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

[DillonCo]

Alright, replying to two posts at once (Bruce Freeman and John Husvar) so
keep up ;).  As for what I know about all this (seems appropiate) I am a
hobbiest at this point and awaiting graduate school studies.  I'm halfway to
qualified ;).
Keep in mind too, that the ether no longer regards just light.  A possible
ether holds far move value as an explanation for matter, gravity, etc. than
it does for light.

Bruce Freeman wrote:
> Actually I don't think Einstein was a player in determining that the
> speed of light is a constant.
> ...
> Furthermore, I'm reasonably sure that nothing that Einstein did in any
> way disproved the existence of "the aether".

Good points.  I was writing under time constraints so it was quick.
First, I recall it was someone working on EM radiation around the (can't
recall name) who was responsible for much regarding the sped of light.
To the second point, it was primaribly an experiment (as I recall) that
showed that the speed of light was the same regardless of the emitter's
velocity that killed the idea of the ether.  But, if light were to propigate
at constant speed, then this experiment would be meaningless.  Now, light
traveling at a constant speed would seem to disprove the ether, but that
isn't entirely true (more later).

Bruce Freeman wrote:
> Rather, modern physics rejects the concept of the aether on the basis
> of Occam's Razor.  Since an aether isn't needed for the propagation of
> electromagnetic radiation, then there is no reason to assume that there
> is an aether.
and John Husvar wrote:
> 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)

But there is.  There remain many mysteries regarding the structure of matter
itself.  If matter is thought to be an extension of the ether, it's all
largely explained.  That is a reason to at least consider it.  As it stands,
the popular theory about matter (that's not the Standard Model) is
Superstring Theory, which involves one dimention strings at ungodly tension
vibrating in 11 dimentions.  I can see why Occam's Razor would elimate the
ether and not Superstrings.  There is a lot of math behind the strings, but
that's really only because of many scientists and much time.  I'm sure an
ether theory could be created with the math to explain known phenomia.

> 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.)

Nor have been gluons or the Higgs boson nor the graviton.  These, however,
are very popular ideas (in order of decreasing popularness).  A ether type
thoery could explain their respective phenomia very well.  Especially the
Higgs boson ;).  From what I know (not much on this topic), physicists are
creating a higgs field that permiates throughout the universe and gives
particles mass.  A field that permiates the universe?  Sound like something?


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

Not so much for me, I'm glad to say, but my waitline is matter extending
into space.  (Can't speek for yours ;).  Space is expanding into nothing,
thus there must be some difference between the two.  The difference, not the
expanding, is the point.

Bruce Freeman wrote:
> BTW, who says the "expanding universe" HAS a border?

The "Expaning universe" is as popular (if not more) as the Big Bang Theory.
Take that for what you will.  Also, even if it's not expanding, as long as
it's finite, there is an edge between what is in the universe and what is
not, and that is my "border".

John Husvar wrote:
> 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.

Close enough ;).  As long as it's finite.  Think the surface of a sphere:
finate area, no border.  This is (I know very little of the following)
largely what the Poincare Conjecture sought to prove.  That 3D space could
be like the surface of a sphere.  The Poincare Conjecture may have been
proved just recently, BTW.

John Husvar wrote:
> 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.

An interresting point.  This could mean space is infinate, but all things of
meaning occupy only a finite amount of it.  Certainly does away with my
quick proof, but not the ether nor its potential usefullness in describing
the universe.

And to Andy Vida:
> It's all too mysterious, but that's what makes it all
> worthwhile.  How boring would it all be were we to know
> all the dirty little secrets?

It will truely be a sad day when (if) the universe gives up its secrets.
But if you don't try to wrench them free anyway, the terrorists have truely
won ;).