The Instigator
mpc755
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Does aether have mass?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,065 times Debate No: 45748
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

mpc755

Pro

Aether has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by particles of matter. Displaced aether pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward matter.

There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter anchored to matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

What is referred to as the Milky Way's dark matter halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

"The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

Matter, a piece of window glass and stuff have mass.

In a double slit experiment it is the stuff which waves.

"any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous "energetic contact" with a hidden medium ... If a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its nature would seem desirable. It certainly is of quite complex character. It could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be contrary to relativity theory." - Louis de Broglie, Nobel Laureate in Physics

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense." - Albert Einstein, Nobel Laureate in Physics

The relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin is the hidden sub-quantum medium referred to by de Broglie is the ether which propagates light referred to by Einstein.

By relativistic ether Laughlin is saying you can't know the state of the ether. You can't know if the ether flows or not. You can't point to an object and say, "I know that object is at rest with respect to three dimensional space".

Same for de Broglie. de Broglie is saying the hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics can not "serve as a universal reference medium".

Einstein says the ether does not consist of individual particles which can be separately tracked through time. This is Einstein's way of discussing the relativistic ether. If we can't know if the aether consists of particles or not then we probably can't know if the ether flows or not. If you can't know if the aether flows or not then it isn't an ultimate reference frame. That's without even attempting to discuss the notion of flows relative to what? Itself? Our Universe? What if our Universe is moving through three dimensional space? How would we ever detect its motion?

The ether of relativity is relativistic.

'Einstein: Ether and Relativity' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk...

"More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it."

Einstein defines motion in terms of the aether as the aether does not consist of individual particles which can be separately tracked through time. The same for ponderable matter. Ponderable media is defined as the aether does not consist of parts which can be tracked through time.

"ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time"

The mechanical characteristic Einstein takes away from the aether is its immobility.

"It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility."

Meaning, the aether of relativity is mobile. Meaning, the aether of relativity is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

The following analogy explains it best.

"Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."

if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

Watch the attached video starting at 0:45 to see a visual representation of the state of the aether. What is referred to as a twist in spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether.

"Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey," says Francis Everitt of Stanford University in California, the mission's chief scientist. "As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it's the same with space and time."

The 'swirl' is more correctly described as the state of displacement of the aether.

You have a mesh bag full of marbles that you spin in a supersolid.

If you can't know if the supersolid consists of particles or not you should still be able to determine the state of displacement of the supersolid as determined by its connections with the marbles and the state of the supersolid in neighboring places.

The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Con

After some discussion with my opponent in the comments section, I have decided to accept this debate.

My opponents position is that aether has mass. As such it is my opponents burden of proof to show that this is in fact true.

My argument for this not being true is that aether does in fact not exist. The most famous experiment to show that aether, the medium through which light moves, does not in fact exist was published back in 1887 by Michelson and Morley.(1) For this reason, my opponents claims in his opening statement. While these statements may look impressive by citing great scientists like Einstein and de Broglie, they in fact all fail.

The reason for this failure is that it is impossible for aether which does not exist to have mass.

Before my opponent can prove that aether has mass, it is essential that my opponent uses verifiable sources to prove that aether in fact exists. I believe this is impossible for my opponent to do as the majority of physicists disagree that aether exists.(2)

I hand the debate back to my opponent.

(1) http://www.aip.org...
(2) http://scienceworld.wolfram.com...
Debate Round No. 1
mpc755

Pro

The MMX looked for an absolutely stationaty space the Earth moces through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. Aether is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid.

"The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

Matter, a piece of window glass and stuff have mass.

In a double slit experiment it is the stuff which waves.

"any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous "energetic contact" with a hidden medium ... If a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its nature would seem desirable. It certainly is of quite complex character. It could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be contrary to relativity theory." - Louis de Broglie, Nobel Laureate in Physics

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense." - Albert Einstein, Nobel Laureate in Physics

The relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin is the hidden sub-quantum medium referred to by de Broglie is the ether which propagates light referred to by Einstein.

By relativistic ether Laughlin is saying you can't know the state of the ether. You can't know if the ether flows or not. You can't point to an object and say, "I know that object is at rest with respect to three dimensional space".

Same for de Broglie. de Broglie is saying the hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics can not "serve as a universal reference medium".

Einstein says the ether does not consist of individual particles which can be separately tracked through time. This is Einstein's way of discussing the relativistic ether. If we can't know if the aether consists of particles or not then we probably can't know if the ether flows or not. If you can't know if the aether flows or not then it isn't an ultimate reference frame. That's without even attempting to discuss the notion of flows relative to what? Itself? Our Universe? What if our Universe is moving through three dimensional space? How would we ever detect its motion?

The ether of relativity is relativistic.

'Einstein: Ether and Relativity'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk...

"More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it."

Einstein defines motion in terms of the aether as the aether does not consist of individual particles which can be separately tracked through time. The same for ponderable matter. Ponderable media is defined as the aether does not consist of parts which can be tracked through time.

"ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time"

The mechanical characteristic Einstein takes away from the aether is its immobility.

"It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility."

Meaning, the aether of relativity is mobile. Meaning, the aether of relativity is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

The following analogy explains it best.

"Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."

if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
Watch the following video starting at 0:45 to see a visual representation of the state of the aether. What is referred to as a twist in spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether.

From the attached video.

"Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey," says Francis Everitt of Stanford University in California, the mission's chief scientist. "As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it's the same with space and time."

The 'swirl' is more correctly described as the state of displacement of the aether.

You have a mesh bag full of marbles that you spin in a supersolid.

If you can't know if the supersolid consists of particles or not you should still be able to determine the state of displacement of the supersolid as determined by its connections with the marbles and the state of the supersolid in neighboring places.

The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Con

My opponent has not rebutted my argument for the existence of aether.

Instead my opponent has repasted the entire first round argument. I have also found that large parts (paragraphs) of these arguments are plagiarized from the following source.(1)

Would my opponent reply to my questions and not plagiarize other people.

Back to you.

(1) http://vixra.org...
Debate Round No. 2
mpc755

Pro

There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Con

My opponent has failed in his burden of proof. His final argument for aether is the absurd claim "There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves." which is backed by no science. Additionally, I am not sure what "it's what waves means", is my opponent saying the particle-wave duality does not exist?(1)

Additionally, my opponent has plagiarized large portions of his arguments as pointed out in round 2.

I hand the debate to the voters, and I would say the choice is an easy one.

(1) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by mpc755 3 years ago
mpc755
The quantum vacuum is not thought to have mass.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
So the quantum vacuum.

No debate for me thanks:)
Posted by mpc755 3 years ago
mpc755
What is referred to as the milky way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.
Posted by mpc755 3 years ago
mpc755
There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter anchored to matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.
Posted by mpc755 3 years ago
mpc755
Aether is that which physically occupies 'empty' space.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Your definition is what exactly?
Aether: the air gods breathe.
or Aether: vacuum energy space
or.....
Posted by mpc755 3 years ago
mpc755
Particles of matter are discrete mass and aether is continuous mass.
Posted by mpc755 3 years ago
mpc755
Aether has mass. Mass defined as that which physically occupies three dimensional space.

The following analogy explains it best.

"Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."

if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
I think you need to give a clear definition of ether. Otherwise you cold twist it to mean anything you want.

Depending on the definition, I may take this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Orangatang 3 years ago
Orangatang
mpc755iamanatheistandthisiswhyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro plagiarized and did not fulfill his burden of proof.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
mpc755iamanatheistandthisiswhyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro loses conduct for plagiarizing. Pro also fails to meet his burden of proof and does not prove aether exists let alone has mass.