Here is a paper giving the reason for why a cosmological constant is a leading candidate for dark energy:http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.3608v1.pdf .
Thus, according to the theory in this thread, the problem with the Lagrangians on Wikipedia's page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrang..._test_particle is that the "m" in the equations is directly derived from the change in density of a perfect fluid within a volume from . Instead of ad-hoc throwing the cosmological constant into the equation to account for dark energy, it should come naturally from the fundamental theorem of calculus so that (I am removing the other terms that are with the cc in order to make it more illustrative on what the paper is stating) .Our main finding is that the expansion history is consistent with that predicted by a flat potential. The data do not require extra parameters beyond a constant term in the Lagrangian to explain the current accelerated expansion. Further, we have shown that the potential deviations from a constant are constrained to be below 6%. Observational constraints allow the parameters describing the Lagrangian to vary only within certain limits; the relative range of the allowed variation of the parameters confirms a well defined hierarchy where the linear and quadratic terms dominate over higher-order terms, justifying the basic assumption of the effective theory approach. Observational constraints also give some indications of the relevant energy scales involved. Because a direct determination of a Lagrangian allows us to determine the underlying symmetries in the theory, our results
can be used to shed light on this as well.
Fromwould seem to fit this definition.The resulting constraints on the parameters of the Lagrangian are shown in Fig. 1, where we show the scatter plot of the models sampled by our MCMC. The results do not display any sign of the existence of discrete symmetries, as for instance , that would signal the spontaneously breaking of a gauge symmetry .
Last edited by JMessenger; 2012-Jul-05 at 06:55 PM. Reason: cited paper apparently submitted but not accepted yet
In addition, I don't have much experience with ATM or scientific debate nor am I a natural mathematician so I may be a bit slow on the uptake.
Another issue is how does one explain the gaining of mass with velocity via a stable particle? That is the point of utilizing a wave instead of a particle. A wave has wavelength and amplitude which can change. I don't know how to make a particle theory do this. The unknown part is how to mathematically describe four dimensional structures as reduced density waves.
Last edited by JMessenger; 2012-Jul-05 at 04:16 PM.
I am not trying to relate aether to EFE I thought that was your point in the OP; I was just pointing out that a perfect i.e non viscous aether would not present a resistance to motion in a simple newtonian view and then if the aether rotated with planets due to EM forces (obviously the aether has to be "electric") that might help explain The MM null result.(which was tied to the Earth surface) I am neither for nor against your idea just commenting on the latest posts. The next point is how a photon can look like a particle when delivered by the aether. Actually if the aether is perfect the transmission of a photon over vast distances kind of illustrates how perfect it would have to be.
http://vega.org.uk/video/programme/45). That is another reason why I think that there must exist four dimensional wave functions that are normally stable.
well this might be too simplistic but if the aether were to be non viscous but had a property like a 3d newtons cradle, a hit from one point in a direction would propagate in a straight line with no dispersion and maintaining the same energy and wavelength until it hit something else. If the aether had structure or movement this would also cause deviation from a straight line. The fundamental fine grain structure of such an aether would have to explain the speed of light which might make the fine grain look like a tiny rotation at the speed of light recalling maxwell, but this thread is for your ideas about an aether, I am just probing your ideas.
OK well just a thought, if an aether had no viscosity at all, a lump of aether could travel through the aether just any other body and therefore an eddy in the aether would last forever so I would expect such an aether to be full of major and minor vortices and flows. These would have to be detectable as electric field variations I would think. Just speculating on your idea.
Aether is not mainstream but the mainstream equivalent sometimes seems to be an aether but renamed........
As I am half way through my allotted ATM time, going to put this out there.
I am not arguing with the Einstein field equations, the stress energy tensor of a perfect fluid or even that it represents what we perceive as "matter" and "energy" (radiation). What I am arguing with is the patently false preconceived notion that we can definitively state a positive sign of those derivatives based on any empirical or mathematical evidence. (If you do know of some, a link would be great). It should be startling that the following concepts which were or are controversial at one time or another in the history of gravity, are plausibly accounted for:
No spooky action at a distance
No "attractive" gravity
No cosmological constant problem
No dark energy
Gives medium that is the quantum vacuum
Provides non-moving aether for aberration of star light
Brings waves of Heisenberg uncertainty principle into gravity
Provides a free singing unicorn for everyone to ride
Accounts for how majority of "mass" can be in regions of atoms which have no perceived structures.
Provides perfect fluid propagation medium for light while at same time accounting for gravity through the General Relativity equations and Lorentzian Aether explanation of Special Relativity.
Plausibly change Standard Model of Particle Physics into Standard Model of Wave Physics. Where each field has a force carrier particle, change to one field that has particular force carrier wave functions.
The main point is that this is not a heuristic argument. It is a mathematical one applied to physical phenomena (and the most absurdly simple argument at that). Each one of these problems, someone has tried to account for before. Each probably in isolation from the others. Without taking into account the drastic assumption changes required by the fundamental theorem of calculus, it is not possible to piecemeal this together by attempting single lone changes to the theory of gravity. If someone has pointed this out since the early 1900s I would certainly like to know.
So are you actually arguing that the 4 forces are actually somehow propagated by the Higgs field?
Last edited by JMessenger; 2012-Jul-06 at 05:21 PM. Reason: added Higgs field statement
Then in your model there may not be a Higgs field, really. The Higgs field does not just refer to 'anything that looks like mass'. The Higgs field has a very particular structure and mechanics associated with it. In particular the symmetry groups of the various fields are critically related to how they interact with the Higgs field. These symmetry groups also have deep and profound relationships to conversation laws.
In essence my point stands: You can postulate a background field or aether but to equate it to the Higgs field in such a simplistic way is totally wrong. The Higgs field is not just 'what gives stuff mass' it is a complex QFT object, tinkering with it because it kind of looks like something you think of as an aether will most likely break the mechanisms we have associated with it (like the electroweak splitting and the coupling of the field to the massive bosons). Either show us the maths and unify GR and QFT or call your aether something else - not the Higgs field. It just confuses things to state that they are the same with absolutely no evidence.
It is more than just semantics - it is using the correct terminology which is vital in physics. And your aether interaction is not dependent on the Higgs mechanism, which means that the aether is not just a renamed Higgs field. Which is all I was arguing. I am not commenting on the validity of your work or its correctness and my arguments should not be taken by anyone as weakening what you have said. As I said I do not judge myself competent enough in GR to pass comment on your core idea. Good luck with the discussions on here.It would be more correct to state that in this model, wave interaction within the aether produces the phenomena of mass, which is a different model than QFT. This, however, is nothing more than semantics and when push comes to shove:
"This technique revealed the dark matter in Abell 520 had collected into a "dark core," containing far fewer galaxies than would be expected if the dark matter and galaxies were anchored together. Most of the galaxies apparently have sailed far away from the collision. "This result is a puzzle," said astronomer James Jee of the University of California in Davis, lead author of paper about the results available online in The Astrophysical Journal. "Dark matter is not behaving as predicted, and it's not obviously clear what is going on. It is difficult to explain this Hubble observation with the current theories of galaxy formation and dark matter.""
The dark matter core does not defy explanation. The dark matter core is not a puzzle. The dark matter core is not difficult to explain. It is obviously clear what is going on.
Non-baryonic dark matter and galaxies are not anchored together. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.
In case any of you happen to also be interested in Mach's principle (the skater in this Nova video is an example http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics...l#fabric-space) this is how I view the answer to his question of how a body knows they are spinning. Mach's question was (paraphrased) why should his arms fly out away from his body when the stars are rotating around him, and that it perhaps had something to do with the mass of the universe. My answer would be that it is evidence that you are rotating with respect to the Aether, and this rotational acceleration distorts the wave function of each wave/particle as they move through it. The stars come into play in that their rotation is evidence of a physical connection medium between every point to another which their light waves travel in, whether the light waves are present or not, and without rotation with respect to those physical connections there would be no centrifugal force (and thus light does not "self propagate"). This is why, even with all other mass in the universe absent, your arms would still fly out.
All quotes are up for mis-interpretation but I also very much like these by him in the The Science of Mechanics
“If, however, we so interpret it that we come into conflict with our experience, our interpretation is simply wrong.”Seems prophetic about the accelerating expansion.“The general experience cannot be constructed from the particular case given to us. We must, on the contrary, wait until such an experience presents itself. Perhaps when our physico-astronomical knowledge has been extended, it will be offered somewhere in the celestial space, where more violent and complicated motions take place than in our environment.”
adtadt, I understand the frustration that has built up in the Aetherist community, but it doesn't help to start screaming from behind someone's back during a negotiation. I am trying to bring back Lorentz's Aether to mainstream cosmology via rational arguments. In order to help, you MUST have some math and be able to account for not only the history of gravity but also the mainstream parts that do work. Either lead ahead in the equations or follow in what I have shown but posts like this only get in my way.
adtadt was banned as a sockpuppet of a previously banned user.
"Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
"This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius
Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
Recommended reading: Board Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice
I received a PM with a message (the rest of which I agree with), and within it was the assertion
It seems that even some in the aetherist community are under this mistaken impression, which is perhaps parroted around on forums. Mainstream cosmologists, however, know better. On page 11 of Relativity: Special, General and Cosmological 2nd edition 2006 by Wolfgang Rindler (which comes AFTER explanation of the MMX) he states the followingHowever, the Lorentz Aether is a stationary aether which was disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment.
I, of course, very much disagree with him that it is sterile in suggesting new results (ala dark energy and the cosmological constant problem). I believe that adopting Special Relativity and the forgetting of the theory has thwarted any research into deeper mathematical and physical intuition required to solve the various constants of nature, such as the fine structure constant. All should note however, that to state the MMX disproved Lorentz's Aether is to have a serious misunderstanding of the chronological history of gravity.Lorentz—a giant among physicists and revered by Einstein (‘I admire this man as no other’)—could never free himself of the crutch of the ether, and when he died in 1928 he still believed in it. His ether theory came to include all of Einstein’s basic findings and was, for calculational purposes, equivalent to special relativity, and less jolting to classical prejudices. But it was also infinitely less elegant and, above all, sterile in suggesting new results. Today it is best forgotten, except by historians.
Last edited by JMessenger; 2012-Jul-08 at 03:44 PM.
In the late 1960s, a Soviet physicist named Yakov Zel'dovich was one of the first to note that comparing the cosmological constant to vacuum energy produced results which had no basis in reality. I am curious about another segment of his paper though. The following part is not cited and I am not exactly sure what he is referring to when he says the "very first attempts". Any historians here with ideas of something more specific besides the aether?
Sahni, V., Krasiski, A.: Republication of: The cosmological constant andWe now turn to a different aspect of the situation, namely to the
close connection between the question of Λ and the theory of elemen-
tary particles. The very first attempts of quantizing the electromagnetic
field led to the paradoxical conclusion that vacuum energy has infinite
density. Vacuum was thus defined as the lowest energy state of the con-
sidered system whose characteristics are given by Maxwell’s equations.
The particles –in this case photons - are elementary excitations of the
the theory of elementary particles (by Ya. B. Zeldovich). General Relativ-
ity and Gravitation 40(7), 1557–1591 (2008)
When I was thinking about Maxwell's spinning aether which clearly has to have no viscosity within its fine structure it was intriguing that such a fluid would form not just vortices but spinning strings and loops and , for example "smoke rings" which would be stable structures within the aether and that therefore all particles could be interpreted as morphological shapes some of which would have a mass and inertia characteristic due to including a "mass"shape. This mass would be a reduction of the spin energy of the fine structure elements. The properties of cellular computing "shapes" comes to mind. specially the way in cellular computing that some shapes are stable and others interact with each other. The fine structure spinning elements of this aether would be amoeba like spinning flexible cells.
"Mach's Principle" over the years.
2. The Need for an Extension of the Postulate of Relativity
In classical mechanics, and no less in the special theory
of relativity, there is an inherent epistemological defect which
was, perhaps for the first time, clearly pointed out by Ernst
Mach. We will elucidate it by the following example :-Two
fluid bodies of the same size and nature hover freely in space
at so great a distance from each other and from all other
masses that only those gravitational forces need be taken into
account which arise from the interaction of different parts of
the same body. Let the distance between the two bodies be
invariable, and in neither of the bodies let there be any
relative movements of the parts with respect to one another.
But let either mass, as judged by an observer at rest
relatively to the other mass, rotate with constant angular
velocity about the line joining the masses. This is a verifiable
relative motion of the two bodies. N ow let us imagine
that each of the bodies has been surveyed by means of
measuring instruments at rest relatively to itself, and let the
surface of 81 prove to be a sphere, and that of 82 an ellipsoid
of revolution. Thereupon we put the question-What is the
reason for this difference in the two bodies? No answer can
be admitted as epistemologically satisfactory,* unless the
reason given is an observable fact of experience. The law of
causality has not the significance of a statement as to the
world of experience, except when observable facts ultimately
appear as causes and effects.
Newtonian mechanics does not give a satisfactory answer
to this question. It pronounces as follows :-The laws of
mechanics apply to the space R1, in respect to which the body
81 is at rest, but not to the space R2, in respect to which the
body 82 is at rest. But the privileged space Rl of Galileo,
thus introduced, is a merely factitious cause, and not a thing
that can be observed. It is therefore clear that Newton's
mechanics does not really satisfy the requirement of causality
in the case under consideration, but only apparently does so,
since it makes the factitious cause R1 responsible for the observable
difference in the bodies 81 and 82,
The only satisfactory answer must be that the physical
system consisting of 81 and 82 reveals within itself no imaginable
cause to which the differing behaviour of 81 and 82 can
be referred. The cause must therefore lie outside this system.
We have to take it that the general laws of motion, which in
particular determine the shapes of 81 and 82, must be such
that the mechanical behaviour of 81 and 82 is partly conditioned,
in quite essential respects, by distant masses which
we have not included in the system under consideration.
These distant masses and their motions relative to 81 and
82 must then be regarded as the seat of the causes (which
must be susceptible to observation) of the different behaviour
of our two bodies 81 and 82, They take over the role of the
factitious cause R1• Of all imaginable spaces R1, R2, etc., in
any kind of motion relatively to one another, there is none
which we may look upon as privileged a priori without reviving
the above-mentioned epistemological objection. The
laws of physics must be of suck a nature that they apply to
systems of reference in any kind of motion. Along this road
we arrive at an extension aUhe postulate of relativity.