner8829
Sorry but the Sagnac experiment didn't prove what you claim, it's a rotational movement and therefore it is normal to detect a difference in light's speed.
@@En_theo There is no absolute reference frame according to general relativity. There is no aether medium according to general relativity. All reference frames are equally valid and can consider themselves at rest, according to general relativity. The laws of physics should be the same in all reference frames, according to general relativity. There should be no observable difference in the speed of light propagating in two different directions according to the Michelson Morley Experiment. Also, the entire earth is a rotational reference frame as it is rotating on axis, yet it is claimed that it is not possible to detect a change in speed of the light propagating in different directions. Your argument is self contradictory.
Light speed varies according to the medium and the frequency. Except that it doesn't.
Short and simple rebuttal. Einsteins Special theory of Relativity, which has been experimentally verified hundreds or even thousand of times up to ridiculous precision, is based on the proposition that the speed of light (or electromagnetic waves) is always the same for all observers. No matter what their speed. Now if, as the maker of this video proposes, light consisted of waves "in" some kind of physical medium (lets call this "ether"), the speed of that light would have to be proportional to that ether, just like the speed of sound is proportional to the speed of the air the sound is moving through. From this it follows that in this "ether hypothesis" the speed of light as its waves move through the ether can never be equal for all observers, who themselves move throught this ether with different speeds. Ergo the "ether" hypothesis is refuted by the Special theory of Relativity, and the "theory" that this commenter is trying to propose is proven to be false!
Precisely this point was proven by the "Michelsen Morley Experiment".
and if the aether is a kind of superfluid....
No you're wrong. When you move through the Ether, the Ether has compressed around you. Therefore the rate at which events happen for you has changed. If you like to call it "time", then time has changed proportionally to yourself.
@@colourinblack Sorry but that is a mistake. The essence of the Michelson Morley experiment, which was the basis and inspiration of the Special Theory of Relativity was that Michelson and Morley wanted to prove the existence of aether with a setup with mirrors which would show that the speed of light throught the aether would be different if the direction of the ligth was contrary to the movement of the earth through space (and thus through the assumed aether that would fill it) then when the direction of the light was in the same direction as the movement of the earth. This would necessarily be the case if the light would propagate through aether because in that case the speed of the light would be determined by its propagation through this medium. The strange thing however was that Michelson and Morley found no difference in the measured speed of light, whether it was measure in the direction of movement of the earth, or contrary to it. Which proves that the movement of light is not relative to some kind of aether, but only to the observer. Compression of aether has nothing to do with it. It is only about direction of movement and propagation.
@@FloorBoontjes-wo1hv You are not interpreting the result correctly. No matter what your velocity is in any direction, the speed of light is the same for you. So even if you change your velocity, the speed of light is still the same. Now, since this has to actually make sense, the only way this is possible is that you are affecting the local space and changing the rate at which electric and magnetic fields build and decay. In fact, in order to change your speed, you have to fight the ether and compress it. This is not difficult to think about or even calculate.
0:40 if the air is "sucked out" and you can still see the bell, the light waves are travelling through VACUUM, not AIR!
@@manifold1476 so you are saying that “nothing” can wave? That would mean that nothing was committing an action. Which means it isn’t nothing.
If everything was removed from the glass jar it would have shattered. Meaning there’s still air in there.
@@Inducticaquantum fields are real. But there’s air in the jar, probably a ton of other stuff too. And yes, quantum fields. They don’t just exist in the jar. They exist in the glass, the bell, everything. A proton can have charm quarks materialize within them then disappear. A quark that’s larger than the proton itself. You need to humble yourself dude. It’s great that you have a deep interest in science and physics but read about scientific rigor and the way to make a hypothesis in a serious manner. It’ll slow your roll.
I'm no physicist, but last I heard was that gravity is not a force, but rather a deformation of space-time. As a layman it occurs to me that space and time are similar in some respects - neither can be 'detected' or demonstrated other than by their effects on mass or light which also affect them in turn (everything is relative). It seems to me that space-time is a pretty good substitute for 'aether'.
Einstein actually hinted at that concept of and aether in one his lectures (perhaps in honor of Lorentz).
doesn't hold up to even the most surface level scrutiny
Space is basically what a shadow is to Light, shadows don't have properties and cannot be deformed themselves.
“It might be inferred that I am alluding to the curvature of space supposed to exist according to the teachings of relativity, but nothing could be further from my mind. I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.”
-Nikola Tesla. “Pioneer Radio Engineer Gives Views On Power.” New York Herald Tribune, September 11, 1932.“
Light is not "Just like any wave". Is an EM (Electro-magnetic) wave, and this combination request Special Relativity because the electric field is just a magnetic field to an observer in relative motion. Start from Here! 😎
He is proof that being able to read and write does not automatically mean he can comprehend. Best he stick to the arts and leave STEM for others.
indeed, he is a clown.
...
@@We_all_are_different Your comment clashes with your nickname.
He is proof that there are different ways to look at things. Too many holes and conflicts in modern theories. They (modern theories) are a man-made construct that attempts to create a language (math based (another human construct)) that describes and helps understand the things around us. It is far from complete, has questions and issues that can't be solved, at least not yet. When you factor in things such as living organisms and the ability of atoms to manipulate and re-arrange other atoms at will, with a predetermined path for them to work... an unfathomable amount of complex math would have to be applied to explain the smallest version. It's not possible with modern methods. The things we see are shadows/reflections of something else and those shadows/reflections are NOT the something else.
Others like you said the same thing about many of the greatest minds that have ever existed.
If I were transported back in time and put in the middle of a tribe just 300 years ago... then try to explain how a car or a computer or modern medicine works... different people are on different levels and see different things. Remember when we talk about physics, we are talking about the same stuff we are made of. Looking at things from different perspectives (whether you agree or not) can be a great tool for learning.
I am glad you are raising this issue, dealing with the interpretation of the field and wave phenomena rather than wrapping them in equations. I had similiar doubts how to look at it, eventually came to a conclusion that the key is not the notion of physicality of yhe fields but the physicality of the space-time itself. What I mean by physicality is whether the space-time is the basic primary entity where everything floats in, or rather it is a secondary entity resulting from something more basic. I am now inclining to think that the latter is the case. In particular space-time is a consequence of the existence of the electromagnetic bilinear vector operator in spinor space.
2024, and we still don't take mental health seriously, when you explain that Michelson had a nervous breakdown, it comes with laughter, would you also laugh about someone with throat cancer ? I've known 2 people who've end their lives due to severe mental crisis, it's just so weird to me that mental health is still treated like this.
It is ironic that the experiment designed to clarify a problem took such a massive toll on mental clarity and focus. If irony isn't your strong suit then isn't laughter the next best thing? Boltzman had such a terrible time of it and no one would argue that his fate was particularly ironic, in contrast to the aforementioned example.
Sorry, did you mean to imply the Michelson Morley experiment is retarded?
You've gotta love or you'll die
If all people to loose it. Obviously Farraday did not. Thank heaven for small favors
"Teachers should emphasize that the mathematical wave representation often depicts the probability of finding a particle or energy at a particular point in space, rather than the particle literally traveling in a wave. In quantum mechanics, for example, the wave function shows the likelihood of a particle's presence in various locations. Over time and with many particles (like in the double-slit experiment), this probability pattern manifests as an interference pattern-a wave-like distribution.
When we talk about adding or subtracting waves in this context, we're dealing with probabilities, not physical waves. When the first photon passes through a slit, we can't predict its exact landing spot, but the wave function gives us a 'carnival chance' map of where it might end up.
Regarding water waves, it's important to note that they are driven by gravity: gravity pulls the wave down, while the surrounding water pushes it back up due to pressure differences. This interaction keeps the wave moving. However, in a standing wave in a medium with mass and gravity, there's no net energy gain because each peak (bump) has a corresponding trough (well). The wave itself doesn’t carry energy unless there’s an interruption or disturbance, which then transports energy.
For fields that aren’t based in matter or gravity, like electromagnetic fields, the wave represents the probability of where the excitation (caused by an energy packet, such as a photon) will be at any given moment. Unlike a particle 'surfing' a wave in a classical sense, here we're talking about the likelihood of where the particle might be. If these energy packets can pop in and out of existence, all we can calculate is the probability of where and when they might be detected.
@guyvandenbroeck8405 " If these energy packets can pop in and out of existence, all we can calculate is the probability of where and when they might be detected." Since they pop in and out of existence with a wave-like probability, there IS a wave, it is NOT a surface (bi-pressure) wave, it is NOT a pressure wave, it IS an EM wave. Now if you could accept that they pop in and out of the aether, because that is what the aether is made of, we could conclude that we are almost speaking of the same thing and move on.
What would a warp drive warp, and what is the gravitational lens made of. Ether was ditched, but came back as 'space-time'
Space is the absence of something, and time is the measure of something so spacetime cannot be a thing. Its not that a warp drive is warping anything, it is actually converging through, which is not an accurate word, aether which is non cartesianal.
the subspace field
@@Andrew_Fernie Anti field, counter spatial, non spatial, sub spatial, zero point, Subspace. Yes they are fine words for aether, so what is it? Can you explain that?
@@bobann3566 not without violating the temporal accord
@@Andrew_Fernie 🤣
What one might need to note most about the effect of propagating energy is that when the medium it is passing through has higher energy intensity levels, often being rather intense sources (such as that forming matter and defines its effective locality) then the paths of straight propagation are bent to an outside viewer perspective; while still being a straight path to the perspective of each minute point of energy itself. This effect is even one that makes a particle able to 'stably' contain the energy making it up. The energy is bent like the way light's path is altered by a lens. [For what it is worth, Maxwell noted an effect like this when studying the propagation of radio waves. The speed of propagation was slower in higher intensity areas that in weak ones. The factor is in his formulas describing things. And for the intensities he was able to generate, it was a very small one.] When there is apparently little such types of intense energy flows involved, then the mediating energy is what we call a vacuum.
To make this clearer though, Physicist are calling it a 'quantum vacuum'. This is trying to inform the thinker that there are still propagation (enabling and) altering effects possible in what appears to be empty space to our sensing systems. Plus there can be relational states and energy levels that require an energy to show up and have a clearly notable effect on other energy flows when it forms a virtual particle for minute instance. Colliders likely cause events to happen that require such events to have happened to explain what is detected. Said by Physicist, after the detection of the Higgs boson [that was deemed to be a mass containing particle], was a statement that its existence was noted as a detection of an energy ledge in the rate of things 'cooling down' when it was present. Some went on to say that this was more evidence that there is an energy level below what we readily note in what we now call empty space.
As for what is causing mass and gravity to have a source, to me it seems simply to be the effect of high energy intensities that exist in the particles and their make up. Noting Einstein's E=MC^2 formula, the intensity is quite evident. And when collider experiments show that even most of the space that a particle takes up is mainly 'empty' of their noted energy noted by their mass. The small point high intensity is critical to a particles stability. Allowing many others to pass each other without actually colliding. So that evidences the intensity at some points of it are, very, very intense. Some place else I noted a statement a year or so ago that stated that the gluon was also a mass causing 'particle'. It is not really detected directly, it is inferred. It is a way to describe in a sensible way, what is notable.
To me it is simplest to say that gravity is caused by the fact that the energy passing through its field it is "redirected" by the gravity's variance in intensity across the area of the energy's propagation. That being farther way moves a tad easier, or faster, than that which is closer to the source where the field is a tad stronger. This has all the energy, having mass or not, apparently drawn toward the source of gravity. The amount of energy does not matter here.
As for momentum, it is caused by the fact that energy has to relate to the gravity fields it is going through. An object with mass has a lot of intense energy that must related to the rest nearby in the relatively small space it is in. When a differing gravity field it encountered, the energy must readdress its relationships with the rest nearby, causing a resistance to a change in its propagation rate through the gravity fields. Since the change in a flow pattern requires an input from an energy source outside of those relationships for it to be modified. This might be more easily grasped should one also note that the energy in masses is in a very intense state; and thereby, time there is not passing by very fast relative to our clocks. This makes the demand for a change in flow patterns a 'stubborn', "time consuming" process to execute it in a form that is stable for the particle's existence, and in harmony with the energy conversion laws there that it must balance out in the time frames existing there.
Satellites with internal clocks have noted gravity effected relationships, by noting that time ticks by at a rate more closely matching the area of earth below it more so when it is nearer to it. Thus a satellite orbiting in a direction that is opposite to the direction that the Earth is spinning below, its clock will tick by slower, as though it was moving faster, than one orbiting at the same speed in a direction that appears slower between it and the Earth below. The same goes for a satellite that is farther from the Earth's gravity. Its clock will tick faster than on one in a stronger gravity field.
Probably why the title's stated "question is not being asked" is that to calculate the "goings on" according to some theory, takes a huge amount of computing power and time due to all the minute pieces of space and energy involved in trying to calculate it properly. And most theories already give pretty decent harmony using more general rules for what is happening well enough to suggest a valid way to execute most ideas presently needing to be engineered. There was one effort to calculate the interactions in a very small area of space with varying energy levels that was used to try to understand what states might have existed for energy at the very instance the universe started to exist. This effort suggested that the cosmic background radiation's pattern was in general a logical result of such conditions existing then. If forget the amount of time it took, but it was a long, long time, And that was super computer time that could be used to do other needed things. No doubt though, as opportunities arise such efforts to detail how energy behaves inside of what we note as our existence will find ways to happen more.
I enjoyed this presentation. Thanks.
A photon can be imagined as a little spaceship of pure energy traveling through empty space. It is fluctuating in itself, it is the fluctuation.
Don't get the math confused with what it describes. The Schrödinger "Wave" equation isn't a wave equation, it's a heat or energy diffusion equation that gives the probability density of particle states. There is no evidence that Fields actually exist, they are just a mathematical framework for describing relationships (i.e., just a coordinate system where reality has no coordinates.) Math describes the relationships between observed phenomena because we constructed the equations to match those observations. We cannot model what we cannot observe. The math we use doesn't necessarily match what is actually there. Worse "Energy" is really an abstraction of observed phenomena. In the end, we may not have the capability to observe the real substance, assuming there is any substance, anymore than an interference pattern on a pond surface could observe the water on which it was made. That's not very satisfying but humans have limits.
It’s true that we can’t directly see a lot of these phenomena, we must infer them from things we can see. It’s true that the probability wave may not be the actual physical phenomenon, but since it is able to make predictions it must have some kind of relationship to the actual physical phenomenon, this is exactly why we need to think in terms of an ether, to probe into the underlying facts which give rise to those probability distributions.
@@Inductica This is one of the problems with String Theory, it is a model built on a metaphysical idea rather than on observed phenomena. All the Ether models have this same problem. Building a model before you have evidence for the model specific relationships generally leads to a dead end. The quantum wave equation frustrates physicists because it correctly describes the relationships between observed phenomena, but it's metaphysical concept is practically non-existent. It works, but we don't know why.
@@kimwelch4652 what’s your evidence that there can be waves were nothing is waving?
@@Inductica Where's your evidence that they are actually waves?
@@Inductica Keep in mind the interference pattern produced in the two-slit experiment is caused by the probability distribution -- not the "particle" itself, assuming there is a particle. The problem is the probability distribution is real, the wave and the particle are metaphysical extrapolations that may be, and probably are, incorrect. Frustrating, I know.
Almost, @10:40 but that's not quite right. Fields are fictional accounting tools used because most theoreticians demand a Hamiltonian time evolution story. Feynman explained this way back, and Feynman never believed in the fields. The reason you need fields is to account for entanglement effects (which are ubiquitous) and hence interference. But to first order in scattering theory you only need particle momenta (and charge and spin, etc, all the invariants). These can always be considered particle properties. The Aether is however recovered, by supposing all the particles, and the entanglement structure, is spacetime topology. Then the Aether is very natural, and there is only one aether or field, it is spacetime. This is of course still only a model. But it's the best one around, and it works. (More efficient and effective than string theory, which is closely related of course.) Just look at the Standard Model of particle physics and the Lie algebra structure --- it can fit inside the Clifford spacetime algebra (16 dimensional graded algebra, with _several_ geometrically interpreted ℂ structures).
Spacetime carries the electromagnetic wave. Light is an electromagnetic wave. To make the comparison to sound traveling though air would be a gravitational wave traveling through spacetime; sound bends air and gravity bends spacetime. There is no analog to light or radio waves traveling through spacetime to something traveling through air.
heat?
@@chrishoward8473Heat is infrared light.
@@JamesStripling infrared light produces heat, like microwaves produce heat in some situations.
@@chrishoward8473 Heat doesn't travel through a vacuum. There is nothing to conduct it. That's why I answered with infrared, because that is a form of heat that does travel through a vacuum.
Listen, I'm just a lowly EET. I like learning and following physics because I really enjoy puzzles. Physics is the greatest puzzle of all. Saying that, I respect him for asking the question because he has a point. I get how you can use math as a tool to predict how something, like how a particle will behave. I get how you can use math to show the waveform collapse. However, it doesn't answer the fundamental question of what is collapsing. My favorite one, is virtual particles come and go from nowhere. And I'm supposed to just accept this, however it sounds like magic to me. You can tell me that the math shows that we are all riding on a foam of virtual particles, And I don't disagree with the math, but it doesn't answer the question. What is a virtual particle and where does it come from? Math shows us that an electron is a wave in a field, but a field isn't a thing. A field is a property. What is it a field of? On a temperature map, the field doesn't make the temperature, The temperature measurements results in the field. Closest I've been able to get in my mind. It all comes down to the momentum of something. The momentum of virtual particles being chucked back and forth between two similar poles causes them to push apart, Great! What the hell is a vertical particle made of!!!
I really want to iterate, that I do not know anything compared to a true physicist. I wouldn't even call myself an amateur. However, I'm not going to bash this video for asking a question or trying to make a point. I think if a true physicist really wants to make a point that he's completely wrong. Make a video showing why he's so far off. My example of virtual particles comes down to something I commonly see with hardcore physicist explanations. The math says this, so and we're just going to call it a virtual particle. And then if I say well, that sounds like magic, a hardcore physicist will say you're just not smart enough. Here's an equation. Well, maybe it's true, perhaps I'm not smart enough. That also sounds like you're trying to tell me to have faith in the equation, or faith in your word.
I am a 67 year-old orthopaedic surgeon - which means, I am an idiot who knows nothing about maths or physics.I hear "fields" or "waves" and I realise these things are not possible without space. Space to me is not an "empty" Einsteinian chewing gum waiting to be distorted by masses (sorry, Albert). Space to me is a matrix consisting of gazillions of space units. Each unit comes with a very complex software. Space is my "ether". Is that real? What the heck is reality? My reality is different from yours or a dog`s or a bee`s. I like your channel! please keep asking questions!
No. Your reality is the same as mine. Anybody walking into a tree without looking will immediately come to the same conclusion. If it doesn't have mathematics which are corroborated by experiments, then it isn't physics. I challenge people who make such astronomically absurd statements to test them. Think your way to am has the smarts. Meanwhile, you might be a legend in your own mind, and it won't matter at all. You do you. Until then:
PHYSICS REQUIRES MATHEMATICS AND EXPERIMENTS
And pissing all over the current physics because you have a big bad "Nuh uh" is not going to brain some math into your head nor brain us into thinking you have experimental evidence on experiments which you had not conducted.
Beautifully said
@@OceanusHeliosYour reality is much more emotional than mine.
By the way: As an orthopedic surgeon I can assure you: When 100 people walk into a tree, you will see 100 different injury patterns and hear 100 different complaints.
@@OceanusHelios NO! IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT MATH! OTHERWISE IT WOULDN'T BE PHYSICS! IT WOULD JUST BE METAPHYSICS! IT HAS TO BE ABOUT PHYSICAL OBJECTS! THE MATH ONLY DESCRIBES THE PHYSICAL OBJECTS! IT'S NOT "MORE REAL" THAN THE PHYSICAL OBJECTS! IT ONLY DESCRIBES THEM!
Einstein was wrong about special relativity. It's one of those things which is being camouflaged by smart (but wrong) math, while the reality is disputing it. So, yeah, sir. As much as I dislike doctors, you're on the right track. And many smart physicist know the truth, but aren't allowed to say it openly.
03:07 "a property must be s property of something". Not really. A vacuum (nothing!?) has for example a magnetic permeabilty property and an electric permittivity property, both of which govern the speed of light in a vacuum - another property
This is exactly my point: "the vacuum" isn't nothing! It is also worth noting that nothing does not exist. To be is to be something. Only things that exist exist.
Your statement is self contradictory. You have missed the entire point made by the OP.
I see 2 fundamental mistakes here: First, it is false to say photons “are” waves. No, photons have wave properties but they cannot “be” waves because waves do not also have particle properties. That would be like calling me a dog if I exhibit dog properties by barking for example. Second, just because one gives something unknown in space the name “ether” does not mean it has any relation to something else that was called the aluminiferous ether. That would be like thinking that everybody with a first name “Rich” would be rich in the sense of having a lot of money.
He lost me when he said atom is a proton field surrounded by an electron field.
@@rahulsubramanian6545 If I have understood it correctly an atom is a quark field superimposed with a gluon field surrounded by an electron field that sometimes exites a photon field. Is it clearer now :) ?
@@marcoantoniazzi1890 he didn't say photon field (Photon is quanta of EM Field). He said Proton field.
@@rahulsubramanian6545 Ok, sorry. If I have understood it correctly an atom is a quark field superimposed with a gluon field surrounded by an electron field that sometimes exites an EM field producing a photon. Is it clearer now :) ? He could have said Proton field, but I have given *my* interpretation.
@@marcoantoniazzi1890 Quarks are bound together by Gluons (carriers of Strong force possessing zero rest mass, much like photons). Residuary strong force binds the nucleus, keeping it together. Electrons exist like a cloud around the nucleus. What this guy said sounded like a bad opera that would give me a bleeding ear.
The speed of light is "controlled" (determined) by the refractive index (roughly proportional to the density) of the medium it is travelling in. And there have been no examples of light travelling in a (true) vacuum. All light travels VIA a transparent medium - mostly gasses. If light was somehow travelling inbetween atoms/molecules then the medium itself would have no effect on the light, and all matter has a proportionate effect on light.
Example: total internal reflection. Take a 'D' shaped (semi-circular) glass prism and shine a ray of light (at a normal angle) on the curved surface so that it hits the 'back wall' at an angle greater than the critical angle. The ray of light will then be internally reflected inside the prism. The light has no problem entering the prism, travels through the prism in a straight line and is not reflected or deflected by anything until it gets to the back "wall" - which is the end point of all the galss molecules - at which point it is reflected. By what??! If light was somehow travelling inbetween the glass molecules of the prism then what prevents it from exiting the glass? Light must be travelling VIA atoms/molecules and the arrangement of these molecules and/or a change in size/shape/density at the boundry of the two media causes a change in the direction of travel. This same principle explains Snell's Law.
And the fact that the speed of light is unaffected by the speed of its source also shows that light must be travelling via a medium - like sound, though both travel by different mechansims.
Light travelling via the realtively still molecules of air would show no "interference" patter - this is an explanation of the MM experiment. There is no seperate ether. Light travels via ordinary transparent attoms/molecules - so it is the medium itself which is the ether.
Media INFLUENCE the travelspeed of light (EM radiation) but EM is not transmitted by them (like sound is the transmitted by movements of molecules). This was proven by the Michelson Morley experient. This experiment was set up in the 19th century by Michelson and Morley with then intent to prove (!) that light was transmitted by some kind of aether. To prove this Michelson and Morley invented a setup with mirrors that would be able to measure the difference in speed of light relative to the speed of the earth moving through the aether. Which of course means that the speed of light that goes in the same direction must be different on opposite side of the circle of movement of the earth, because the speed of light relative to the earth should differ by the rate of movement of the earth or its surface through the supposed aether. Nothing of this transpired. It turned out that the speed of light relative to the observer is always equal irrespective of the rate of travel of the observer, which disproves the theory that light or EMR is transmitted as a wave "in" some kind of aether. This finding was also the inspiration for Einsteins later theory of Special Relativity. The Michelson Morley experiment and Special Relativity (which has been proven thousands of times!) DISPROVE the existence of aether. There IS no such thing!
@@rientsdijkstra4266 You are wrong in almost everything you wrote - your biggest and most ignorant mistake is thinking the Michelson Morley (or indeed ANY) experiment can disprove the existence of anything.
You didn't even attempt to answer my question regarding total internal reflection: what prevents light (EM radiation) from exiting the glass? The molecules of glass must be ("controlling" and) transmitting the light as there is no other thing there.
@@MartinSaintXXL Bruh. The Michelson Morley Experiment was Einsteins inspiration for creating the Special Theory of Relativity, that has been proven THOUSANDS of times. You simply declaring that it is wrong, or doesn´t prove anything is simply meaningless BS. Anybody can make any such statement. Please stop wasting my time?
@@rientsdijkstra4266 At no point have I stated that Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is wrong. Einstein assumed that the speed of light is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. The actual reason for this is that light travels via transparent matter ("ordinary" atoms/molecules) and that is entirely consistent with the findings of the MM experiment.
Why can't you see the sun on a cloudy day? Because the clouds (atoms/molecules) have modified the light. Why does the light path bend when moving from air-to-water (or from water-to-air)? Because a change in matter (the density of atoms/molecules) has modified the light. More examples - like the total internal reflection example above - can be given to show that if light moved inbetween molecules then the matter would not modify the light at all. Light must travel via matter.
Thank you so much for making this video. Some people who have left comments think that re-naming something (like aether) makes it something else (like spacetime). It does not.
Indeed, you cannot have a field properties if the field with Zero-value does not exist everywhere. Just because the field has Zero-value, does not mean the thing that contains the properties of such fields doesn't exist at a point. Let me give an example: point 2 north poles of 2 magnets directly at each other. The magnetic field exactly between the 2 north poles is Zero. Does this mean the magnets don't repel each other? No, of course not.
"magnetic field exactly between the 2 north poles is Zero. Does this mean the magnets don't repel each other? No, of course not."
I have a doubt about that. These magnets know the other magnet is nearby as otherwise they could not repel. The magnetic fields pass each other by on the way to the other magnet. A point of observation can be made and directly between these magnets the field ought to be the SUM of both magnetic fields; that is the strength; their directional vectors will be opposite. The superposition of these measurements would seem to be zero, but that does not mean there is no magnetic field. Of course there's a magnetic field and it is very strong in this scenario.
@@thomasmaughan4798 The repulsion takes place not because of the value of the B-field between some space between the magnets, but rather due the value of the B-field of one magnet at the point where it interacts with the atoms of the other magnet, and this is never Zero unless you have a superconductor. So just because the field has Zero value in space due to another field's presence doesn't mean that the field will have Zero value elsewhere. The field's value is always the *total* sum of fields at any point, with its value calculated from the point of origin of the field.
I heard an physicist saying in a podcast that electromagnetic waves „ride“ on their own field. For my understanding he wanted to prove that the field is actually „waving“. He conceded that something must actually „waving“, but he didnt say a word about the aether.
Lol trying say it without saying it?
I can't decide if this is just a troll video
He believes ligo is real, he believes relativity is real, he believes photons really exist. He must be a troll.
The Schrödinger equation is quite explicit: the probability of interaction is what is waving. Finding a particle actually means to interact with the particle at a certain location, and interaction means to exchange energy.
Of course, but what is the cause of that probability distribution? It must be some entity acting. One reasonable hypothesis (by Bohm) is that there is a wave pushing particles around and that physical wave produces the probability distribution wave as a result of the specific ways it pushes the particle around.
@@Inductica I don't think so. I am not even sure there is any particle existing to push around outside the context of interactions. At least there is no evidence or indication of that . In order to get information of any object we need to interact with it. That probably means information is equal to interaction and everything outside of that is undefined.
But isn't psi even more abstract than probability density, since only after absolute squaring it becomes that? Could there be something like a Schrödinger equation acting directly on the squared (real) density??
@@user-gr5tx6rd4h I’ve been told there is such an equation, I’ve asked a friend to share it with me
@@Inductica Thank you, very interesting to hear! Hope you can come up with it soon. (And why is it not in common use?)
Stephen Wolfram has a theory called "The Ruliad". I recently kind of understood it. It might have significance to this particular topic.
Wolfram is undeniably a genius.
Here's some text-->
"Wolfram suggests this Ruliad isn't a theory about our specific universe, but rather a framework encompassing every conceivable universe. Our universe might be a specific region within this vast Ruliad, governed by a particular set of rules.
The Ruliad's significance lies in its potential to offer a foundational explanation for the laws of physics and the intricate structures observed in the universe".
When Wolfram (or anyone) can do for gravity what Maxwell did for electricity and magnetics, then maybe we can talk about genius. And it won't be good for the tire business.
Unfortunately, unlike Einstein, Wolfram has failed to predict anything with his Ruliad.
He went from trying to find one simple rule that reproduces the universe we live in, but when that did not work, he seems to have changed to claiming that an infinite number of all possible 'simple rules' may be required. Unfortunately, that adds nothing predictable either.
Absolutely agree that there is something in space which physically interacts with matter particles. Contemporary physics is living with incomplete interpretations, especially when it comes to Quantum Mechanics. Quantum mechanics enables calculations, however does not offer much physical understanding beyond what can be read from the equations and thus does little to help physics to delve deeper into the properties and structure of the universe we inhabit. Fundamental matter particles display wave characteristics because they have non-zero dimensions and physically spin in multiple modes at high frequencies. In order for there to be order amongst different matter particles (particles do not just disperse randomly and disconnect into independent far reaches of space) they interact with space which must contain (or consist of) matter made of the same (or compatible) material as the material matter particles are made of. This hints that currently known fundamental particles (electrons, quarks etc) are subdivided into (possibly multiple layers of many) even smaller particles. It is imperative that these smaller matter particles can move at highly superluminal speeds. The movement of larger composite particles (electrons etc) is however limited by the speed of light. From the above arguments, one would deduce that matter is made of sub-...-sub-atomic particles (let us call them vidons), somehow connected together and undergoing modes of circular motion. It would not surprise if space is also made of connected vidons, but moving very quickly in straight/geodesic lines. This would then be the aether. The above statements lend themselves to be structured into inductive reasoning.
It's "aether." Ether is a hydrocarbon.
If aether exists then special theory of relativity is wrong.
Oh I thought it was a cryptocurrency 🤷♂️ the more ya know 🤔
@@cinegraphicsit is
The old spelling of the hypothetical substance permeating all space did used to be "ether" according to some mystics writings.
Now we see the variation starting with "a" being used as "aether."
Mate ether isn't a hydrocarbon...
Hydrocarbons are compounds consisting of carbon and hydrogen.
On the contrary Ether has oxygen too... (R-O-R').
QFT anyone? QFT treats particles as excited states (also called quantum levels) of their underlying quantum fields, which are more fundamental than the particles.
Light is a wave in the EM field.
what is the EM field made of?
@@daroniussubdeviant3869 Eletro-Magnetic
We all know the truth, that space is made of invisible jelly. It doesn't wave, it wobbles.
Bravo! So well explained and thought provoking.
"the existence of fields requires a medium" - No, it does not.
So you are saying that an action can occur in the absence of an entity acting?
GPS satellites correct for relativistic time dilation due to gravity, and that's part of what makes GPS so accurate. Particles with short lifetimes last longer when we make them go near the speed of light in accelerators. E-mc^2 was derived from special relativity and proven with the first atom bomb. Does your ether theory explain these things?
Who TF originally stated GPs goves Relativity any bearing on reality? No engineer uses Relativity. If I'm wrong, set me straight. th-cam.com/video/qS5e_mWdOQ8/w-d-xo.html
If you take a three dimensional stick cube, call it a tensor, 1 of 27, and shine a light through it, you see projected a two dimensional representation of three dimensional space. But if you take a conglomeration of over lapping patterns of waves that form interference patterns on a piece of film (a two dimensional object) and shine a laser through it, you see a three dimensional object. That object could be the stick cube tensor. If you have 27 tensor cubes and each one has a face with a different hologram of interference patterns and you shine lasers through each of the faces you get a four dimensional view of 3 dimensional space. Now give each face infinite layers (shells of holograms) that are constantly changing (motion picture holograms), you get time and space. How fast is this motion picture hologram? The speed of light.
And what happens when you come up with something that propagates at say 20% slower or faster than light and do the same thing?
I completely disagree with you but hey great job explaining everything! Even though I disagree with you, I'm going to give you a thumbs up because you did a great job on the video. That seems fair. Now, my take. The analogy with sound, the belief that light needs a medium like air, is where things go wrong. It's just an analogy when people say "light is a wave." Light is not really a wave of anything. I don't have a physics degree, this is just my understanding as a casual observer. Do I know if the aether exists? I'm not here to argue that; I'm focused on the problem with using the sound analogy. Saying that if sound needs a medium, then light also needs a medium is just wrong. Think about it. Light is a particle. Are there sound particles? Nope. See the issue with the analogy now? It's just an analogy, not a description of reality to say light is a wave similar to sound because light is a particle and sound is not a particle. They are actually nothing alike at all. Observing requirements for sound says nothing at all about requirements for light. Btw, it drives me nuts when people say light is both a wave and a particle. No, it's a particle that somehow behaves as if it were part of a wave. But that analogy is just our only way of expressing it. Drives me nuts!
@@ExistenceUniversity You seem a smart guy. I invite you to follow also a different path: start by assuming that light is ONLY an EM wave and see where this reasoning will take you. It is advisable that you PERFECTLY know what a wave is, how many types there are and how it can "travel" in a volume. It comes without saying that you should start without preconceptions and without being influenced by some mathematical knowledge or description or interpretation.
The electromagnetic field can play the part of a dynamic interactive aether.
All that is needed is for photon ∆E=hf electron spherical 4πr² oscillations or vibrations to
precedes everything forming greater degrees of freedom for statistical entropy and the irreversible processes of classical physics. Such as heat energy always spontaneously flowing from hot to cold and friction always changing motion into heat.
We need to go back to r² and the three-dimensional physics of the Inverse Square Law is crucial. The spherical 4πr² geometry is key to this concept, grounded in Huygens' Principle from 1670, which states, "Every point on a wave front of light has the potential to create a new spherical 4πr² light wave."
Each point can be considered a potential photon ∆E=hf electron interaction exchanging potential photon energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter in the form of electrons.
We experienced this as a continuously emerging probabilistic future with the spherical 4πr² surface acting as a boundary condition or manifold for the uncertainty ∆x∆pᵪ≥h/4π encountered in daily life.
dude, this comment is entirely gibberish. there's more to talking about physics than just spouting random equations and hoping they make sense together.
I like his enthsiasm, but perhaps he has been shiffing the ether too much!
This video motivates me to learn more physics.
Thanks Ron!
The "what is waving" is a reasonable question but this is ... Tell me you don't know what an aether is ... What you are talking about here is MEDIA. What MEDIA do these waves propagate through... People now call it "quantum FOAM" which could also be a for of an aether. The aether isn't what's "waving" but rather light and matter are what's waving as they propagate through the quantum foam/aether
Thanks for your comment. I've never liked the phrase, "the wave propagates through the medium." We should think of it this way instead: "the wave is an effect consisting of the periodic increase and decrease of some property of each part of the medium."
I presume this is it. Quantum foam or aether, the elemental units of the universal media which stay and the observable phenomena like light or matter just propagates in it. They don't actually move. That is why the MM experiment did not bring what was expected and this is also why probably the light is the absolute observable maximum speed in the universe. The ultimate speed of propagation through the media. Propagation is certainly not via the physical movement of these units (that would require displacement and voids), rather the transfer of a change in their yet unknown property, from one to the other.
I personally think it's convincing... but I also know that at the smallest scales where any form of dynamics becomes much simpler things won't be waving like the classical fluids we know. So if there was another way of explaing this would be that "the waves aren't fluid but rather quantum interactions between whatever unit vectors that exist emerging as an oscillation in a network of these interactions.
It is true that the aether was not strictly disproven as much as the idea was abandoned in its 19th century form... but the discovery Higgs Boson and The Field complete the function of what had been called The Aether i.e. an invisible sea that fills the universe and which waves propagate through.
Or am I missing something more subtle ?
"WHAT IS A FIELD?" It is the combination of two "sets of INFORMATIONS": the first "set" is the POSITION. The second set is a "TENSOR". If that tensor is a "0 rank" tensor, we call it a SCALAR. "Rank 1" is a VECTOR. Etc.
In fact, the picture you are watching right now IS a "FIELD". Each pixel is defined by its (x,y) coordinates and 3 "colors" (scalars)... You could think of a video as a "vector" field if you could correctly "predict" how the (x,y) coordinates of each pixels would change from picture A to picture B... That's what the video compression algorithms try to do BTW: predict the movement of (groups of) pixels with vectors, and apply a small "correction" if needed!
What if every "physical field" was, in fact, the exact same thing? But instead of "colors", they'd be build with informations like "gravitational mass", "electric charge" and "magnetic charge", or scalars like "temperature", "pressure", "density", etc?
If so, it would mean that what particle physicists are trying to do is to "understand how a computer screen actually works by breaking it with a big hammer" (LHC at CERN), then naming and studying each individual "screen particle" while asking for more funds to build a bigger hammer (the future giant LHC). Wouldn't that be really dumb?
You are right about the first part, but how do we discover relations between different colors? We need to go to the scale where the colors are getting "created". The same is done in particle accelerators to find the relations, between properties especially the different charges but also mass.
@AM-bw3ze How could you possibly find "relations between different colors" by breaking up the screen?
What I meant to say is: "The KEY to understand REALITY is to change our paradigm, our understanding of the Universe! We need to switch from a materialist paradigm (a.k.a.: "let's analyse the screen particles") to an INFORMATION centric Paradigm". That is the ONLY way we could possibly UNDERSTAND what a "UNIVERSE's PIXEL" is, what are its COLORS and how it relates to its peers.
Unfortunately, that means we need to "imagine" certain objects we can't observe (and never will...). Exactly like the person who's trying to figure how an image appears on his (computer) screen needs to figure what a CPU (or GPU) is, how it works, what a MEMORY is, etc. You could argue that: "We can actually observe a CPU or a memory Chip".
And I would answer: "All we can see is the physical object we call a CPU!" That doesn't truly help us to understand how it works. What really matters is what happens inside the CPU, doesn't it? And that, unfortunately, is INVISIBLE for us! And will remain so! Yet, we can understand it by studying the CPU's LOGIC, it's algorithms, functions! And we can test our proper understanding by programming it!
In other words, "I.T.", the "Computer's Science" is SCIENTIFIC in nature (falsifiability) but differs from what we usually call "Science" (i.e. Physics) by the fact we can't directly observe anything that we're actually doing. All we can do is to get "indirect observations/confirmations"... Exactly like when you watch a screen, you don't actually see PIXELS but you see how the hardware (the screen) interpreted those instructions/informations (PIXELS) to produce "colors" (aka "emit a certain amount of photons of a certain wavelength per unit of time").
That's why I think it is mandatory for us to stop wasting time and ressources to "break the screen into ever smaller bits and pieces" and start using our BRAINS instead! In other words, we should start working on computer "SIMULATIONS of REALITY".
The change of paradigm I'm asking for is huge, I agree! Many in the World of Physics will fight against such a paradigm shift! But are they right to do so? I don't think so! And the lack of actual progress in the world of Physics for at least 70 years is a strong evidence that I am correct in my assessment...
But that's the only way forward! And that's what I'm working on myself by developing a "fully functional physical simulation" MODEL! It is actually WAAAY easier to do than what everybody thinks... As soon as you start working with the "right hypothesis"... You quickly find many answers to many "WHY" questions!
For instance, "WHY the LORENTZ factor is needed to get the total ENERGY (Kinetic + Proper) of a moving particule? (without any "gravitation" effect)". Or "Why general relativity works as it does?". "Why is Quantum Mechanics a MUST HAVE for a computer simulation of reality to work properly?", "What is the TIME dimension exactly?", "What is EMERGENCE and how does it relate to the NETWORK we are running the simulation on?" Or "What is ENTROPY? Where does it come from? Why is this REQUIRED for our simulation?" And so on... I can't even count all those "mysteries/seemingly hard to answer questions" that are actually pretty easily answered once you start working on a SIMULATION model of REALITY!
That's what I am going to explain it in English very soon, using YT videos... Because I'm pretty sure no "peer reviewed journals" would agree to publish anything I've found so far! So, I'm aiming the General Public instead of wasting my time chasing "peer reviewed" acceptance! My Public ? "Kids from 7 to 777"... Because everything is so simple to understand that any kid from 7 will get it very quickly! It's so fun...
I actually already started to do so, but in French (my mother tongue), on my YT channel! Have a look if you want :)
@@metanoia7217 You don't break the screen but you need to look closer to see what is inside. And so you discover how to produce whatever color you want, because the underlying mechanism is the same. With nuclei it gets harder to look them, because looking at something requires the thing to send some information (light) to you. But the radiation of light is only possible by a change of energy and momentum, so you never see what is really there but you can measure how something changes instead. To see a nucleus change you need to do something to him and the best thing we have is smashing them together.
It's "Luminiferous Aether" not "Ether". Still I tried to follow until you invoked "common sense". I'm not convinced you know enough to know what you're saying
The archaic and stigmatic "Æ" word needs to be struck from the lexicon of science forever and replaced with *subPlanckian space medium*. The 120 year old :"vacuum" model of space is as if the science of Oceanography were predicated on non-existence of the ocean.
I'm not appealing to common sense, I'm appealing to basic facts of reality; you can't have a property with no entity possessing that property.
What's so malignant about the Æ word is this: WORDS HAVE MEANING. This one connotes some 'essence' that's extremely thin, vague, diaphanous, `almost' a pure vacuum and having as much utility and function. By contrast, common sense would know that space is a Plenum, the furthest thing there is from a vacuum (or near-vacuous "ether"). Common sense would also know that the Plenum's constituency has gotta be sub-Planckian, below our sensory and EM resolution, and that's why we've been perceiving it as 'void' or 'nothingness'... requiring invention of the reified surrogate "spacetime" to describe the 'nothing' mathematically *as if* it were something ontological. Granted, the math "works" splendidly (like GR's 'curvature of spacetime')... until it doesn't. It bogs down completely when confronting the 'Big Issues' like the causal mechanism of gravity, unification of gravity, dark matter, dark energy etc.
The key to the next revolution in physics has gotta be to roll back the inverted 'vacuum' model of space to its inception and start fresh with the Plenum model.
What is your view then on the question of what is actually waving when light propagates as a wave through space?
Yes.
Gamma rays can pop electron and positron out of the either.
These are bubble and drop.
When they inhilate each other they send a either pressure wave if high energy called a gammer ray.
Matter is a state of ether. Like vapour bubbles.
Gravity is a mutual shielding between two blobs of matter, of photons, waves, from the rest of the universe.
It's not a pull between the blobs.
It's a push from the rest of the universe.
A simple computer simulation will show his this works.
The either is seathing with the "quantum" field. Subatomic particles, are "bubbles" forming and popping.
Like water being heated, makes that hissing sound, of bubbles forming and popping. The thousands of bubbles popping make the noise. The noise are sound waves.
Reason why you can't shield gravity, it's effect is subatomic, and interstellar.
But you can demonstrate it easy.
TAKE TWO VERY SMOOTH PLATES, BRING THEM A FEW MICROMETERS APART, THEY EXPERIENCE A HUGE FORCE. Called the Cashmere force. That's just a simple demonstration yes gravity is a universal push cause by mutual shielding the rest of the universe.
I read a book on the Michaelson Morley experiment 50 years ago and later understood the concept of C being constant in a vacuum . I used it to derive the equations for a magnetic field from an electric field . It was all quite elegant . I don't want there to be an aether to mess up my whole world view now .
The "ether hypothesis" is refuted by Einsteins special theory of Relativity. No messing up of world views...
@@rientsdijkstra4266actually it's vice versa. Einstein's special relativity is wrong, as proven in many experiments, while theory of aether is probably right (never been disproven).
@@cinegraphics Really, as shown in many experiments? The theory of Special Relativity was proven by the Michelsen Morley experiment that was actually intended to prove the existence of aether, but ended up showing that the speed of light is independent of the movement of the earth, which actually disproves the existence of aether, and the thesis that the creators of the experiment wanted to prove. Short synopsis: if the earths moves "trough" some kind of aether that is supposed to "carry" electromagnetic radiation, then the speed of that radation should be dependent on whether the earth in its circular movement moves toward or away from the source of the light through the aether. This difference was not found, which disproves the theory that an aether is the carrier of EM radiation. So please tell, which scientifically proven, published and peer reviewed experiments "prove" that Special Relativity is wrong? I'd really like to look into this myself!
@@rientsdijkstra4266 Einstein replaced the aether with his reified spacetime which are absurdities. Space is the absence of some thing and time is a measure of something.
@@bobann3566 I admire your deep insight!
Nicholas Gisim experiment proved a photon is actually two photons that can be split apart but remain entangled. It travels helically E = γmc^2, where γ = 1/√(1 - (v^2/c^2)) this helical movement is the wave function. The detector splits the -w and +s boson or photon as you like to call it. The detector removes one of them eliminating the wave function the drafraction pattern goes away and will display light as a particle. Solving the dual slit experiment.
The video clearly confuses map with the actual territory. Btw some physicist do that too actually.:)
The fields, waves and all that is just a model. A model to be able to describe some, not all, physical behaviour. The model has ,in fact, nothing to do with reality, it only emulates some of its behaviour we think we are aware of and can observe. Btw there's even a confusion what constitutes an observation. E.g. there's no any actual physical definition for it and yet we justify most of our models by it.
Same like there's no actual physical definition of time and yet we measure it and use it everywhere.
Also there's no any actual physical definition of what constitutes measurement. Especially In QM we don't even know whether the "measurement" is or isn't a part of what's being measured.
So you see the notion that light is wave and a particle "at the same time" depending on how is it observed via measurement already contains all terms we have no physical definition for.
It's just a model. The best we have.
I reject the idea that we can't know the actual nature of the physical world and that all we can know is to model it. Do you disagree that fields tell us how much of a certain property is at what location?
@@Inductica Rejecting it is of course perfectly fine. The rest of what you wrote is more of a philosophical question.
To me the trouble answering it stems from the following:
1. All we do is measure, but we know neither what constitutes measurement nor whether the measurement is a part what we measure or not.
2. Now, take 'c' for example.
- We cannot even measure it in both directions for the same photon since that measurements depends on knowing the 'c' beforehand.
- we model it either as wave or as a particle depending on what is giving seemingly more accurate results based on our measurements (see the point 1. above)
- speed of EM waves propagation ('c') comes out of Maxwells equations whereby that speed only depends on the properties of the media and nothing else otherwise all our EM theories would've fallen apart.
- to say that 'c' is of the same one photon is the same relative to any frame of reference and their relative speeds to each other requires admission that we are lost.🙂 But yet, our model needs this to function. Hence we started saying that our intuition and intellect don't work and yet our very intellect and intuition created that very model which suggest these two things don't work😉
3. The math, we do believe in, has one fatal flaw which is called "Gödel Incompleteness Theorem". Tou may say it's just one, nevertheless it's enough to disregard it as a tool for any system reaching certain complexity used to prove that theorem to be correct.
@@Inductica You reject something. So what?
@@jimjimmy2179 Thank you for bringing up Gödel Incompleteness Theorem.
@@niblick616 To reject the notion that we cannot understand the nature of the Physical world is the rational position to take as evidenced by the likes of Galileo and Newton. Is it your view that science cannot progress from where it is now?
It's been said that if the space medium exists, there's no way to detect it physically. Well, there's a little demo that goes like this: Get a barbell, say a 3 foot one with a 10 lb. weight on each end. While standing, pick it up from the middle, and try to 'torque' it in the horizontal plane. Notice the huge inertia against turning it (amplified by the long moment arms). That inertia is literally the resistance *of 'space' itself* against an object's acceleration. That very same property of space, accelerating straight down thru your bod and barbell, is creating 'weight', pressing your feet to the floor. It's a simple little demo of acceleration/inertia/weight equivalence. Gravity is simply the effect of spaceflow accelerating vertically.
Properly understood, we are interacting with the space medium in the tangible, palpable and tactile sense every second of every day of our lives, literally.
It was detected by Gravity Probe B which discovered the Lense-Thirring or frame-dragging effect.
@@robertsutherland7378 What GPB detected was a very slight torquing of the "frame" or gravity well, but without any explanation of what the frame(gravity) actually consists of.
Over the last century, the Flowing-Space model of gravity has been deduced by a number of people worldwide, independently and without collaboration. Here's a couple of recent examples --
henrylindner.net/Writings/BeyondNewtonPE.pdf
th-cam.com/video/hFlzQvAyH7g/w-d-xo.html
There are flaws in this video. First, fields represent the spatial distribution and evolution of physical quantities ... and while fields can have properties such as strength, direction, or curvature, they are not properties in the same sense as intrinsic attributes of particles. Second, to propagate, fields don't require a material medium in the traditional sense - spacetime is not a medium but is instead a geometric concept of the arena within which things happen.
@@ExistenceUniversity So what would be a non-particulate medium? Is it some kind of abstract distribution of probabilities?
@@ExistenceUniversity Thank you. I'll look into Faraday's lines of force.
Very large flaws. Aether was thought to be a gas-like substance as in 'matter' . Fields, on the other hand, are seen as an intrinsic condition of space itself rather than a thing that exists in space.
Totally agree...sound doesn't propagate in a medium nor do I change the state of the pool water when I cannonball.
Ummm..... no. If I (as a non-physicist) understand it properly, there is a constant creation and annihilation of particles 'ex nihilo' from the quantum vacuum? In which case would that not provide the base structure for fields to exist? In simple terms, that there is never 'nothing' but always 'something' in the quantum vacuum? (And by the way, to use your own words "today, of course, we know that" electrons don't have a "circular orbit".)
Why not just do away with the semantics? The ether = quantum vacuum = space-time.
In other words, the space-time field is the intrinsic field that is composed of all the others, or it is the intrinsic field that all the others exist within.
Space-time is the base field so to speak.
Do you think the ether gives us key understanding gravity? If so can we make antigravity possible? What are the implications for understanding infinity?
The concept of Aether is century older than Special-Relativity. Yet it never pointed towards the understanig of gravity the way relativity did. There's nothing inbuilt in Aether theories that can point towards bending of Aether to create gravity.
The "null" result is not true. Michelson - Morley resulted in velocity values 1/6 to 2/3 of what they were expecting. It was Einstein first books/articles which magical did away with the ether, but before Einstein died he absolutely professed the need for the ether. Transverse waves need a boundary condition between two medias to exist. The refraction index of the ether might be explained by capacitance and inductance.
Quantum mechanics stands out as a domain where the both/and logic of the monadological framework finds profound relevance and application. The paradoxical behavior of quantum particles and systems has persistently challenged classical binary logic and representations rooted in strict separability and the mutual exclusivity of properties.
Wave-Particle Duality
One of the most famous quantum paradoxes is the wave-particle duality, where quantum entities like electrons and photons exhibit properties of both particles and waves depending on the experimental context. Classical logic would deem these to be contradictory and mutually exclusive properties - an entity cannot be both a localized particle and a delocalized wave simultaneously. However, quantum experiments have incontrovertibly demonstrated this seemingly impossible "wave-particle duality."
The multivalent structure of the both/and logic allows us to formally represent and reason about these apparently contradictory wave and particle aspects. We can assign quantum entities like an electron a partial truth value between 0 and 1 for both the proposition "is a particle" and "is a wave" based on the specific experimental context. The coherence operator ○ in the logic allows quantifying the compatibility between the particle and wave properties.
For instance, in a double-slit experiment setup, an electron could be assigned truth values of 0.7 for "is a wave" and 0.6 for "is a particle", with a coherence value ○(wave, particle) = 0.4 say. This reflects that in this context, the electron exhibits a high degree of both wave and particle properties, which are partially coherent or compatible with each other per the logic.
The synthesis operator ⊕ further allows representing the integration of the particle and wave aspects into a higher-order unified description that transcends their apparent opposition in a creative/emergent way as per the quantum phenomenon. Electron ⊕ ~Electron could capture the genuine possibilistic superposition that transcends the classical dichotomies.
Quantum Entanglement
Another quintessential quantum paradox is the phenomenon of entanglement, where particles can remain indefinitely correlated in their properties over arbitrary distances, schematically violating the classical assumptions of separability, locality, and independence. Once in an entangled state, the individual particles lose their autonomy and must be modeled as a holistic, non-separable system exhibiting correlations that cannot be accounted for by classical probability theory.
The both/and logic allows us to formally represent and reason about these non-local, holistic correlations. We can use the coherence operator to quantify how well separable vs. holistic descriptions fit the entangled system's behavior based on violations of Bell inequalities. We can assign entangled particles a high truth value for being in a unified, non-separable state and a low value for classical separability.
The synthesis operator ⊕ comes into play to represent the transcendent, novel whole that emerges for the entangled system - one where properties are fundamentally de-localized and reciprocally coordinated across the individual particle descriptors. Descriptions like "SpinUp ⊕ ~SpinUp" capture the genuinely holistic and paradoxical condition evinced.
The principle of holistic contradiction further allows logically deriving the non-separable correlations from any product state descriptor, formalizing how entanglement forces abandoning classical separability assumptions.
Quantum Theory Interpretation
More broadly, the both/and logic provides a coherent framework for interpreting and modeling the paradoxical phenomenology of quantum theory that has resisted reconciliation with classical representations. Principles like complementarity, uncertainty, non-locality, and wave-function collapse all involve apparent contradictions between operational predictions, measurements, and visualizable physical mechanisms.
The multivalent structure allows assigning multiple dynamically-shifting truth values to propositions about particle/field properties, detecting vs not detecting events, local vs non-local causality, unitary evolution vs stochastic collapse etc. based on context. Coherence values between these assign degrees of compatibility.
The synthesis operator captures the higher-order transcendence involved in intrinsically indeterminate or "complementary" variables. Holistic contradiction allows formalizing the genuinely paradoxical possibilistic condition where for instance, "SpinUp" and "~SpinUp" both arise as co-realizable eventualities for a single quantum event, in a way barred by classical logic.
In essence, the both/and logic allows coherently representing and regimenting the intrinsically paradoxical phenomenology and interpretational paradoxes of quantum theory itself, in a way moving beyond the internal contradictions that have plagued classical analyses and models. Its paraconsistent, multivalent structure allows quantum theory's apparent contradictions and complementarities to be rendered formally consistent and expressible.
By embracing the both/and logic native to quantum phenomena, the monadological framework promises fundamental advances in our capacity to model, predict, and perhaps even rationally steer the quantum realm. Where classical logic and models fail by being too restrictive, the both/and logic equips us with a radically expanded descriptive capacity befitting quantum theory's intrinsically paradoxical nature.
This completely misunderstands or misstates quantum field theory.
@@alphabasic1759 in what specific way? I’d like to correct myself if I’m wrong.
The table has no contraction at the lab rest frame.
It will be contracted at the ether rest frame (if such exist) exactly the same as the wavelength of the corresponding table direction.
But again the results showed that the speed of light is constant at all inertial frames, including the ether rest frame (if such exist).
So if there's an ether rest frame it has no impact on the light speed, which is pretty weird for a medium of a wave.
Just ran onto your channel and concur wholeheartedly with your 'Induction' protocol prioritising _causal mechanisms_ over abstract descriptions of effects. For 120 years physics has been locked into and predicated on a TOTAL PARADIGM INVERSION that far eclipses the geocentrism>heliocentrism inversion. The space medium ('ether') was unceremoniously kicked out, transforming it to a vacuum or 'no-thing'. So "spacetime" became its reified surrogate, a pure abstraction allowing the 'no-thing' to be treated mathematically as 'something' ontological. Granted, GR's spacetime with its cryptic 'curvature' worked spectacularly well... until it didn't. It falls flat on its face confronting the 'Big Issues' in physics like the _causal mechanism_ of gravity, unification gravity in the UFT, relativity/QM conciliation, dark matter/dark energy etc.
'Space' is a universe-filling 'Ocean' or Plenum, the furthest thing there is from a vacuum(aka 'spacetime'). So how can we roll back the vacuum model to its inception, turn it on its head, and start afresh from a clean slate with the Plenum model?
Conceptualizing the Plenum might be easier by way of analogy at first. Picture a fish deep in the ocean. He has no concept of "water" or "ocean", 'water molecules', pressure or density. To his perception, his domain is simply "space", a great void of 'nothing'. He feels no physical presence or pressure, because he's composed of and immersed in, the perceived "no-thing". He's neutrally buoyant in it.
In like manner, our perception of "space" is a 'no-thing' or nothingness. We're oblivious that we, even down to our constituent atoms, are *full of and swimming in* one great 'Ocean', the Plenum of space. Our very atoms, down to their quantum and subquantum constituency, are FULL of It. It's said that an atom is 99.9999% or so "empty space", which translates to it being 99.9999% FULL of 'Plenum stuff'. As with Mr. Fish, we're also in hydraulic equalibrium with it, sensing no physical presence of it. And because its 'cellularity' is sub-Planckian, below our sensory and EM resolution, we go on perceiving It as 'void' or nothing, just as "water molecules" would be to Mr. Fish in his domain of "nothing". In like manner, we, our planet and our Cosmos are pressure dwellers in our element, the 'Ocean' of subPlanckian space.
This little vid contains a neat metaphor of 'particles' popping out of and back into "nothing". Begins at 3: 40 th-cam.com/video/fY8pucNaaH0/w-d-xo.html The water represents subPlanckian space; the bubbles are metaphoric 'particles'.
A noteworthy 'spinoff' or sidebar of the Plenum model would be the flowing-space model of gravity. Over the past century it has been deduced independently by a number of people independently and without collaboration, beginning with Gullstrand/Painlevé. Here's a couple of recent examples --
henrylindner.net/Writings/BeyondNewtonPE.pdf
th-cam.com/video/hFlzQvAyH7g/w-d-xo.html
And BTW, the cryptic 'curvature' of space would be the _rate of acceleration_ of flowing space, aka the 'strength' or force of gravity. Without acceleration there's no 'curvature', hence no gravity _irrespective of the actual velocity_ of a flow. Conversely, a non-accelerating object can coast frictionlessly thru space at any velocity per Newton's first law. Herein you have unification of gravity and inertia. Inertia and 'weight' are simply a 'viscous' effect of space resisting being accelerated thru an an object's atomic lattice. In the absence of any accelerative force or action, space is a perfect superfluid. So it's actually an "acceleration-mediated quasi superfluid". A rough analogy is seen in non-Newtonian fluids (like oobleck) in their stress-mediated variable viscosity.
The anachronistic term 'ether' really needs to be replaced with something definitive/descriptive, like 'SubPlanckian Space Medium'.
Yes, acceleration and gravity are linked but not as force. Gravity, and acceleration are both the opposite of force. I know this is true because when I throw a ball up in the air with the force of my throw it goes up, curves and accelerates back to inertial Rest. That return, that acceleration has no force.
Gravity is an anti field.
Aether is not in space. Space is the shadow of aether. Space is no thing. Aether is non cartesianal that is what the Michaelson-Morley experiment showed u s.
"'Space' is a universe-filling 'Ocean' ": And then what is this "universe" thing you speak of? " his domain is simply "space", a great void of 'nothing'": Do you think fish have different sensors than you do? Space: three dimensions (Cartesian, polar, whatever)... that define where something can go and can be. Time: When it goes or be's there. Temperature: Another attribute that can change "orthogonal" to space and time. Why don't we hear people talking about Space-temperature or temperature-time? Pressure: Another attribute that can change but is "not orthogonal" to space and time and temperature. Raise the pressure and confine the space and temperature goes up. Do it faster and the temperature changes faster.
@@toddmarshall7573 You are on the right track, you just have it backwards.
Is a shadow a thing? Certainly you can feel coolness in shadow, but that does not make shadow a thing that makes you cool does it? What makes you cool when you stand in a shadow?
Space is like a shadow. It is not a thing and therefor it cannot be an ocean.
A void of nothing is just no thing. Not an ocean. An Ocean is not a void, is not space.
@@bobann3566 If you understand what you write I guess that's all that matters.
@@toddmarshall7573 Did you answer the questions?
Is space a thing? Go ahead, I am not going anywhere. look it up in the dictionary. I dare you. I double dare you.
Damn you’re spot on! Great work! The Higgs field is just amazing. I like Unzicker’s dislocations argument for the Ether as well:) thanks
I have been thinking along the same lines recently after watching a lot of TH-cam videos on the physics of light and electro magnetism. I think the whole term electromagnetic radiation is misleading. Instead of electromagnetic waves, the ideal term would be “space waves” because there’s no getting around the fact that any wave requires a medium. Light - a wave-travels through space, so it’s a space wave. In other words, a transmitted disturbance in the field of space. This disturbance is caused by, among other things, movement (displacement) through the spacefield of objects having mass and ‘electric’ and ‘magnetic’ charges. I imagine spacefield to be like a three dimensional network and mass-ive objects as spheres with 2 hooks - called electric charge hook and magnetic moment hook. These “hooks” catch on to the substance of the spacefield. So when the hooked sphere is moved through the spacefield (ether), the hooks strum the threads of the network of the spacefield and you have your “electromagnetic wave” propagating happily through the spacefield aka ether. It’s my simple self- evident explanation.
If you call it "ether" you haven't actually solved the problem you think you've solved.
Ah thought something was off, it's like directing a train of thought. Thanks for the heads up.
@@LeonelLimon-nj7tu The problem is this:
There NEEDS to be ONLY SPACE & TIME at the bottom of the "what is everything made of?" stack.
If you posit an "ether" that needs to be "waving" then you only beg the question: "What is the ether made of?"
There CANNOT be a need for everything to be made of something more basic because then you need to figure out what that "more basic" thing is made of. The bottom of the "what is it made of?" stack MUST be NOTHING.
@@ThatBoomerDude56 well whatever it is, it takes the space of 3 Angstroms @ 11, thousand trillion pretubutaions per second. If this comes to question; ask AI.
What is waving is actually the real single substance in the whole universe and the wave itself simulates matter. Close but not close😊
There is no evidence for an ether. Electric and magnetic fields are properties of locations in spacetime. Is spacetime "something"? In some senses yes, in some senses no. But it's not a substance, not an ether.
The ether is not necessarily substance, but it is an entity.
@@Inductica you mean its "alive" and/or have consciousness???
@@Existidor.Serial137 Haha, no. I mean that it is an existent having particular properties and having the ability to act. Examples of entities: rocks, atoms, planets, the earth's atmosphere. Examples of non-entities: My emotions (I'm an entity, but my emotions are not, they are an aspect of me.) The color of your shirt (the shirt is an entity, but its color is a property.)
I make a big deal about this because we need to be clear on the difference between the fields (a description of the capacity for action) and the actual entity committing these actions (the ether). We are confused about these fundamental categories of existence, and that is blocking progress in physics.
@@Inductica I agree with you in principle. However I would suggest that emotions are arguably entities in that they can be observed at one level of abstraction as discrete snapshots of brain chemistry and at another as a consequential behavioural expression. In my view time is the classic example of something that we all purport to understand but cannot in fact be shown at any level of abstraction to be observable as an entity.
The light is waving. Fix a rope at end. Flick the rope from the other end to create a wave travelling along the length of the rope. The wave doesn't require a medium, the rope itself expresses the wave. Similarly, light happens to propagate in a wave formation, and it doesn't need a medium for that to happen. So simple.
Shades of the old Ether discussions from the 19th century re-emerging?
How fast would we have to be able to move a flashlight to prove all this to be nonsense?
@@toddmarshall7573 In principle any speed will suffice. Only problem is that if the speed is to little the margin of measurement is to small. Actually the Michelson Morley experiment (which was intended to prove the existence of aehter!) proved already in the 19th century that the speed of light relative to earth is independent to the movement of earth, which disproves the existence of aehter as medium for light (EM radiation).
I can explain all this, and I have explained it at length on Quora/Jon Wiebold. But here is another explanation:
Yes, the Aether exists. We know a list of facts about it but not everything. We know that something about it moves at c, and since normal matter cannot move at c, therefore the aether cannot be made of normal matter. We think photons do not propel themselves, they simply energize the aether, locally. We think it lends wavelike properties to the EM radiation. The photon is the particle and the medium provides the wave. When light moves slower through a lens material, it is because the aether , energized by the EM, is passing through the lens material, creating a mixed medium. This also explains why the light speeds up again upon exiting the lens material. As in all other cases, the medium determines the speed of the wave. An undersea radio antenna needs to be shortened by the index of refraction of light (n=1.33) to work correctly. The Aether penetrates and saturates the entire Earth. I wonder what the index of refraction of the core of the Earth is? The aether penetrates and energizes the subatomic matter in every atom, forcing the subatomics to maintain c. As the subatomics are captivated in the construct of normal matter, the subatomics are constantly accelerating in essentially every direction at once. Gravity? Any change in c causes a net acceleration amongst the subatomics, which translates to a force in the normal matter. Gravity is that simple. No matter how fast matter is moving, the subatomics are moving at exactly c, relative to the Aether, the medium of the galaxy. Thus, no speck of normal baryonic matter will ever move faster than c unless we can locally energize c and motivate it in the right vector. C is whatever speed the aether is moving. The aether moves in all directions at once as a superfluid. It is not captive and not accelerating. The speed of the aether is dependent on its energy to matter ratio. The aether slows as it nears great quantities of normal matter because it is rendering energy into that matter. This slowing causes gradients of time dilation, which cause the gravity mentioned earlier. Light, crossing a gradient will curve. the waves that stay in phase will curve. The non-accelerating aether interacts with with the subatomic to which it is rendering energy, not in a chemical way, in a physical way. Equivalence is constant. Mass is normal matter's resistance to acceleration, as produced by the same mechanics as gravity mentioned earlier, but with kinetic input instead of a chronic input.
Michelson et al were not stupid to believe in the Aether, but they missed a few details.They expected the Luminous Aether to be something stationary that the Earth was ploughing its way through. They expected something through which light and the other EMs would propagate at the speed of light. They probably never wondered what kind of matter it was. The Quintescent Aether is a very different explanation. It's state of matter, the fifth state, lacks the construct of normal matter and is therefore massless. The physical properties are more important than its chemical properties. The QA has an energy / matter relationship that establishes how it move at c., the so called speed of light. It may make sense that photons do not propel themselves, they simply energize the Quintescent Aether that is already moving at that speed. When recirculating QA encounters itself at a sidereal 2c, there is no interaction and no resistance. Everything that moves at c moves at the same c, which is locally zero relative to the QA.
The Q Aether slows as it encounters normal matter because it is rendering energy to that normal matter, maintaining the speed of all the subatomic particles in the normal matter. If the subatomics are all moving at c but not in a straight line, then, they are all accelerating. This acceleration can be perfectly internally balanced until a gradient in time dilation causes the local subatomics an imbalance of accelerations. Call it momentum, inertia or gravity, it is the interaction of the Quintescent Aether with every speck of normal matter. This interaction explains all of the "action at a distance" phenomena.
Thanks for a great explainer video.
If two photons are moving towards each other, the is the QA collapsing in on itself?
The whole universe is an electromagnetic field, so there is no real vacuum within the universe. The universe may still be expanding into a real vacuum, or it has stopped expanding and we're moving through the field, in our field of fields.
You're pretty good at this... thanks for great post
This video is not a good description of the situation. It is imprecise.
In the channel "dialect", the video "What Time Dilation ACTUALLY Is In Relativity " uses air to produce the same effect as light clock, the new video "How Superposition Causes Length Contraction" uses doppler effect to produce the length contraction effect. I like those explanations myself.
Yes, in that video, Dialect is explaining in detail a variant of the reasoning Lorentz used to predict the smashed table in my video.
@@Inductica hello , i have some questions
In Lorenz's explanation, only "matter" is compressed, but space is not. In Einstein's explanation, the entire space is compressed. Is there any way to do experiment to decide which explanation is correct？
Another question is, i don't understand the 7:00-7:20 in your video, why does the field of the nucleus change while moving in aether? why? is there any explanation? Could you please provide me with some resources to learn more? Thank you
@@陳力歐-d2d both your questions are answered indirectly in a paper titled “How to Teach Special Relativity,” by JS Bell (known for Bell’s theorem.) Bell gives a thought experiment demonstrating that space does not actually shrink, but that it is our measurement instruments that shrink.
@@Inductica Thank you ~ , I have found the article, I will read it
The acceptable way to talk about ether is to talk about fields
So then, to the basic question of this video, where do the fields exist and how are they transmitted?
@apparentbeing If your fields are a mathematical tool than ok, the fields are an acceptable way to describe the aether.
Yep. I agree. Drop the necessity of the concept of frame of reference. Simply assert the “ether” being a transport medium.
Fields are aether disturbed which makes aether Pure Potential, or Rest, which is Energy, what we call energy is aether disturbed which gives rise to force and motion at the end of which is the complete impotence of aether, which is its shadow, space, the curve is aether returning it Rest which is accelerative and an anti field we call gravity. Hello.
@@bobann3566 no, that was a bunch of words arranged together in ways that barely make sense.