Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 Page 1 of 3 [39 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic Goto page:  1, 2, 3 Next
Author Message
Bilge
science forum Guru

Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 2816

Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:55 pm    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum

GSS:
 Quote: Tom Roberts wrote: GSS wrote: uri wrote: Particles cannot interact in empty space. There must be a medium or a force field that carries the force between them. [...] Particles cannot interact in empty space if the empty space or vacuum or aether did not have any physical properties. [...] You both merely display your ignorance of modern physics. In the standard model there is no "medium", and no "force field" in the sense you seem to be using it. There are, however, Bosonic quantum fields that interact with the various quantum fields of the model to implement the three "forces" included in the model (gravity is omitted). Note in particular that the quantum vacuum, of which real particles are excitations, is in no way a "medium" or "physical properties of empty space". Space is the _manifold_ on which the quantum fields live, and they are properties of _themselves_, not space. _Manifold_ is the coordinate space. It is a defined entity. If you do not define any coordinate system then there is no coordinate space and no _manifold_. But the physical space still exists. The only 'property' a coordinate space or _manifold_ can have is the *metric*.

What's your point? (Also, a manifold can have other structure besides
a metric.) Are you claiming that distances and velocities are impossible
to measure? If not, you are assuming the existence of a differentiable
manifold equipped with a metric. You are simply trying to avoid the

 Quote: Just as the coordinate space, its metric is also a defined entity. The coordinate space or _manifold_ and its metric are always a part of some or the other mathematical _model_. The metric is just like a *scale factor* on a map or a graph.

Again, what is your point? You just listed the very things which
make the notion of a manifold useful. Since we are free to choose
any coordinates we like, we choose the ones which correspond to
the physical measurements the concepts represent.

 Quote: Metric is not a property of physical space. The permittivity, permeability, and intrinsic impedance are the properties of physical space and not of any _manifold_. These properties of physical space can be experimentally measured whereas the metric of any manifold cannot be measured experimentally.

Oh, really? Explain precisely how one quantifies any of those
so-called physical properties without first defining a manifold.

 Quote: From your above quoted remarks about "Space is the _manifold_" it appears that you are overly engrossed in mathematical world and are unable to distinguish between the physical and mathematical 'worlds'.

I'll be happy to compare my ability to make such distinctions against
yours. As an experimentalist, I translate mathematics into quantities
which can be measured with real instruments.
dda1
science forum Guru

Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

 Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:52 pm    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum Dick Head Gurcharn Sandhu GSS wrote: Good, ShitEater, now you are embarassing yourself by "explaining" MMX. I would point out the several errors in your hare brain stuff but you will argue to no end and I like to keep you more the way you are : in the dark, like a mushroom.
GSS
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 173

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:46 pm    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum

Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
 Quote: "GSS" wrote in message news:1150635613.326787.246380@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote: "Sue..." wrote in message news:1150453395.186066.162040@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... GSS wrote: A region of physical space which is devoid of any material particle is known as empty space or free space or vacuum. I would note that 'free space' is a term of art with an implied 377 ohm radiation resistance, real and measurable. 'empty space' implies a complete absence of fundamental particles so it can only exist on paper and would have only imaginary properties. If you have an edit in mind, that is a distinction you can exploit to add a bit more clarity where so much confusion abounds. Good paper! No it isn't. It is bogus. He claims an ether-relative Doppler shift masks out the possitive result in the MM experiment. Bogus. Any such such ether-relative Doppler would have been detected long ago. Kindly give your specific objections on this issue in the parallel thread titled : "A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe." In http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/space_aether_vacuum.pdf you opine that the frequency of emission of light photons is influenced by the motion of the source in the absolute/universal reference frame. Kindly give an expression quantifying the frequency change as a function of that "absolute" motion.

Kindly refer to
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/new_hypothesis.pdf

GSS

 Quote: He also ignores the energy that would be radiated in ether 'wake' waves. Kindly elaborate this point. I am sorry, I have not followed your objection/comment. GSS
FrediFizzx
science forum Guru

Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 774

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:27 pm    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum

"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vali92drhq4si2tjnkhfd8vrn2kbkpqtnr@4ax.com...
 Quote: On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:37:21 -0700, "FrediFizzx" fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote: "John C. Polasek" wrote in message news:1svf92toehvf4l0ragciqb72abosvgdlik@4ax.com... On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:45:33 -0700, "FrediFizzx" fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote: "Tom Roberts" wrote in message news:JZdlg.68348\$4L1.40545@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... GSS wrote: uri wrote: Particles cannot interact in empty space. There must be a medium or a force field that carries the force between them. [...] Particles cannot interact in empty space if the empty space or vacuum or aether did not have any physical properties. [...] You both merely display your ignorance of modern physics. That is probably true, but you don't do much better. ;-) In the standard model there is no "medium", and no "force field" in the sense you seem to be using it. There are, however, Bosonic quantum fields that interact with the various quantum fields of the model to implement the three "forces" included in the model (gravity is omitted). However to include gravity in the quantum field picture, it will be necessary to have a relativistic medium. Plus more. Note in particular that the quantum vacuum, of which real particles are excitations, is in no way a "medium" or "physical properties of empty space". I sure am glad that Volovik does not agree with you; Volovik says it like it is very well in his book "The Universe in a Helium Droplet" page 461 sect. 33 Conclusion; "According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons, neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century. The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum." However, it *is* somewhat tricky to make it all work out properly. A modified Dirac-like Sea is definitely required. Fred you are so right. You are thinking of my Espace/pairspace which has a dozen accurately calculated parameters. Well, I am actually thinking more of our "Spin Matrix" concept. Which your concept is a part of it. The EM part. You can't modify Dirac's electron sea because neither he nor anyone else has ever established any known parameters that would qualify it as an element of science. It's just a good idea and all quantum guys are comfortable with it. Dirac's Sea had problems because it is not bounded from below. Plus it had to have a continuum of filled states. Solution: Flip it to be all positive energy states with only certain states allowed due to the geometry of interactions in the dense media. Then throw it into another spacetime intersecting with ours. Now some of the states allowed are more than just what would represent electron-positron states in our spacetime. We also are going to have hadronic states which expands the electron sea to all fermions. This scenario allows the whole enchilada; fermions, virtual fermions and "less than virtual" fermions. Well, no, Fred. my pairs that you call virtual have actually not been created yet.

I don't call them virtual. I call them "less than virtual". ;-)

 Quote: They are feedstock waiting to be used. 10BYrs later after ejection, you have pions and particles cooked up. Show me a pion and I'll show you where the anti-pion is, in pairspace. It answers the QED question: where are all the anti-particles?? They're cooked positrons left behind by the electrons. Everything there is dual to our empty universe. It's an automatic dual space, by mere subtraction of X leaves 1 -X.

John, please learn some particle physics. "cooked" is not a particle
physics term. And a pion is already a matter/anti-matter pair.

 Quote: Your scheme of flipping to positive and blending with another spacetime is approaching cock-and-bull ingenuity.

?? It is the same thing you are doing.

 Quote: Furthermore Dirac did not have more to go on than to notice that the surd that is "total energy" must algebraically have a negative component. He did not stop to ponder whether the total energy equation was bogus, but it is. There's a much better substitute. I am not into QED as you know but I will joust a little.

Not just QED John, you need to get into the whole Standard Model. It
paints a beautiful picture but has some missing parts. There is no such
thing as absolute negative energy just as there is not such thing as an
absolute negative length. We are riding on top of a vast sea of
positive energy but we can only detect changes in energy.

FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
John C. Polasek
science forum Guru

Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 321

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:28 pm    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:37:21 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:

 Quote: "John C. Polasek" wrote in message news:1svf92toehvf4l0ragciqb72abosvgdlik@4ax.com... On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:45:33 -0700, "FrediFizzx" fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote: "Tom Roberts" wrote in message news:JZdlg.68348\$4L1.40545@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... GSS wrote: uri wrote: Particles cannot interact in empty space. There must be a medium or a force field that carries the force between them. [...] Particles cannot interact in empty space if the empty space or vacuum or aether did not have any physical properties. [...] You both merely display your ignorance of modern physics. That is probably true, but you don't do much better. ;-) In the standard model there is no "medium", and no "force field" in the sense you seem to be using it. There are, however, Bosonic quantum fields that interact with the various quantum fields of the model to implement the three "forces" included in the model (gravity is omitted). However to include gravity in the quantum field picture, it will be necessary to have a relativistic medium. Plus more. Note in particular that the quantum vacuum, of which real particles are excitations, is in no way a "medium" or "physical properties of empty space". I sure am glad that Volovik does not agree with you; Volovik says it like it is very well in his book "The Universe in a Helium Droplet" page 461 sect. 33 Conclusion; "According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons, neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century. The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum." However, it *is* somewhat tricky to make it all work out properly. A modified Dirac-like Sea is definitely required. Fred you are so right. You are thinking of my Espace/pairspace which has a dozen accurately calculated parameters. Well, I am actually thinking more of our "Spin Matrix" concept. Which your concept is a part of it. The EM part. You can't modify Dirac's electron sea because neither he nor anyone else has ever established any known parameters that would qualify it as an element of science. It's just a good idea and all quantum guys are comfortable with it. Dirac's Sea had problems because it is not bounded from below. Plus it had to have a continuum of filled states. Solution: Flip it to be all positive energy states with only certain states allowed due to the geometry of interactions in the dense media. Then throw it into another spacetime intersecting with ours. Now some of the states allowed are more than just what would represent electron-positron states in our spacetime. We also are going to have hadronic states which expands the electron sea to all fermions. This scenario allows the whole enchilada; fermions, virtual fermions and "less than virtual" fermions.

Well, no, Fred. my pairs that you call virtual have actually not been
created yet. They are feedstock waiting to be used. 10BYrs later after
ejection, you have pions and particles cooked up. Show me a pion and
I'll show you where the anti-pion is, in pairspace. It answers the QED
question: where are all the anti-particles?? They're cooked positrons
left behind by the electrons. Everything there is dual to our empty
universe. It's an automatic dual space, by mere subtraction of X
leaves 1 -X.
Your scheme of flipping to positive and blending with another
spacetime is approaching cock-and-bull ingenuity.
Furthermore Dirac did not have more to go on than to notice that the
surd that is "total energy" must algebraically have a negative
component. He did not stop to ponder whether the total energy equation
was bogus, but it is. There's a much better substitute.
I am not into QED as you know but I will joust a little.

 Quote: Pairspace stands alongside our vacuum and is the dual of everything in the vacuum universe. Physics happens there. Sure. Physics happens here also. And inbetween. ;-) FrediFizzx Quantum Vacuum Charge papers; http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf or postscript http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110 http://www.vacuum-physics.com
FrediFizzx
science forum Guru

Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 774

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:37 am    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum

"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1svf92toehvf4l0ragciqb72abosvgdlik@4ax.com...
 Quote: On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:45:33 -0700, "FrediFizzx" fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote: "Tom Roberts" wrote in message news:JZdlg.68348\$4L1.40545@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... GSS wrote: uri wrote: Particles cannot interact in empty space. There must be a medium or a force field that carries the force between them. [...] Particles cannot interact in empty space if the empty space or vacuum or aether did not have any physical properties. [...] You both merely display your ignorance of modern physics. That is probably true, but you don't do much better. ;-) In the standard model there is no "medium", and no "force field" in the sense you seem to be using it. There are, however, Bosonic quantum fields that interact with the various quantum fields of the model to implement the three "forces" included in the model (gravity is omitted). However to include gravity in the quantum field picture, it will be necessary to have a relativistic medium. Plus more. Note in particular that the quantum vacuum, of which real particles are excitations, is in no way a "medium" or "physical properties of empty space". I sure am glad that Volovik does not agree with you; Volovik says it like it is very well in his book "The Universe in a Helium Droplet" page 461 sect. 33 Conclusion; "According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons, neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century. The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum." However, it *is* somewhat tricky to make it all work out properly. A modified Dirac-like Sea is definitely required. Fred you are so right. You are thinking of my Espace/pairspace which has a dozen accurately calculated parameters.

Well, I am actually thinking more of our "Spin Matrix" concept.
Which your concept is a part of it. The EM part.

 Quote: You can't modify Dirac's electron sea because neither he nor anyone else has ever established any known parameters that would qualify it as an element of science. It's just a good idea and all quantum guys are comfortable with it.

Dirac's Sea had problems because it is not bounded from below. Plus it
had to have a continuum of filled states. Solution: Flip it to be all
positive energy states with only certain states allowed due to the
geometry of interactions in the dense media. Then throw it into another
spacetime intersecting with ours. Now some of the states allowed are
more than just what would represent electron-positron states in our
spacetime. We also are going to have hadronic states which expands the
electron sea to all fermions. This scenario allows the whole enchilada;
fermions, virtual fermions and "less than virtual" fermions.

 Quote: Pairspace stands alongside our vacuum and is the dual of everything in the vacuum universe. Physics happens there.

Sure. Physics happens here also. And inbetween. ;-)

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
GSS
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 173

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:41 am    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum

Tom Roberts wrote:
 Quote: GSS wrote: uri wrote: Particles cannot interact in empty space. There must be a medium or a force field that carries the force between them. [...] Particles cannot interact in empty space if the empty space or vacuum or aether did not have any physical properties. [...] You both merely display your ignorance of modern physics. In the standard model there is no "medium", and no "force field" in the sense you seem to be using it. There are, however, Bosonic quantum fields that interact with the various quantum fields of the model to implement the three "forces" included in the model (gravity is omitted). Note in particular that the quantum vacuum, of which real particles are excitations, is in no way a "medium" or "physical properties of empty space". Space is the _manifold_ on which the quantum fields live, and they are properties of _themselves_, not space.

_Manifold_ is the coordinate space. It is a defined entity. If you do
not define any coordinate system then there is no coordinate space and
no _manifold_. But the physical space still exists. The only
'property' a coordinate space or _manifold_ can have is the *metric*.
Just as the coordinate space, its metric is also a defined entity. The
coordinate space or _manifold_ and its metric are always a part of some
or the other mathematical _model_. The metric is just like a *scale
factor* on a map or a graph.

Metric is not a property of physical space. The permittivity,
permeability, and intrinsic impedance are the properties of physical
space and not of any _manifold_. These properties of physical space can
be experimentally measured whereas the metric of any manifold cannot be
measured experimentally.

 Quote: From your above quoted remarks about "Space is the _manifold_" it appears that you are overly engrossed in mathematical world and are

unable to distinguish between the physical and mathematical 'worlds'.

GSS
John C. Polasek
science forum Guru

Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 321

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:06 pm    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:45:33 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:

 Quote: "Tom Roberts" wrote in message news:JZdlg.68348\$4L1.40545@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... GSS wrote: uri wrote: Particles cannot interact in empty space. There must be a medium or a force field that carries the force between them. [...] Particles cannot interact in empty space if the empty space or vacuum or aether did not have any physical properties. [...] You both merely display your ignorance of modern physics. That is probably true, but you don't do much better. ;-) In the standard model there is no "medium", and no "force field" in the sense you seem to be using it. There are, however, Bosonic quantum fields that interact with the various quantum fields of the model to implement the three "forces" included in the model (gravity is omitted). However to include gravity in the quantum field picture, it will be necessary to have a relativistic medium. Plus more. Note in particular that the quantum vacuum, of which real particles are excitations, is in no way a "medium" or "physical properties of empty space". I sure am glad that Volovik does not agree with you; Volovik says it like it is very well in his book "The Universe in a Helium Droplet" page 461 sect. 33 Conclusion; "According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons, neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century. The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum." However, it *is* somewhat tricky to make it all work out properly. A modified Dirac-like Sea is definitely required.

Fred you are so right. You are thinking of my Espace/pairspace which
has a dozen accurately calculated parameters.
You can't modify Dirac's electron sea because neither he nor anyone
else has ever established any known parameters that would qualify it
as an element of science. It's just a good idea and all quantum guys
are comfortable with it.
Pairspace stands alongside our vacuum and is the dual of everything in
the vacuum universe. Physics happens there.

 Quote: Space is the _manifold_ on which the quantum fields live, and they are properties of _themselves_, not space. Space is inconsequential and has no properties so it is not even a manifold. It's the quantum fields of the quantum vacuum that is the manifold(s). Apparently physics is more subtle, and more exciting, than you can imagine. To understand this requires _study_. Sure, but there are still interpretational scenarios to deal with. Whether or not the detection of a photon can be considered to be a detection of a relativistic medium is a purely interpretational issue. The relativistic medium is so perfect that it can be mostly ignored other than the geometry of interactions that it creates. FrediFizzx Quantum Vacuum Charge papers; http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf or postscript http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110 http://www.vacuum-physics.com

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net
FrediFizzx
science forum Guru

Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 774

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:45 am    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum

"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:JZdlg.68348\$4L1.40545@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
 Quote: GSS wrote: uri wrote: Particles cannot interact in empty space. There must be a medium or a force field that carries the force between them. [...] Particles cannot interact in empty space if the empty space or vacuum or aether did not have any physical properties. [...] You both merely display your ignorance of modern physics.

That is probably true, but you don't do much better. ;-)

 Quote: In the standard model there is no "medium", and no "force field" in the sense you seem to be using it. There are, however, Bosonic quantum fields that interact with the various quantum fields of the model to implement the three "forces" included in the model (gravity is omitted).

However to include gravity in the quantum field picture, it will be
necessary to have a relativistic medium. Plus more.

 Quote: Note in particular that the quantum vacuum, of which real particles are excitations, is in no way a "medium" or "physical properties of empty space".

I sure am glad that Volovik does not agree with you; Volovik says it
like it is very well in his book "The Universe in a Helium Droplet" page
461 sect. 33 Conclusion;

"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium
called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century.
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields
transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent
different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."

However, it *is* somewhat tricky to make it all work out properly.
A modified Dirac-like Sea is definitely required.

 Quote: Space is the _manifold_ on which the quantum fields live, and they are properties of _themselves_, not space.

Space is inconsequential and has no properties so it is not even a
manifold. It's the quantum fields of the quantum vacuum that is the
manifold(s).

 Quote: Apparently physics is more subtle, and more exciting, than you can imagine. To understand this requires _study_.

Sure, but there are still interpretational scenarios to deal with.
Whether or not the detection of a photon can be considered to be a
detection of a relativistic medium is a purely interpretational issue.
The relativistic medium is so perfect that it can be mostly ignored
other than the geometry of interactions that it creates.

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
zzbunker@netscape.net
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 284

Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:44 pm    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum

PD wrote:
 Quote: kenseto wrote: "Tom Roberts" wrote in message news:JZdlg.68348\$4L1.40545@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... GSS wrote: uri wrote: Particles cannot interact in empty space. There must be a medium or a force field that carries the force between them. [...] Particles cannot interact in empty space if the empty space or vacuum or aether did not have any physical properties. [...] You both merely display your ignorance of modern physics. In the standard model there is no "medium", and no "force field" in the sense you seem to be using it. There are, however, Bosonic quantum fields that interact with the various quantum fields of the model to implement the three "forces" included in the model (gravity is omitted). Note in particular that the quantum vacuum, of which real particles are excitations, is in no way a "medium" or "physical properties of empty space". Space is the _manifold_ on which the quantum fields live, and they are properties of _themselves_, not space. Steven Weinberg defined a field as stress or strain in the medium called space. So are you disageeing with him? Once again, Seto is taking his understanding of physics from snippets of science popularizations.

Twice again, the Big Bang wanks are dorking it up in Goedeles,

> PD
PD
science forum Guru

Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:31 pm    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum

kenseto wrote:
 Quote: "Tom Roberts" wrote in message news:JZdlg.68348\$4L1.40545@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... GSS wrote: uri wrote: Particles cannot interact in empty space. There must be a medium or a force field that carries the force between them. [...] Particles cannot interact in empty space if the empty space or vacuum or aether did not have any physical properties. [...] You both merely display your ignorance of modern physics. In the standard model there is no "medium", and no "force field" in the sense you seem to be using it. There are, however, Bosonic quantum fields that interact with the various quantum fields of the model to implement the three "forces" included in the model (gravity is omitted). Note in particular that the quantum vacuum, of which real particles are excitations, is in no way a "medium" or "physical properties of empty space". Space is the _manifold_ on which the quantum fields live, and they are properties of _themselves_, not space. Steven Weinberg defined a field as stress or strain in the medium called space. So are you disageeing with him?

Once again, Seto is taking his understanding of physics from snippets
of science popularizations.

PD
kenseto
science forum Guru

Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:52 pm    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum

"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:JZdlg.68348\$4L1.40545@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
 Quote: GSS wrote: uri wrote: Particles cannot interact in empty space. There must be a medium or a force field that carries the force between them. [...] Particles cannot interact in empty space if the empty space or vacuum or aether did not have any physical properties. [...] You both merely display your ignorance of modern physics. In the standard model there is no "medium", and no "force field" in the sense you seem to be using it. There are, however, Bosonic quantum fields that interact with the various quantum fields of the model to implement the three "forces" included in the model (gravity is omitted). Note in particular that the quantum vacuum, of which real particles are excitations, is in no way a "medium" or "physical properties of empty space". Space is the _manifold_ on which the quantum fields live, and they are properties of _themselves_, not space.

Steven Weinberg defined a field as stress or strain in the medium called
space. So are you disageeing with him?

Ken Seto
kenseto
science forum Guru

Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum

"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote in message
 Quote: "GSS" wrote in message news:1150635613.326787.246380@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote: "Sue..." wrote in message news:1150453395.186066.162040@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... GSS wrote: A region of physical space which is devoid of any material particle is known as empty space or free space or vacuum. I would note that 'free space' is a term of art with an implied 377 ohm radiation resistance, real and measurable. 'empty space' implies a complete absence of fundamental particles so it can only exist on paper and would have only imaginary properties. If you have an edit in mind, that is a distinction you can exploit to add a bit more clarity where so much confusion abounds. Good paper! No it isn't. It is bogus. He claims an ether-relative Doppler shift masks out the possitive result in the MM experiment. Bogus. Any such such ether-relative Doppler would have been detected long ago. Kindly give your specific objections on this issue in the parallel thread titled : "A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe." In http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/space_aether_vacuum.pdf you opine that the frequency of emission of light photons is influenced by the motion of the source in the absolute/universal reference frame. Kindly give an expression quantifying the frequency change as a function of that "absolute" motion.

The observed frequency shift of a source "B" is dependent on the relative
motion between the source and the observer "A". Relative motion between the
A and B is the vector difference of the vector component of A's absolute
motion and the vector component of B's absolute motion along the line
joining A and B. With this interpretation the SR formula for doppler shift
is the expression that you are seeking.
This interpretation for relative motion allowed me to formulate an Improved
Relativity Theory called IRT. IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike
SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all environments, including gravity. A
description of IRT is in the following link
(page 4):
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf

Ken Seto

Ken Seto
 Quote: He also ignores the energy that would be radiated in ether 'wake' waves. Kindly elaborate this point. I am sorry, I have not followed your objection/comment. GSS
Ilja Schmelzer
science forum Guru

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 377

Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:54 am    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum

"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> schrieb
 Quote: Note in particular that the quantum vacuum, of which real particles are excitations, is in no way a "medium" or "physical properties of empty space".

Why should I note this?

Maybe you don't like an interpretation of the 250 field components
of GR + SM in terms of a medium. But I have such an interpretation
and I like it.

See Message-ID: <e4ed3k\$h23\$1@sycamore.fernuni-hagen.de>

According to your claim, my interpretation should
be wrong. Explain why.

 Quote: Space is the _manifold_ on which the quantum fields live, and they are properties of _themselves_, not space.

Sorry, but this is playing with words. The phrase "empty
space" (or spacetime) is widely used for an abstract
4-dimensional manifold _together_ with 10 field components g_mn.
Moreover, at least some of them should be _nonzero_.

Ilja
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
science forum beginner

Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 47

Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:20 am    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum

"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
 Quote: Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote: "Sue..." wrote in message news:1150453395.186066.162040@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... GSS wrote: A region of physical space which is devoid of any material particle is known as empty space or free space or vacuum. I would note that 'free space' is a term of art with an implied 377 ohm radiation resistance, real and measurable. 'empty space' implies a complete absence of fundamental particles so it can only exist on paper and would have only imaginary properties. If you have an edit in mind, that is a distinction you can exploit to add a bit more clarity where so much confusion abounds. Good paper! No it isn't. It is bogus. He claims an ether-relative Doppler shift masks out the possitive result in the MM experiment. Bogus. Any such such ether-relative Doppler would have been detected long ago. Kindly give your specific objections on this issue in the parallel thread titled : "A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe."

In http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/space_aether_vacuum.pdf
you opine that the frequency of emission of light photons is influenced
by the motion of the source in the absolute/universal reference frame.
Kindly give an expression quantifying the frequency change
as a function of that "absolute" motion.

 Quote: He also ignores the energy that would be radiated in ether 'wake' waves. Kindly elaborate this point. I am sorry, I have not followed your objection/comment. GSS

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 Page 1 of 3 [39 Posts] Goto page:  1, 2, 3 Next View previous topic :: View next topic
 The time now is Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:02 am | All times are GMT
 Jump to: Select a forum-------------------Forum index|___Science and Technology    |___Math    |   |___Research    |   |___num-analysis    |   |___Symbolic    |   |___Combinatorics    |   |___Probability    |   |   |___Prediction    |   |       |   |___Undergraduate    |   |___Recreational    |       |___Physics    |   |___Research    |   |___New Theories    |   |___Acoustics    |   |___Electromagnetics    |   |___Strings    |   |___Particle    |   |___Fusion    |   |___Relativity    |       |___Chem    |   |___Analytical    |   |___Electrochem    |   |   |___Battery    |   |       |   |___Coatings    |       |___Engineering        |___Control        |___Mechanics        |___Chemical

 Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post Similar Topics SRT , GRT and “ Minkowski space “. socratus Relativity 1 Sun Jan 06, 2008 9:49 pm aether drift patents 3ality Relativity 0 Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:32 pm equilateral triangles in space, and cyclohexane David Madore Math 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:05 pm Homology of a certain space question James1118 Math 2 Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:22 pm Point Defects in Emergent Vacuum ODLRO Geometrodynamics Jack Sarfatti Math 0 Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:52 pm