[TheForge] YAK relativity- WAY OT, or not...

[John Husvar]

DillonCo wrote:
>>Heres one that will really mess with your noggin...
>>
>>http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether.html
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the [a]ether theories.  I personally believe them and am baffeled by
> modern science saying that there is no ether.  (For those unfamilar,
> basically: air is to sound as light is to ether.)  The _only_ reason why
> science shuns this idea is because someone proved that light couldn't be
> traveling through a medium because its speed never changed even if the
> source was moving, unlike sound and all other medium based waves.  Then
> Einstein showed that the speed of light (in a vaccum) is constant.  Although
> this makes the anti-ether proof meaningless, people still hold that belief.
> The existence of the ether is proved very simply (but unscientificly).  If
> the ether exists, that's what space is.  If it doesn't, then what is space?
> If it's nothing (as it would have to be), how could the universe have a
> border / be expanding?  There must be some difference between space and not
> space, but without the ether, there isn't.

I've asked similar questions myself and fortunately have a friendly 
Physicist or two of whom I _can_ ask them.

As I understand it, A) There's no mathematical or philosophical need to 
postulate a medium to explain the propagation of light or of other 
particles or forces. (Occam's Razor)

B) No ether has been detected or measured and thus can't be used to 
explain anything else. (What can't be detected or measured is of no use 
for _scientific_ explication.)

C) The universe can expand into nothing quite easily, as easily as your 
or my waistline expands into space at Winter Holiday time. :)

There's "nothing" to stop it but the gravity of its own matter. (Which 
right now appears to be insufficient to stop the expansion and start a 
contraction. (There go cyclical time, the Wheel of Existence, and my 
clothing budget.)

Hawking and others characterize the universe as finite, but without 
boundaries, (borders) which is a mathematical concept I don't even 
pretend to have the maths to understand. :) Finite would seem to imply 
boundaries commonsensically, but not mathematically, apparently.

My friend, Bryon Anderson, a physicist at Kent State, once said that 
it's not a difference between space and not space, because space is not 
any thing: It's distance between things. "Space" per se is just an 
expression of distance or volume that is not occupied by any measurable 
matter. (alternatively, it's the metrical frame in which distance or 
volume are expressed-- e.g. You can describe a distance or volume, but 
there need be no physical existence of either. The described "space" 
still "is" mathematically because you've determined its characteristics.)

(Congratulations, you've just created a little universe all your own! 
But you can't get there from here.) :)

There _is_ matter (hydrogen atoms at least) in the space between things, 
but there's also space between those same hydrogen atoms.

The problem for those of us who "don't speak the language" of 
Theoretical Physics or Cosmology is that most of these concepts can't 
yet be fully expressed in natural language. Either the math has to be 
simplified into meaninglessness (or paradox) or language has to be 
hideously mangled, equally into meaninglessness. (or paradox) :)

Or both.

All we can accurately say about the universe is that it's "at least this 
big" (Some meaninglessly large number goes here). Since we don't -- and 
maybe can't -- know its boundaries (if any) we can't say more.

The universe is as great as the distance between Heaven and Hell and as 
small as the distance between Mother and Child.

At rare times, one can vaguely intuit some of the concepts, which 
usually leaves me in that state of mind called boggled.

it's mind-wrenchingly simple and complex at the same time.  Anybody 
who's read this far is cordially invited to read: The Dao of Physics, 
The Dancing Wu Li Masters, A Brief History of Time, Feynmann's Lectures, 
just about anything of Sagan's, and probably a hundred more. Someone 
posted a good reading list upthread.

A thoroughly mind-rattling set of concepts is what's happened and is 
happening with Bell's Theorem, The conflict between Super-Determinism 
and the Many Worlds Theory, and String theory. Then there's "Quantum Foam."

If someone, sometime, manages to detect an (a)ether, measure it, and 
accurately describe it, you can bet scientists will glom onto it like 
ants onto a picnic to prove or disprove it. Right now, ether is an 
extraordinary thesis in direct opposition to established science. 
Demonstrating its existence, therefore, will require extraordinary 
evidence. (Scientists are notoriously conservative.) None is presently 
forthcoming. Some might, however, come forth sometime.

As to the "What's Waving" question: A graph of the probability values of 
the states which a particle might display upon measurement looks like a 
series of waves, so are called "Wave Functions." The wave function 
collapses upon measurement because the probability of the value measured 
becomes unity. Once it's measured, it's that and not otherwise.

Which is why my outside cat is named Schroedinger: I never know from 
moment to moment if the idiot is alive or dead. One of these days _his_ 
wave function is going to collapse and I don't think he'll like the 
result. :)

Well, one probability wave function has just collapsed: Time to go feed 
the animals. :)


-- 
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in one pretty and well-preserved piece.
One should rather skid in broadside, thoroughly used up,
totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming -- "WOW!  WHAT A RIDE!"