General > General Technical Chat

Thoughts about Special and General Relativity from a Classical Perspective

<< < (3/6) > >>

vad:
High school level physics response:

Both SR and GR have been tested experimentally zillion times, and except of GR at large scales (galaxy scale and up, where introduction of dark matter and dark energy are needed to keep GR consistent with the observations), both theories held very well.

On the other hand, aether conjectures did not agree with experimental data. Nobody managed to detect motion through the aether, and aether theory fails to explain time dilation phenomenon.

Undergraduate physics response:

All known elementary particles are simply disturbances in quantum fields, according to quantum field theory, which has been tested to unprecedented level of accuracy. There are 17 quantum fields: photon field, electron field, 6 quark fields, etc.

Consider the photon field to be your “aether” field :)

aetherist:

--- Quote from: kevin original on December 06, 2022, 01:03:38 am ---I'm now questioning the legitimacy of the aether after realizing the significance of epsilon naught times mu naught times speed of light squared. These constants when multiplied equal the value of 1 and cancel out any dimentionality in the process. This means that the characteristic impedance of free space vacuum is merely a ratio based on arbitrarily defined numbers. In other words, free space impedance as well as permeability and permittivity do not define any inherent properties of free space itself but are only defining a relationship with respect to the speed of light. 377 ohms is not a property of the aether as I previously thought, just a dumb number. mu*c = 1/ep*c is only saying 377 = 1/0.00265 or 1 = 1. My whole aether argument was backed by the idea of the aether having attributes of impedance, permittivity, and permeability, if these values do not hold meaning on their own besides being conversion constants then I cannot claim they are attributes of free space and thus the aether.

--- End quote ---
Einstein did have a half good idea -- he said that the speed of light was slower near mass. Proven by Shapiro (Shapiro Delay).
That also infers that the description "free space" is no longer good enuff -- no longer good enuff for non em physics -- but also not good enuff for em physics -- the description has to be "free space not near mass".

aetherist:

--- Quote from: vad on December 06, 2022, 03:37:26 am ---High school level physics response:

Both SR and GR have been tested experimentally zillion times, and except of GR at large scales (galaxy scale and up, where introduction of dark matter and dark energy are needed to keep GR consistent with the observations), both theories held very well.

On the other hand, aether conjectures did not agree with experimental data. Nobody managed to detect motion through the aether, and aether theory fails to explain time dilation phenomenon.

Undergraduate physics response:

All known elementary particles are simply disturbances in quantum fields, according to quantum field theory, which has been tested to unprecedented level of accuracy. There are 17 quantum fields: photon field, electron field, 6 quark fields, etc.

Consider the photon field to be your “aether” field :)

--- End quote ---
Every proper MMX has found an aetherwind.
The best MMX was by V V Demjanov -- in 1968-72. Google.

aetherist:
Some good thinking in there. The only theory addressing most of your questions is my own theory of relativity etc. The best way for me to address some of your wrongs is to describe what i say is my corrects. I might do that later -- but for now i merely need to point out that every proper MMX ever done has measured the aetherwind.
This immediately derails STR & most of GTR.
And i can add that there is no such thing as time -- except that we have the present instant, & this instant is universal (ie everywhere in our eternal infinite universe)[but dont heckle me re my use of the time-word eternal].

TimFox:
Aetherist defines a "good" MMX result as one that agrees with his beliefs.
There are other well-done MMX results that disagree with him.
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.020401
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjx58LK7eX7AhUBh3IEHU4OCGE4ChAWegQILhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcab.unime.it%2Fjournals%2Findex.php%2FAAPP%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2FAAPP.96S1A2%2FAAPP96S1A2&usg=AOvVaw1NvlUM_r5WZySD0tkfHvMj

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod