Resurrection of the Lorentzian Aether

[JMessenger]

Thank you for acknowledging that your theory is wrong because it predicts that gravity blows and we have evidence that it sucks !

No one knows what causes the accelerating expansion of the universe.
We do know that it is trivial to show that a non-zerocosmologicall constant in GR will cause an accelerating expansion of the universe.
But it may be quintessence.

quintessence? Really? Ever heard of Bernard Schutz? Know why he doesn't like quintessence? I am paraphrasing but it was something to the effect of "even some cosmologists have taken to a theory called quintessence, which is really depressing because this is nothing more than another name for the Aether."
Congratulations on becoming an aetherist.

[caveman1917]

I am claiming what we thought was one function is actually the sum of two separate functions. I am claiming that it is a fundamental error in modeling to utilize a tensor for a fluid equation without understanding that if you have no volume of fluid in which the stress-energy can propagate due to a change in density or pressure

Every function can be seen as the sum of two appropriately chosen seperate functions, just like the sum of every two functions can be seen as a single function. We could even make that three or four functions, or an infinite number of functions for that matter (at least if our codomain is uncountable).

, then by definition you do not have a fluid.

The term "perfect fluid" has a strict definition. The cosmological constant fits that definition. You may not like that definition, but that's just the way it is.

[JMessenger]

The term "perfect fluid" has a strict definition. The cosmological constant fits that definition. You may not like that definition, but that's just the way it is.

And what is that definition please?

[caveman1917]

So verify it. I would very much bet that any mainstream journal you find which publishes that verification also publishes the caveats of why it also doesn't fit. You are implying that the answers you are giving are in some way shape or form well accepted, when instead they are called "the worst prediction in physics" and a "cosmologists worst nightmare". The only thing that is agreed upon in any peer reviewed publications is that there seems to be a constant repulsion from something which seems to fit a constant in the EFE.

Which statement do you disagree upon?
1. Adding a cosmological constant to the EFE represents a certain non-zero vacuum energy.
2. Such model fits the observational evidence.

[JMessenger]

Which statement do you disagree upon?
1. Adding a cosmological constant to the EFE represents a certain non-zero vacuum energy.
2. Such model fits the observational evidence.

The second one is based on the first. I certainly agree that a constant linear repulsion fits the evidence, but I would like to see your citation for number 1. I take it that you have read Zel'dovich's late 1960s papers (the ones that introduced the idea of the vacuum energy) and perhaps even the one by Sean Carroll on the history of the cosmological constant. I look forward to seeing a paper that counters those, which I did not know existed.

[caveman1917]

And what is that definition please?

A substance that can be defined by its rest frame energy density and isotropic pressure.

For example http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/C...arroll1_3.html

The vacuum can therefore be thought of as a perfect fluid

Or any other basic textbook on the matter.

[caveman1917]

From the same link as above

The cosmological constant turns out to be a measure of the energy density of the vacuum

[JMessenger]

A substance that can be defined by its rest frame energy density and isotropic pressure.
For example http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/C...arroll1_3.html
Or any other basic textbook on the matter.

And then show me, in the derivation for a perfect fluid, where it is ever stated that stress-energy can be relayed outside the volume of the perfect fluid?

[caveman1917]

And then show me, in the derivation for a perfect fluid, where it is ever stated that stress-energy can be relayed outside the volume of the perfect fluid?

What does that even mean?
Also, what is the relevance?

[JMessenger]

What does that even mean?
Also, what is the relevance?

You are stating that energy density can be modeled as a change in density of a perfect fluid. Are you or are you not stating that "space-time" surrounding the volume of energy density is curved, but that it is not a perfect fluid outside the volume?

You also seem to be under the impression that the cosmological constant is well understood to be the cause of the accelerating expansion. There is a Nobel Prize committee that should be notified to retract the awards for Perlmutter, Reiss and Schmidt since one would think that you have evidence that no one else in the history of science ever suspected. I do believe I remember reading an article that one of the scientists offered their Nobel to whomever could explain the accelerating expansion to them. Are you planning on taking him up on that offer with your reliance upon vacuum energy of the cosmological constant?

[caveman1917]

You are stating that energy density can be modeled as a change in density of a perfect fluid.

Please quote me saying that or retract the claim.

You also seem to be under the impression that the cosmological constant is well understood to be the cause of the accelerating expansion.

(my bold)

Please quote me saying that or retract the claim.

[caveman1917]

Are you or are you not stating that "space-time" surrounding the volume of energy density is curved, but that it is not a perfect fluid outside the volume?

As an aside, spacetime is not a perfect fluid and i have stated no such thing. And yes, spacetime can be curved outside the volume of a perfect fluid, as birkhoff's theorem trivially shows.

[JMessenger]

A substance that can be defined by its rest frame energy density and isotropic pressure.
For example http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/C...arroll1_3.html
Or any other basic textbook on the matter.

The vacuum can therefore be thought of as a perfect fluid

Well thanks, I actually hadn't seen this quote by him. Although it doesn't surprise me, he would at times seem to be a closet aetherist:

Aether dynamics
Since Lorentz-violating aether fields have so many fun uses, it's important to verify that the theories are well-behaved. With Tim Dulaney, Moira Gresham, and Heywood Tam, we investigated perturbations in the aether. We found that the results of a naive stability analysis were sensitively dependent on what Lorentz frame you do are looking in -- in a boosted frame, a purportedly stable model begins to look unstable. One exception was what we called "sigma-model aether," so we looked at the empirical constraints on that model. Our stability results have subsequently been challenged by Donnelly and Jacobson, who argue that everything can be fixed if you choose boundary conditions carefully.

S.M. Carroll, T.R. Dulaney, M.I. Gresham, and H. Tam, 2008, "Instabilities in the Aether'', arXiv:0812.1049. [abstract; pdf; SPIRES]
S.M. Carroll, T.R. Dulaney, M.I. Gresham, and H. Tam, 2008, "Sigma-Model Aether'', arXiv:0812.1050. [abstract; pdf; SPIRES]

[JMessenger]

Please quote me saying that or retract the claim.
(my bold)
Please quote me saying that or retract the claim.

From post #96

Here are the EFE leaving as a seperate term

You are now claiming that is not the stress energy tensor for a perfect fluid with and as the diagonal components?

No retraction on the second either because the statement stands as written.

[caveman1917]

Well thanks, I actually hadn't seen this quote by him. Although it doesn't surprise me, he would at times seem to be a closet aetherist:

Then you'll have to be accusing lots of physicists of being "closet aetherists" because that statement (or something equivalent) is what you will find in about every textbook on the matter.

Besides, you're just taking random potshots now, and purely ad hominem at that.

What is under consideration here is your theory, not the "closet states" of well-known physicists. Since your theory is exactly equivalent to the EFE without cosmological constant it will produce the exact same dynamics. And it will not reproduce accelerating expansion, because if we could get that from the EFE without a cosmological constant term, there wouldn't have been any need to add the term in the first place.

So if there is no further relevant argument on that, would it not be better to simply retract the claims made and let the thread be closed?

[caveman1917]

You are now claiming that is not the stress energy tensor for a perfect fluid with and as the diagonal components?

I neither am nor am not claiming that statement.

No retraction on the second either because the statement stands as written.

Then quote me making the claim

that the cosmological constant is well understood to be the cause of the accelerating expansion.

It is not good form to accuse someone of making a claim without being able to back it up. Especially on an internet forum where everyone can easily check what has and has not been written.

[JMessenger]

Then you'll have to be accusing lots of physicists of being "closet aetherists" because that statement (or something equivalent) is what you will find in about every textbook on the matter.

Besides, you're just taking random potshots now, and purely ad hominem at that.

What is under consideration here is your theory, not the "closet states" of well-known physicists. Since your theory is exactly equivalent to the EFE without cosmological constant it will produce the exact same dynamics. And it will not reproduce accelerating expansion, because if we could get that from the EFE without a cosmological constant term, there wouldn't have been any need to add the term in the first place.

So if there is no further relevant argument on that, would it not be better to simply retract the claims made and let the thread be closed?

I have refrained from any ad hom attacks, unless you consider closet aetherist as an insult. There are many cosmologists publishing papers on Einstein-Aether theories, quintessence etc nowadays (perhaps that was your point).

Retract what claims? If you mean whether I have misinterpreted your position about the cosmological constant, in the end my opinion on that will not matter. As to whether my equation will accurately model the accelerating expansion is an unknown. Whether it is mathematically sound however is easily provided in a derivation. Although you do not seem to be interested in this theory, your debate has certainly left me feeling much more confident in how it will perform. Considering you are under no obligation to have ever replied to this thread, I sincerely thank you for your time Caveman.

[JMessenger]

I neither am nor am not claiming that statement.



Then quote me making the claim


It is not good form to accuse someone of making a claim without being able to back it up. Especially on an internet forum where everyone can easily check what has and has not been written.

I retract all claims and put the last one forth: You very much seem to be sure of what is not causing the accelerating expansion.

[caveman1917]

I have refrained from any ad hom attacks, unless you consider closet aetherist as an insult.

It doesn't have to be an insult to be an ad hominem, it may even be a compliment. What it means is that it is an argument as to the person, not the statement, and thus irrelevant.

Retract what claims?

For example

I am claiming that it is a fundamental error in modeling to utilize a tensor for a fluid equation without understanding that if you have no volume of fluid in which the stress-energy can propagate due to a change in density or pressure, then by definition you do not have a fluid.

As to whether my equation will accurately model the accelerating expansion is an unknown.

It will not model any accelerating expansion, that much is known.

But seriously, why don't you just solve it for a cosmological vacuum solution (ie do the same as normally done for a (anti) de Sitter solution)? It's about the simplest thing possible to do with the EFE.

Whether it is mathematically sound however is easily provided in a derivation.

No argument there.

[caveman1917]

I retract all claims and put the last one forth: You very much seem to be sure of what is not causing the accelerating expansion.

Where did i say that?

If you mean that i seem sure that your equation will not produce an accelerating expansion then yes, i am absolutely positive about that. If the EFE, without cosmological constant, for a matter distribution does not produce an accelerating expansion then any equation that is perfectly equivalent will neither. That statement seems so obvious to me as to almost not seem worth stating.

[JMessenger]

It doesn't have to be an insult to be an ad hominem, it may even be a compliment. What it means is that it is an argument as to the person, not the statement, and thus irrelevant.
For example
It will not model any accelerating expansion, that much is known.
But seriously, why don't you just solve it for a cosmological vacuum solution (ie do the same as normally done for a (anti) de Sitter solution)? It's about the simplest thing possible to do with the EFE.
No argument there.

So potshot compliments, eh? Your latter definitions do not counter your previous syntax. Please refrain, I am not impressed.

Your main counter argument to my whole theory is

It will not model any accelerating expansion, that much is known.

also stated as "because I said so." Or perhaps "if it could have been done that way it would have".

You see, I don't quite have the hubris to demand that someone who has never had the opportunity to be informed of the accelerating expansion stick with their original interpretation. Simply because many people worked on General Relativity, does not lessen their efforts.

If you mean that i seem sure that your equation will not produce an accelerating expansion then yes, i am absolutely positive about that. If the EFE, without cosmological constant, for a matter distribution does not produce an accelerating expansion then any equation that is perfectly equivalent will neither. That statement seems so obvious to me as to almost not seem worth stating.

Yes, you are looking for Neptune where I instead see epicycles. Good luck on your search.

[JMessenger]

If you mean that i seem sure that your equation will not produce an accelerating expansion then yes, i am absolutely positive about that. If the EFE, without cosmological constant, for a matter distribution does not produce an accelerating expansion then any equation that is perfectly equivalent will neither. That statement seems so obvious to me as to almost not seem worth stating.

And I stand by my claim. It is incorrect to model the stress-energy tensor of a perfect fluid as only the decrease in density as done in General Relativity. If the maximum energy density of the fluid is not included within the equation, it will not model effects at larger radii correctly. The correct form when using a perfect fluid is when integrating for distance effects from pressure. Your inability to see that is an ad-hoc attempt to form has no bearing on the correctness of this model. It is not that the models are equivalent because of , it is that GR only works at small radii because of it. Whereas approximates the effects of at small radii, gravitational effects are due to both density and pressure. Therefore manifests itself due to the isotropic pressure effects at large radii.

[JMessenger]

I have had a request to explain the equations in a simpler form, and I think the best way to do so is to tackle the last equation I posted.

Solving for the constant we have a homogeneous and isotropic fluid with no "curvature" (the coordinate system is flat/Euclidean). On the right hand side just by simple analysis these two tensor functions are of opposing derivative nature. The increasing positive curvature as increases is offset by the increasing negative curvature as decreases. For velocities much smaller than the speed of light, the Newtonian field gradients for a spherical mass are equal, even if the magnitudes are vastly different (see gradients plot). Substituting in one gradient for the other, from this analysis, it is reasonable to expect the same low velocity Newtonian gravitational effects for small radii. In the above plot of the upside down sombrero hat, if it were somehow possible to have matter/energy without the corresponding reductions of pressure denoted by then the plot would simply show a dome with a linearly increasing downward pointing gradient. There would be no appearance of "attractive" gravity. Without but including the plot would look no different than the stretched blanket analogy of a dip in the middle of flat space-time. Certainly one can place alone into the equation and obtain exceptional empirical predictions for small radii, but even in spite of the numerous objections to action-at-a-distance etc and the now mainstream accepted view that the quantum vacuum has physical properties, it is when we examine our assumptions of General Relativity at the largest and smallest scales (and not in the easily perceived range of our own senses) do the qualitative assumptions mount up against it.

[JMessenger]

Another post in how I envisage this theory to help explain before the thread is closed out. As this is a qualitative description I am not ready provide equations.

In order to unify all the forces of nature under one umbrella and to develop an intuitive meaning it may be helpful to have another description of how gravity works through
If all the fundamental particles of nature can be described by symmetric four dimensional wave functions and all "forces" are due to distortions of these wave functions, the pressures within the tensor equation of the perfect fluid act to cause these distortions. At all times this pressure is repulsive between each wave function. For gravity, these waves exist as reductions of density in the fluid and, if alone, cause a symmetric reduction in this pressure within a certain radius about them. This would be the curvature of space-time description. However, if two or more particles are within a certain range of each other, there is a superposition of these reductions of pressure, greatest in the line between them. It is not that there is an attraction between the particles but a reduced repulsion. The reduced pressure between these waves causes a distortion of each wave function which is interpreted as a force tending to move them together. In other words, they aren't "pushed" together but instead each wave function in the fluid seeks symmetry. The caveat with this though, is that it must also mean for the accelerating expansion that these waves are still seeking maximum symmetry. I am not sure what that would portend besides the mainstream conclusion that the Milk Way will end alone.

[JMessenger]

Caveman, despite regrettably dragging you back into a thread that you no longer want to participate in, I did want to point out a quote of yours. You might not have thought it completely through when posting it and I wanted to give you the opportunity to leave a retraction. In essence, even if we disagree about the accelerating expansion, you are still stating that this aether theory would produce the exact same dynamics as General Relativity. Was that your actual intention?

Since your theory is exactly equivalent to the EFE without cosmological constant it will produce the exact same dynamics.

[JMessenger]

If the EFE, without cosmological constant, for a matter distribution does not produce an accelerating expansion then any equation that is perfectly equivalent will neither. That statement seems so obvious to me as to almost not seem worth stating.

I am fairly certain that to most people on this forum it is not obvious that a physical aether theory can equivalently replace General Relativity. One would think that if it is so obvious as to not be worth stating, it could be found in some published form somewhere.

[pogono]

I am fairly certain that to most people on this forum it is not obvious that a physical aether theory can equivalently replace General Relativity.

f.e. I am sure it may be done this way.
And I wish you good luck.

[caveman1917]

I am fairly certain that to most people on this forum it is not obvious that a physical aether theory can equivalently replace General Relativity.

What i'm saying is that an equation that is mathematically equivalent to some other equation will produce the exact same results, in a way that is what it means for them to be equivalent. It doesn't matter whether that equation represents a physical theory or whatever.

It's like having and , these are perfectly equivalent. You may say "but g is a square-root type function", it does not matter, the same inputs produce the same outputs, that's all that matters.

Your equation is likewise equivalent to the EFE without cosmological constant, and thus will produce the exact same dynamics. You may say "but mine is an aether-type equation", it also does not matter. If the EFE without cosmological constant cannot produce an accelerating expansion, neither can yours, simply because it is equivalent.

Another way to see this is to think of physical theories as "black boxes" with inputs and outputs. If one black box is equivalent to another then it does not matter which we take, we could in fact not distinguish them observationally.

I'm not saying that aether theories are equivalent to general relativity, i'm just saying that your equation is mathematically equivalent to the EFE without cosmological constant (which should be obvious as it is by design). I have thought this through, so no retraction. The reason i've started asking you to actually solve your equation for cosmological models is because it seems to me that you're not fully grasping the mathematical equivalence thing, and i was hoping that by having you solve your equation and noticing that you'll always get the same results as EFE without cc you'd start to realize the point of the argument.

[utesfan100]

What would lead you to believe that it is? Take for instance the 00 components in #243 rewritten: and so

I am not certain that . I may have missed where you gave expressions for . Can you point me to where this given, or provide it in the context of a point mass a point mass?

I am convinced that there exists a mathematically equivalent representation of GR having the density convention you are describing, and that this theory is what you intend to represent. caveman seems more qualified than I in pointing out nuances this change in convention may encounter.

I have long held the ATM idea that all of electromagnetism is flawed, because charge is defined with the wrong sign. I am pretty sure that almost everyone has considered this, since the electron's charge became standard on the quantum level anyways.

Science has a long tradition of maintaining priority of conventions until there is a compelling reason to change, occasionally even if this means adding cumbersome terms. What makes your convention more compelling than the standard density convention with a cosmological constant?

Suppose I had a region of space-time filled with a uniform fluid of constant mass and charge density and a constant electric field. This will produce an electric force on the fluid. Will the fluid accelerate according to or ?

If it is the former, then the wouldn't the equivalence principle suggest that the mainstream convention is superior to your density convention?

[JMessenger]

Pogono, thanks for the vote of confidence.

What i'm saying is that an equation that is mathematically equivalent to some other equation will produce the exact same results, in a way that is what it means for them to be equivalent.

Ok, I agree....

It doesn't matter whether that equation represents a physical theory or whatever.

I am really not trying to be rude, but you are equivocating. The entire tensor structure of a perfect fluid is based precisely on a physical theory.
One of the main arguments against aether theory are two incompatible physical theories (stiff luminiferous aether and solid matter). The physical theory Lorentz presented had equations that were not covariant, thus it does very much matter.

It's like having and , these are perfectly equivalent. You may say "but g is a square-root type function", it does not matter, the same inputs produce the same outputs, that's all that matters.

I think we are getting at the heart of the difference between a mathematician and a physical theorist. This line of thinking would have kept Fourier (a mathematician and physical theorist on heat transfer) from realizing that all periodic functions are sums of an infinite series of simple oscillating functions. It isn't just the output that matters in physical theories.

Another way to see this is to think of physical theories as "black boxes" with inputs and outputs. If one black box is equivalent to another then it does not matter which we take, we could in fact not distinguish them observationally.

I actually agree entirely if that is how General Relativity were viewed. But for all the arguments through the years about into Feynman diagrams, it seems very odd to me that General Relativity still allows us the brick wall illusion that we are somehow fundamentally different than a wave of light. That we are "over here" and when we move "over there", that there are actual physical bits and pieces that travel. That there must be a "curvature of space-time" because it is "out there" in the middle of nothing. That is no black box theory. A black box makes no actual assumptions about the processes that occur within to produce an outcome. This is not how the mainstream views GR.

I'm not saying that aether theories are equivalent to general relativity, i'm just saying that your equation is mathematically equivalent to the EFE without cosmological constant (which should be obvious as it is by design). I have thought this through, so no retraction. The reason i've started asking you to actually solve your equation for cosmological models is because it seems to me that you're not fully grasping the mathematical equivalence thing, and i was hoping that by having you solve your equation and noticing that you'll always get the same results as EFE without cc you'd start to realize the point of the argument.

Well, if during my research into Friedmann equations, I am not able to vary spatially to develop a smooth gravitational field to account for Dark Matter nor able to vary during cosmological evolution to account for the extra space being developed then I may have to concede that you have a point.