[Physics] Can we know anything about the constituents of the aether itself?

[Arend Lammertink]

On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 9:54 PM Paul Stowe paul.stowe at sbcglobal.net
[NPA_Dissidents] <NPA_Dissidents at yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> My philosophy is founded on both the Sherlock Homes creed, "when one has eliminated the impossible, whatever's left, must be true", and Ockham's Razor we are left with the inescapable conclusion that a granular media must underpin all of physics based upon what we observe and measured.    We can quantify some basic aspects of that media.
>
> 1. Wavelengths cannot be less than the Mean Free Path of the supporting media (Upper Frequency Limit)
> 2. Using that fact and the measured density (Permittivity) and Limiting energy content one might be able to get the enegy of individual entities.
> 3. The simplest characteristic of these entities is a perfectly elastic element.
> 4. Even in a superfluid the Kinematic Viscosity will set a upper limit of transmission distance since this is an dissipation factor.  I have estimated this produces a linear attenuation coefficient of ~7E-26 / meter.  This mean light does not have infinite range.  Yes, this factor is consistent with the current Hubble term.
>
> So, all hope is not lost on devining aetherial basic properties.  But it will be an extremely tough nut to crack...

The problem is that because no matter what, one has to use materials
that contain matter in order to emit waves with which to measure. That
puts an upper limit in place with respect to frequency beyond which
one cannot go.

To put it another way: The Mean Free Path of any material consisting
of real particles (along wave/particle duality) is by definition a lot
bigger than the hypothesized Mean Free Path of the medium itself and
therefore the Mean Free Path of the medium itself is unobtainable.

There may yet be a way out, if we consider Erik Verlinde's theories:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Verlinde

https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/1162156/105001_357036.pdf

"Abstract: Starting from first principles and general assumptions we
present a heuristic argument that shows that Newton’s law of
gravitation naturally arises in a theory in which space emerges
through a holographic scenario. Gravity is identified with an entropic
force caused by changes in the information associated with the
positions of material bodies. A relativistic generalization of the
presented arguments directly leads to the Einstein equa- tions. When
space is emergent even Newton’s law of inertia needs to be explained.
The equivalence principle auggests that it is actually the law of
inertia whose origin is entropic."

His connection between "matter"  and "information" may provide a way
out, but that's mere speculation from my side.

Other than that, I doubt it will be possible to obain any further
parameters for the aether itself but those that are needed to describe
the medium as a continuum. All equations we have to describe matter
are based on the continuum approximation, so we're basically stuck
within the continuum, as far as I can tell.


Arend.


>
> Paul Stowe
>
>
> On Sunday, April 26, 2020, 12:04:52 PM PDT, Arend Lammertink lamare at gmail.com [NPA_Dissidents] <npa_dissidents at yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 1:34 AM ROGER ANDERTON
> R.J.Anderton at btinternet.com [NPA_Dissidents]
> <NPA_Dissidents at yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Ok Paul, except what you say about particles is dubious; can't have vortices unless have particles (that make up the vortices) are swirling around.
>
> What's important to realize is that there are two kinds of entities
> one would think about as being particles:
>
> 1) The ones we are familiar with, like electrons, protons and neutrons;
>
> 2) The constituents of the medium, the aether itself.
>
> The medium itself can be hypothesized to consist of "elemental marble
> balls" or whatever you like and this way one can come to a basic fluid
> model, but the fact of the matter is that all we can measure in one
> way or the other involves the ElectroMagnetic field and therefore we
> have no way to measure the details of what the aether may actually be
> made of.
>
> All we can do is describe the dynamics of the aether using continuum
> fluid dynamics, which has a lower limit of applicability: the Kundson
> scale:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knudsen_number
>
> So, what this comes down to is that the constituents of the medium can
> be thought of as what we would call "particles", BUT they are NOT
> particles in the sense that we normally consider particles and which
> are known to adhere to the wave-particle duality principle.
>
> To sum this up:
>
> 1) The constituents of the medium are NOT "particles";
>
> 2) We CANNOT know what the aether is made of. Could be something like
> particles, could be holographic, could be anything. All we know is
> that we can describe it's dynamics using fluid dynamics vector theory.
>
> __._,_.___
> ________________________________
> Posted by: Paul Stowe <paul.stowe at sbcglobal.net>
> ________________________________
> Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (29)
> ________________________________
> Check out the automatic photo album with 2 photo(s) from this topic.
> ________________________________
> http://members.home.net/saiph/npahome.html
> Unsubscribe: NPA_Dissidents-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe:   NPA_Dissidents-subscribe at yahoogroups.com
> Group page:  http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/NPA_Dissidents
>
> Visit Your Group
> • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
>
> .
>
> __,_._,___