Yansuf Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Dr. Jerry Pournelle (website: http://www.jerrypournelle.com) speculated today that: "the interesting theory just now is "Dark Matter is Ether" ". I found it very interesting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greywind Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Re: Is "ether" real? You'd have to ask the ether bunny... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Re: Is "ether" real? Everything old is new again. Wonder if someone's going to claim to have discovered phlogiston? But seriously, scientific theories are constantly being revised. If there's some value to an old one, why not dust it off? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyrath Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Re: Is "ether" real? Ah the Luminiferous aether. And the periodic table of elements should only contain fire, water, air, earth, and aether. This was actually used in an amusing SF novel called "Star Winds" by Barrington Bayley. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sociotard Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Re: Is "ether" real? Einstein's special theory dismisses ether as not required to explain the known data. That leaves us with the oddity that light is a wave but there is no medium it waves in. *Sigh* No, light is neither a wave nor a particle. It is light. It is its own little thing, which happens to sometimes have properties more like a wave and sometimes more like particle, without ever actually being either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
austenandrews Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Re: Is "ether" real? As I recall, the equations underlying the "waveness without medium" of light have long been understood. As in first semester EM physics. I'm surprised at JP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawnmower Boy Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Re: Is "ether" real? No. In general, Chaos Manor is like listening to that one uncle you only have to see once a year going on about Vince Foster years after all rest of the tinfoil hatters have moved on to 9-11. Pournelle's recent meditations about "dark matter" being "the aether" are even worse. C'mon, where's your basic integrity, Doctor Pournelle? Tom Bethell's crackpot 1990s campaign against "Einstein" in the pages of American Spectator may still be getting press, but the refutations (and I bang my head that they are even needed) are old, old, old. http://www.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/print.html (edit): Ooh! I knew I'd read something a little more current on this whole, sordid mess: http://www.farrellmedia.com/2006_01_01_BlogArchive.html#113846684202917138 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobGreenwade Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Re: Is "ether" real? Dr. Jerry Pournelle (website: www.jerrypournelle.com) speculated today that: "the interesting theory just now is "Dark Matter is Ether" ". I found it very interesting I've been contemplating the possibility a bit myself, lately. Many of the specific properties of dark matter are clearly different from what was once thought about ether, but there does seem to be a correlation. It wouldn't be the first time a theory once dismissed as poppycock turned out to be correct.You'd have to ask the ether bunny...He's busy right now' date=' down in the mines, collecting ether ore.*Sigh* No, light is neither a wave nor a particle. It is light. It is its own little thing, which happens to sometimes have properties more like a wave and sometimes more like particle, without ever actually being either.Light actually isn't neither; according to the most reliable theories, it's both. The medium of the wave is space itself, which vibrates in a fourth spatial dimension. The photon (which itself is a supermicroscopic vibration in space, as are all subatomic particles) rides this wave to wherever it goes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Re: Is "ether" real? Well, if dark matter is the old ether, then it's fundamentally different in its entire concept. The original ether concept was there to carry the vibrating electric and magnetic fields which make for electromagnetic waves ... in effect, it was to carry the electromagnetic force ... and it has no other observable consequences. By definition, dark matter does not interact via the electromagnetic force at all. It's almost the logical inversion of the old ether idea in that sense. Now, if you want to postulate an all-pervading field that interacts via gravity but is otherwise unobservable (and in this sense it is vaguely analogous to the old ether concept), you can do that. We need to see some predictions about what else this field might do, so we can send this century's equivalent of A. A. Michelson to build a device of unprecedented sensitivity, look for the field, and get a null result.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristopher Posted November 6, 2009 Report Share Posted November 6, 2009 Re: Is "ether" real? I've been contemplating the possibility a bit myself' date=' lately. Many of the specific properties of dark matter are clearly different from what was once thought about ether, but there does seem to be a correlation. It wouldn't be the first time a theory once dismissed as poppycock turned out to be correct.He's busy right now, down in the mines, collecting ether ore.Light actually isn't neither; according to the most reliable theories, it's both. The medium of the wave is space itself, which vibrates in a fourth spatial dimension. The photon (which itself is a supermicroscopic vibration in space, as are all subatomic particles) rides this wave to wherever it goes.[/quote'] That, sir, sounds suspiciously like string theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCoy Posted November 6, 2009 Report Share Posted November 6, 2009 Re: Is "ether" real? Well' date=' if dark matter is the old ether, then it's fundamentally different in its entire concept. The original ether concept was there to carry the vibrating electric and magnetic fields which make for electromagnetic waves ... in effect, it was to carry the electromagnetic force ... and it has no other observable consequences. [u']By definition[/u], dark matter does not interact via the electromagnetic force at all. It's almost the logical inversion of the old ether idea in that sense. So Dark Matter is anti-ether? On the other hand, Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) is a testable hypothesis, and if it checks out "Dark Matter" falls out of the equasion just as ether did when Special Relativity was accepted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KawangaKid Posted November 6, 2009 Report Share Posted November 6, 2009 Re: Is "ether" real? Well' date=' if dark matter is the old ether, then it's fundamentally different in its entire concept. The original ether concept was there to carry the vibrating electric and magnetic fields which make for electromagnetic waves ... in effect, it was to carry the electromagnetic force ... and it has no other observable consequences. [u']By definition[/u], dark matter does not interact via the electromagnetic force at all. It's almost the logical inversion of the old ether idea in that sense. If that's the case, then we should stop calling it ether because it's confusing. We should call the original concept of ether oether, and the new concept... nether! Well, either nether or naether. Neither has been used before, or have they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clonus Posted November 6, 2009 Report Share Posted November 6, 2009 Re: Is "ether" real? So Dark Matter is anti-ether? Well of course. Ether is lumniferous, and Dark Matter is...dark. That being in said in the old Mage game, Dark Matter was the latest gambit of the Sons of the Ether. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajackson Posted November 6, 2009 Report Share Posted November 6, 2009 Re: Is "ether" real? You could in principle decide to call 'dark matter' ether, but doing so has no useful function and is likely to confuse people. Having finally read the article, the first sentence tells me enough to know that JP has no idea what he's talking about: The major evidence for the special theory of relativity is the Michaelson-Morely (sic) experiment, which demonstrated that there was no "ether wind" due to the movement of the earth through it. This is simply not true. Michelson-Morley was one of the experiments that led up to SR (and was resolved, initially, via the Lorenz Contraction), but it's hardly either the only evidence, or the major evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranxerox Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 Re: Is "ether" real? *Sigh* No' date=' light is neither a wave nor a particle. It is light. It is its own little thing, which happens to sometimes have properties more like a wave and sometimes more like particle, without ever actually being either.[/quote'] Yes! It is amazing how hard it is to get this idea through to people. A giraffe is not a dog just because they both have four legs, not is it snake just because they both have long necks. I don't know why people insist on calling light a wave, a particle or both instead just letting it be its own animal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSgt Baloo Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 Re: Is "ether" real? Dr. Jerry Pournelle (website: www.jerrypournelle.com) speculated today that: "the interesting theory just now is "Dark Matter is Ether" ". I found it very interesting I am having a difficult time finding the relevant article(s) amongst the clutter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeropoint Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 Re: Is "ether" real? Well, it's mainly because experiments can be conducted which quite clearly demonstrate that light is a wave, and which quite clearly demonstrate that light is a particle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajackson Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Re: Is "ether" real? Well' date=' it's mainly because experiments can be conducted which quite clearly demonstrate that light is a wave, and which quite clearly demonstrate that light is a particle.[/quote'] No, experiments can be done that demonstrate that light has properties associated with waves, and properties associated with particles. The same experiment can easily do both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZilla Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 Re: Is "ether" real? IIRC, light can also exibit entanglement -- something that AFAIK neither particles nor waves can do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobGreenwade Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 Re: Is "ether" real? IIRC' date=' light can also exibit entanglement -- something that AFAIK neither particles nor waves can do.[/quote']Per Dr. Michio Kaku (in Parallel Worlds) and others, electrons do exhibit quantum entanglement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZilla Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 Re: Is "ether" real? I guess it makes sense that Electrons can become entangled as well, given the connections between light and Electrons. I wonder of Protons and Neutrons can as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 Re: Is "ether" real? I would assume so, but it'd be rather more difficult to demonstrate, since the force coupling those two is more likely to be the strong force rather than the electromagnetic (or electroweak) force. Our technology is almost entirely electromagnetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmfiore Posted December 21, 2009 Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 Yes Ether is real! This website discusses the new aether theory in detail.. Einstein was right about the shortcomings of Quantum Mechanics and so therefore String Theory is also the incorrect approach. As an alternative to Quantum Theory there is a new theory that describes and explains the mysteries of physical reality. While not disrespecting the value of Quantum Mechanics as a tool to explain the role of quanta in our universe. This theory states that there is also a classical explanation for the paradoxes such as EPR and the Wave-Particle Duality. The Theory is called the Theory of Super Relativity and is located at: http://www.superrelativity.org This theory is a philosophical attempt to reconnect the physical universe to realism and deterministic concepts. It explains the mysterious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
austenandrews Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 Re: Is "ether" real? Seriously? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavier Onassiss Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 Re: Is "ether" real? You could in principle decide to call 'dark matter' ether' date=' but doing so has no useful function and is likely to confuse people. Having finally read the article, the first sentence tells me enough to know that JP has no idea what he's talking about: [i']The major evidence for the special theory of relativity is the Michaelson-Morely[/i] (sic) experiment, which demonstrated that there was no "ether wind" due to the movement of the earth through it. This is simply not true. Michelson-Morley was one of the experiments that led up to SR (and was resolved, initially, via the Lorenz Contraction), but it's hardly either the only evidence, or the major evidence. JP has no idea what he's talking about? Well, that never stopped him before. Don't look at me, Xavier Onassiss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.