Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Lorentz Ether Interpretation of the Einstein Equations of GR
#11
Thanks Schmelzer. I'm ok with the GR math but have forgotten much of the terminology. Most of the confusion you point out is due to that. As I learn more I'll make another attempt at it. I'm aiming to produce a high-level intro (not much math) for people unfamiliar with ether theory.

Schmelzer: The interesting point of Volovik's \(^3He\) research is that it gives some qualitative insights. It is very good and useful research, but I have not used it. So there is nothing in the evolution of the cosmos "modelled on \(^3He\)".

- Sorry, my mistake. But the properties of ether, in your view, are similar to superfluids, aren't they?

Schmelzer: In the ether interpretation, the ether has a stress tensor or pressure tensor, instead of simply some scalar pressure.  This is what one has to use in condensed matter theory to define solids.

- Yes. Tensors first were used to describe stress / strain in solids. BTW we also use words like pressure, tension (the word tensor comes from this), shear, etc for these qualities. The words are not important, the tensor math gives the exact physical results. Anyway, three orthogonal planes are defined at a point. Each has 3 numbers, one for pressure through the plane (normal stress), and two within the plane (shear). The interesting physical fact - the reason this works - is that these 9 numbers are sufficient to give the stress in any direction: it behaves linearly (at least, this first linear approximation is good enough for most work). This is the same stress tensor you mean, right? In my post I referred simply to "stresses and strains". If this causes the misunderstanding that I mean only a scalar, I'd better throw in the word "tensor".

Schmelzer: About dark matter: There appear some fields in the ether which may play the role of dark matter.  For every electroweak pair of fermions there has to be a massive scalar field with much greater mass and similar color.  Those corresponding to leptons would not have any interaction at all, thus, would be good candidates.  But the ether as a whole differs from dark matter - it is everywhere.  There can be places without dark matter, but not without the ether. 

- Yes, I see. Ether as such can't do what DM does, since it's evenly distributed. The reason I mentioned it: DM is the only example of non-baryonic matter most people have heard of, and it seems to me ether must be non-baryonic. Maybe that's wrong? I didn't know there was a lepton field with "no interaction at all" (except gravity I presume); that sounds like a possibility for DM. Don't forget, what actually needs explaining is the observed galactodynamics. DM is the mainstream candidate but also modified gravity is possible. Anyway, probably not a good idea to bring in DM at all, causes confusion.

Schmelzer: The metric is not a hidden variable.

Right, poor choice of words on my part. I meant the underlying coordinates of the 3-d frame, which would be known only to "God" or whoever. We arbitrarily assign our own coordinate system to it. The word "metric" should only be used only to refer to \(g_{\mu\nu}(x,t)\). Perhaps the point is unimportant anyway.

Schmelzer: What is hidden is what makes the coordinates I use preferred coordinates.  But they are valid coordinates and the can be used in standard cosmology. No GR theoretician has anything to object if I use these coordinates - except that he can ask the question "why these? why not others?"

- Aren't they just the standard co-moving observer coordinates?

Schmelzer: And the spatial part of the metric - as visible as all other parts of the metric \(g_{\mu\nu}(x,t)\) - is not a 3-vector, but a 3-metric, a symmetric tensor, with two indices \(g_{ij}(x)\) instead of one \(a^i(x)\) of a vector field. 

- More incorrect language! I should refer to the FLRW ansatz - or something - not "metric evolution". a(t), of course, is just the normal FLRW scaling factor.

Schmelzer: With a small enough parameter \(\Upsilon>0\)  the solution gets as close to the Big Bang solution as one wants.

- Right, but there are other constraints on \(\Upsilon\) aren't there? You have to get quite close (a few minutes) to BB to use their model to generate the light elements. Will such a small \(\Upsilon\) causes problems elsewhere?
Reply
#12
(05-12-2016, 09:45 AM)secur Wrote: Sorry, my mistake. But the properties of ether, in your view, are similar to superfluids, aren't they?
Yes, at least as far as I have followed this. But my aim is a little different: I want to explain the universe in the simplest way. But superfluids are a really complex thing.
(05-12-2016, 09:45 AM)secur Wrote: The interesting physical fact - the reason this works - is that these 9 numbers are sufficient to give the stress in any direction: it behaves linearly (at least, this first linear approximation is good enough for most work). This is the same stress tensor you mean, right? In my post I referred simply to "stresses and strains". If this causes the misunderstanding that I mean only a scalar, I'd better throw in the word "tensor".
It was your comparison of the ether with a liquid which I meant. (And, minor point, the tensor is symmetric, so only 6 of the 9 numbers are indepedent.)
(05-12-2016, 09:45 AM)secur Wrote: DM is the only example of non-baryonic matter most people have heard of, and it seems to me ether must be non-baryonic. Maybe that's wrong?
The point is that this matter is of a different nature. The relation is the same as between the atoms of the crystal (the analogon of the ether "atoms") and the phonons - the quasi-particles of sound waves - which are analogical to all the particles we know.

(05-12-2016, 09:45 AM)secur Wrote: I didn't know there was a lepton field with "no interaction at all" (except gravity I presume); that sounds like a possibility for DM.
Careful with naming it "lepton field". It is an additional massive scalar field which corresponds to the leptons (something very roughly similar to supersymmetry).
(05-12-2016, 09:45 AM)secur Wrote: Don't forget, what actually needs explaining is the observed galactodynamics. DM is the mainstream candidate but also modified gravity is possible. Anyway, probably not a good idea to bring in DM at all, causes confusion.
Yes, good idea not to mention DM.
(05-12-2016, 09:45 AM)secur Wrote: Schmelzer: What is hidden is what makes the coordinates I use preferred coordinates.  But they are valid coordinates and the can be used in standard cosmology. No GR theoretician has anything to object if I use these coordinates - except that he can ask the question "why these? why not others?"
- Aren't they just the standard co-moving observer coordinates?
The spatial coordinates are, indeed, simply the co-moving ones. But only because, by accident, they fulfill for the flat FLRW metric the harmonic equation - which is, in my ether theory, the obligatory equation which distinguishes the preferred coordinates. It is because of this equation that I have to choose another time coordinate, \(d\tau = a^3(\mathfrak{t}) d\mathfrak{t}\). Again, fortunately, it is a function of \(\tau\), thus, the contemporaneity remains the same too.
(05-12-2016, 09:45 AM)secur Wrote: Schmelzer: With a small enough parameter \(\Upsilon>0\)  the solution gets as close to the Big Bang solution as one wants.
- Right, but there are other constraints on \(\Upsilon\) aren't there? You have to get quite close (a few minutes) to BB to use their model to generate the light elements. Will such a small \(\Upsilon\) causes problems elsewhere?
Making \(\Upsilon\) smaller makes the equations more close to the Einstein equations. So, a too small \(\Upsilon\) will become problematic only in one case: If GR has a problem.

Up to now GR does not have really big problems with observations, DM may be one, but, given that some additional massive particle which does not interact with known matter seems to solve this problem, I do not consider this as a really hard problem. So, all the other observational constraints tell me only that I would better stay close to GR. That means, these are all upper bounds to \(\Upsilon\).
Reply
#13
I see what you mean now: a liquid can't support shear stresses, so no tensor. Therefore ether is not liquid.

Schmelzer: Careful with naming it "lepton field". It is an additional massive scalar field which corresponds to the leptons.

A non-trivial distinction; sorry for inaccuracy.

Thanks Schmelzer, your precise reading is appreciated
Reply
#14
Schmelzer I have some questions as a layman to yours Aether Theory (Tensors and stuff are foreign to me):
a) Is yours Aether actually the Space-Time itself?
b) You claim somewhere that the Aether has a zero speed. Is this the same in Cosmological and Quantum level?
c) Did the Aether and the material Universal were created at the same moment (BIG BANG)?
d) What is the influence of Aether on a charged particle or photon?
e) Is a charged particle or a photon consisted of Aether, too? IF YES, is it possible to demonstrate this with a simple expression?
f) Is the Aether consisted of massless particles? 
g) Is the Aether medium quantized? IF YES what is the expected dimensions of a quantum Aether particle?
Reply
#15
(06-04-2016, 07:59 PM)Ioannis Wrote: Schmelzer I have some questions as a layman to yours Aether Theory (Tensors and stuff are foreign to me):
a) Is yours Aether actually the Space-Time itself?

No. The spacetime in my ether theories is a classical absolute Euclidean space with absolute time, defined as by Newton.

The ether is some material which can move, change in time, can deform, which has non-constant and changing in time densities, velocities and pressure.

(06-04-2016, 07:59 PM)Ioannis Wrote: b) You claim somewhere that the Aether has a zero speed. Is this the same in Cosmological and Quantum level?

This would be in an ideal homogeneous universe. Or in the no gravity approximation (the original Lorentz ether, equivalent to special relativity).

(06-04-2016, 07:59 PM)Ioannis Wrote: c) Did the Aether and the material Universal were created at the same moment (BIG BANG)?

No.

(06-04-2016, 07:59 PM)Ioannis Wrote: d) What is the influence of Aether on a charged particle or photon?
e) Is a charged particle or a photon consisted of Aether, too? IF YES, is it possible to demonstrate this with a simple expression?

What is the influence of water on a water wave? The question is similar, because all particles are only waves of the ether, quasi-particles, similar to the phonons, the "particles of sound" of quantum condensed matter theory.
To say that particles "consisted of ether" would be, I think, misleading. Or would you say that water waves "consist of water"? It would be misleading, because the water waves moves with a quite large velocity, while the water moves forward and backward, up and down if a wave goes through, but in the average remains on its place.

(06-04-2016, 07:59 PM)Ioannis Wrote: f) Is the Aether consisted of massless particles? 

It consists of things which remain, approximately, on their places, only oscillate around. This is something you can easier construct out of massive particles. So, I would say no. But the details of the microscopic model do not matter very much. Very different models could give the same large distance approximations.

(06-04-2016, 07:59 PM)Ioannis Wrote: g) Is the Aether medium quantized? IF YES what is the expected dimensions of a quantum Aether particle?

Of course, one has to use quantum theory to describe the ether. In this sense, yes, quantized. But the quantum effects have not much to do with the microscopic dimensions. The Planck length is the length where one would expect that quantum gravity effects become important, that's all. There is not much reason to think that this distance is closely connected with the critical ("atomic") distances of the ether.
Reply
#16
Schmelzer Wrote:No. The spacetime in my ether theories is a classical absolute Euclidean space with absolute time, defined as by Newton. 

The ether is some material which can move, change in time, can deform, which has non-constant and changing in time densities, velocities and pressure. 

What is the purpose of such thing like the Aether then?

Schmelzer Wrote:This would be in an ideal homogeneous universe. Or in the no gravity approximation (the original Lorentz ether, equivalent to special relativity).
So if we use what is accepted today about the Universe then, it means it has a zero speed, right? I do not see any use of it.

Schmelzer Wrote:No.
Since the Aether were not created together with the Material Universe and since the Aether has nothing to do with Space-Time, which came first, second, third?

Schmelzer Wrote:What is the influence of water on a water wave? The question is similar, because all particles are only waves of the ether, quasi-particles, similar to the phonons, the "particles of sound" of quantum condensed matter theory.
To say that particles "consisted of ether" would be, I think, misleading. Or would you say that water waves "consist of water"? It would be misleading, because the water waves moves with a quite large velocity, while the water moves forward and backward, up and down if a wave goes through, but in the average remains on its place.

Inescapably, particles are consisted of Aether Waves and its substance, you cannot avoid this either or other way. That is OK.
You also say that the Aether Waves are like phonons. Do you accept or suspect the Aether Waves are longitudinal Waves (something that Tesla had once claimed) or it has nothing to do with this?

Schmelzer Wrote:It consists of things which remain, approximately, on their places, only oscillate around. This is something you can easier construct out of massive particles. So, I would say no. But the details of the microscopic model do not matter very much. Very different models could give the same large distance approximations.
Then, I am afraid you are running into trouble that means you have to justify or reveal their dimensions. I suppose the Aether does not interact with matter or photons and since you use non-massless particles then they could be confused with neutrinos and something that can be detect one or the other way. Under such approach I do not see the use of the Aether.

Schmelzer Wrote:Of course, one has to use quantum theory to describe the ether. In this sense, yes, quantized. But the quantum effects have not much to do with the microscopic dimensions. The Planck length is the length where one would expect that quantum gravity effects become important, that's all. There is not much reason to think that this distance is closely connected with the critical ("atomic") distances of the ether.

Planck Length is a dead idea (based on my view) from its birth (dimensions Analysis is the wrong way to go because it cannot justify the underlying process, meaning the Planck Length cannot be derived from a natural process) and I prove it (over a natural process).  I have estimated a value in the order of 6.5702 x 1E-57 m that it seems to be supported by the following article: Quantum Graininess

And another question: How yours Aether Theory justifies the existence of spin on quantum world? Does the Aether has a spin? It should, right?
Reply
#17
(06-04-2016, 09:10 PM)Ioannis Wrote: What is the purpose of such thing like the Aether then?

To explain the properties of what we observe. In particular, of the gravitational field (which is explained as describing density, velocity and stress tensor of the ether), but also of all other fields.

(06-04-2016, 09:10 PM)Ioannis Wrote: So if we use what is accepted today about the Universe then, it means it has a zero speed, right? I do not see any use of it.

Approximately zero speed. The gravitational field changes, the Newtonian background space not.

(06-04-2016, 09:10 PM)Ioannis Wrote: Since the Aether were not created together with the Material Universe and since the Aether has nothing to do with Space-Time, which came first, second, third?

The background space-time was not created, it was always there. In my theory, the ether is the material universe. But, of course, one could think that the actual theory is only about a particular quite solid state of the ether, that it may exist in other, quite different states too. In such other states, there would be other types of sound waves, thus, other material particles with other properties.

(06-04-2016, 09:10 PM)Ioannis Wrote: Do you accept or suspect the Aether Waves are longitudinal Waves (something that Tesla had once claimed) or it has nothing to do with this?

It has nothing to do with Tesla. There are longitudinal as well as transversal waves, and a lot of others.

(06-04-2016, 09:10 PM)Ioannis Wrote: Then, I am afraid you are running into trouble that means you have to justify or reveal their dimensions. I suppose the Aether does not interact with matter or photons and since you use non-massless particles then they could be confused with neutrinos and something that can be detect one or the other way. Under such approach I do not see the use of the Aether.

Actually its purpose is to explain the things we observe in a simple model. I think this model, which is sufficient to give all the 24 fermions and 12 gauge fields together with gravity, is surprisingly simple.

(06-04-2016, 09:10 PM)Ioannis Wrote: Planck Length is a dead idea (based on my view) from its birth (dimensions Analysis is the wrong way to go because it cannot justify the underlying process, meaning the Planck Length cannot be derived from a natural process) and I prove it (over a natural process).  I have estimated a value in the order of 6.5702 x 1E-57 m that it seems to be supported by the following article: Quantum Graininess
Thanks. I have some arguments which suggest that Planck length is irrelevant (that it defines only the size where quantum effects become important, and not the critical distance). On the other hand, there are other arguments that it is at least not completely irrelevant. I favor the first, but I'm not sure yet.
(06-04-2016, 09:10 PM)Ioannis Wrote: And another question: How yours Aether Theory justifies the existence of spin on quantum world? Does the Aether has a spin? It should, right?
Oh, this is a really difficult thing, I'm not yet sure how to explain all this in a simple enough way to laymen.
Reply
#18
Schmelzer Wrote:The background space-time was not created, it was always there. In my theory, the ether is the material universe. But, of course, one could think that the actual theory is only about a particular quite solid state of the ether, that it may exist in other, quite different states too. In such other states, there would be other types of sound waves, thus, other material particles with other properties. 

I support also the same about the space-time but in yours theory appears the Aether to be associated with the Material Universe which creates a some kind of logical inconsistency of events sequence in the long run. It will depend on your answer on this:
Since Space-Time was always there then which of both contains all the Laws of Physics, Space-Time or the Aether?


Schmelzer Wrote:Oh, this is a really difficult thing, I'm not yet sure how to explain all this in a simple enough way to laymen.

It will become more complex when you choose the wrong answer on the above question.
Reply
#19
The laws of physics are a quite abstract thing, I do not think they need some container containing them. Feel free to speculate about some Platonic world of Ideas, and localize it wherever you like, this is not what I care about.
Reply
#20
(06-05-2016, 12:29 PM)Schmelzer Wrote: The laws of physics are a quite abstract thing, I do not think they need some container  containing them. Feel free to speculate about some Platonic world of Ideas, and localize it wherever you like, this is not what I care about.

Then you will be led to the wrong conclusions in regards to spin, at least.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)