4 ms·

I would describe myself as a hopeless philosopher in terms of physics. I like to theorise about the nature of everything in universe. In no circumstances I'd

I would describe myself as a hopeless philosopher in terms of physics. I like to theorise about the nature of everything in universe. In no circumstances I'd say I know what I'm talking about. I'm aware that I lack a lot of knowledge in this field, which actually makes my journey pretty amazing through the learning about the complexity of the universe. These few words just to let you know that whatever you read here it might be a complete nonsense and it's not even a pseudoscience but some fantasy/fiction reflections. I'm most amazed by the nature of tri-dimensional space itself. Back then, there was popular belief in Aether - the substance that carries wave of lights. To be honest I tend to believe such 'thing' could explain many of the most weirdest questions that appears in my head. I wonder if it's possible that the Aether is the space itself. And the space is the Aether. Tiniest, basic 'particles' that are frame for everything else. There would be no 3-dimensional space without at least 4 of such Aether quants. Also for example photons don't just 'fly' through space, but jumps from one quant of Aether to another one. That's how they 'fly' in straight line. That's why when the space is curved they will follow that curvness. And the gravity is not just a curved spacetime but something like an atmosphere made of Aether quants that are repelled by the particles containing Higgs boson. Which naturally makes the Higgs boson the only particle that can interact with Aether. I know that so far none experiment has confirmed the existence of Aether. But I can't let go the feeling that we are missing something here.

at_a_remove 6y ago
You are not the first to think of this, or even the hundredth. It's been decades since I first saw it, but I did see someone propose kind of an interesting approach, for amusement: why not take the aether thing as far as it could go? Keep adding bizarre properties to it to explain experimental results. Go wild! If I recall, the end result was something very much like the properties of spacetime. But with no particles. Just ... take the particles away. You're attached to the particles. The reason you cannot let go of that feeling is that you're trying to attach your base human experience (which is largely Newtonian, low spacetime curvature, quantum effects not immediately visible, a fairly confined region of temperatures and pressures) to a domain where your base experience is completely irrelevant. All of the waves you witnessed were the disturbance of matter as a traveling phenomenon. It's what you grew up on. And so envisioning a scenario wherein the wave isn't carried on some kind of matter, however hidden, "feels" wrong. Also, don't do physics without math. If you just want to keep reaching from one analogy to another, you can build all kinds of castles in the sky, but you won't have anything at the end of it. Remember, physics is a quantitative prediction. Your concepts have no math or calculations, and so there is no measurement to contradict them. Nor can you "farm the math out" to other parties. Nobody capable of doing the math will do the math for you. If you desire to pursue this, you must begin to do the math, yourself.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  I should note that it’s really not possible to know that aether doesn’t exist or whatever, all of these are just models that experimentally match our observations. And your answer describes why we don’t use it: it’s not that aether is wrong, it’s just that if you try to extend the model to account for observations, you get the same model as what we currently have but corrected slightly because you’re assuming that aether exists. It turns out that it’s just simpler to not assume that, which is why we have our current model.
jscipione 6y ago
It’s not just that experiments have not detected the aether, the Mendelssohn Morley experiment and subsequent follow up experiments at larger scales shows that the aether definitely does not exist, and that’s where the problems start. If there was aether we should see the effect of drag on light like we do for matter with the Higgs Bosom field, but we don’t. Photons always travels at the speed of light without any drag in every direction. What medium does light travel through? The answer is that there is no medium for the waves to travel through, yet travel and wave they do.

at_a_remove 6y ago

You are not the first to think of this, or even the hundredth. It's been decades since I first saw it, but I did see someone propose kind of an interesting approach, for amusement: why not take the aether thing as far as it could go? Keep adding bizarre properties to it to explain experimental results. Go wild! If I recall, the end result was something very much like the properties of spacetime. But with no particles. Just ... take the particles away. You're attached to the particles. The reason you cannot let go of that feeling is that you're trying to attach your base human experience (which is largely Newtonian, low spacetime curvature, quantum effects not immediately visible, a fairly confined region of temperatures and pressures) to a domain where your base experience is completely irrelevant. All of the waves you witnessed were the disturbance of matter as a traveling phenomenon. It's what you grew up on. And so envisioning a scenario wherein the wave isn't carried on some kind of matter, however hidden, "feels" wrong. Also, don't do physics without math. If you just want to keep reaching from one analogy to another, you can build all kinds of castles in the sky, but you won't have anything at the end of it. Remember, physics is a quantitative prediction. Your concepts have no math or calculations, and so there is no measurement to contradict them. Nor can you "farm the math out" to other parties. Nobody capable of doing the math will do the math for you. If you desire to pursue this, you must begin to do the math, yourself.

saagarjha 6y ago
I should note that it’s really not possible to know that aether doesn’t exist or whatever, all of these are just models that experimentally match our observations. And your answer describes why we don’t use it: it’s not that aether is wrong, it’s just that if you try to extend the model to account for observations, you get the same model as what we currently have but corrected slightly because you’re assuming that aether exists. It turns out that it’s just simpler to not assume that, which is why we have our current model.

jscipione 6y ago

It’s not just that experiments have not detected the aether, the Mendelssohn Morley experiment and subsequent follow up experiments at larger scales shows that the aether definitely does not exist, and that’s where the problems start. If there was aether we should see the effect of drag on light like we do for matter with the Higgs Bosom field, but we don’t. Photons always travels at the speed of light without any drag in every direction. What medium does light travel through? The answer is that there is no medium for the waves to travel through, yet travel and wave they do.