What if spacetime were a kind of fluid?

Great Debates
21

‘Quantum mechanics rule ‘bent’ in classic experiment’

‘For his part, Professor Steinberg believes that the result reduces a limitation not on quantum physics but on physicists themselves. “I feel like we’re starting to pull back a veil on what nature really is,” he said. “The trouble with quantum mechanics is that while we’ve learned to calculate the outcomes of all sorts of experiments, we’ve lost much of our ability to describe what is really happening in any natural language. I think that this has really hampered our ability to make progress, to come up with new ideas and see intuitively how new systems ought to behave.”’

“Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through both slits.”

A particle physically displaces the aether. A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Strongly detecting the particle causes a loss of coherence between the particle and its associated wave in the aether.

What waves in a double slit experiment is the aether.

‘Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies’

“Our data strongly support the idea that the gravitational potential in clusters is mainly due to a non-baryonic fluid, and any exotic field in gravitational theory must resemble that of CDM fields very closely.”

The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether. The analogy is a submarine moving through the water. You are under water. Two miles away from you are many lights. Moving between you and the lights one mile away is a submarine. The submarine displaces the water. The state of displacement of the water causes the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water to be offset from the center of the submarine itself. The offset between the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water displaced by the submarine and the center of the submarine itself is going to remain the same as the submarine moves through the water. The submarine continually displaces different regions of the water. The state of the water connected to and neighboring the submarine remains the same as the submarine moves through the water even though it is not the same water the submarine continually displaces. This is what is occurring as the galaxy clusters move through and displace the aether.

‘The Milky Way’s dark matter halo appears to be lopsided’

“The emerging picture of the asymmetric dark matter halo is supported by the \Lambda CDM halos formed in the cosmological N-body simulation.”

The Milky Way’s ‘dark matter halo’ is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the aether.

22

If light is just waves in the aether, how does relativity work at all?

23

It’s a relativistic aether.

“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

The only requirement Einstein has for the aether in terms of special relativity is that it can’t consist of individual particles which can be separately tracked through time.

That’s what is meant by a relativistic ether. You don’t know if it consists of particles or not. It’s not a preferred frame as you can’t know its state. And even if you could determine its state the question then is, with respect to what? Itself? My definition of relativity is simply that you can’t point to something and say, “I know that object over there is at rest with respect to three dimensional space”.

‘Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein’
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

“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.

24

But, if that’s true, the Michelson-Morley experiment should have detected that – the swirling, I mean, it should have shown up as the expected “æther wind.” Instead it detected nothing at all.

25

The state of the aether connected to and neighboring the Earth remains the same as the Earth rotates on its axis and orbits the Sun.

The Michelson-Morley experiment was looking for an ‘aether wind’ which they hypothesized should change depending on the season. For example, say the Earth is moving with the direction the Sun is in the spring and moving the opposite direction of the Sun in the fall. This change in direction of the Earth’s motion through the aether was supposed to be able to be detected.

If you look at the video I linked to in the previous post you will notice the state of the aether connected to and neighboring the Earth remains the same as the Earth rotates. It also remains the same, or almost the same, as the Earth orbits the Sun.

The Michelson-Morley would not detect a change in the state of the aether connected to and neighboring the Earth as the Earth orbits the Sun as there isn’t any, or a very limited change, in the state of the aether connected to and neighboring the Earth as the Earth orbits the Sun.

26

Then, would a MM experiment in outer space produce a different result?

27

That’s what the Gravity Probe B experiment in the video is. It was able to detect a ‘swirl’ in the ‘honey’. Better described as the state of displacement of the aether.

28

Then, is the æther luminiferous, or is it not?

29

It’s the relativistic aether light waves propagate through.

‘Luminferous aether’ has the connotation of an absolutely stationary space.

The aether is not absolutely stationary. Particles of matter move through it and displace it.

In a double slit experiment the photon particle travels a well defined path which takes it through one slit and the photon wave passes through both. The photon wave is an aether displacement wave.

30

If this were true, orbits would constantly be changing because of drag. This is not observed.

Renaming “space-time” as “aether” is about as foolish as renaming “oxygen” as “anti-phlogiston.”

31

The aether is, or behave similar to, a supersolid.

You are in a bowling alley filled with a supersolid. You roll the bowling ball. The bowling ball displaces the supersolid. As the supersolid fills-in where the bowling ball had been the supersolid displaces the bowling ball. By definition, there is no loss of energy in the interaction of the bowling ball and the supersolid and the bowling ball rolls forever through the supersolid.

Q. Is the bowling ball displacing the supersolid or is the supersolid displacing the bowling ball?
A. Both occur simultaneously with equal force.

32

There is one small problem: Only the bowling ball is real in your scenario.

33

The bowling ball does not slow down as it interacts with the supersolid just as particles of matter interact with the aether.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated aether displacement wave 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, fluids, solids, a piece of window glass and ‘stuff’ have mass and so does the aether.

34

What are the properties of a supersolid? You’ve already specified that it has mass.

You say that there is “No loss of energy in the interaction.” Okay: what kind of matter, which possesses mass, is able to be accelerated without expense of energy? What makes it immune from the laws of inertia and momentum? How is this material observed? Why is it a better explanation than “empty space?”

At least the current theories of Dark Matter have a very good reason behind them. They explain galactic structures. What does your theory explain?

35

Never seen the word before. Your coinage?

36

Mass defined as that which physically occupies three dimensional space.

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

The Milky Way’s halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

The Milky Way’s halo is curved spacetime.

37

Robert Laughlin describes the aether as a piece of window glass.

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." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

Francis Everitt describes it as honey.

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.

“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.”

Honey has mass and so does the aether. The ‘swirl’ is more correctly described as the state of displacement of the aether.

In the following article it is described as chocolate syrup.

‘Big Bang Secrets Swirling in a Fluid Universe’
https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140212-big-bang-secrets-swirling-in-a-fluid-universe/

“the cosmos has the consistency of chocolate syrup.”

38

How is it immune from the laws of inertia and momentum?

You’re conflating two ideas. The real professor is describing frame dragging, in which spacetime itself is swirled around by the rotation of the earth. This has been confirmed by satellite experiment.

However, the space-time that is distorted by a large rotating mass does not have mass of its own, and it is not physically viscous, the way real honey is. “Spacetime” or “aether” (if you insist) does not react to the matter that passes through it. If it did, the earth’s rotation would be slowed, little by little, all the time, by friction.

You’re really messing up your explanations here.

ETA: Here is a link to an article on the frame-dragging experiment. This is real science.

39

So… what does ‘displacement’ mean? How can something be displaced if it can’t be subdivided?

Yes, but that surface provides an absolute frame of reference.

So far, it seems like your description of aether fits all the criteria for ‘something that doesn’t exist at all’.

Tell us what it does do, and how we could design an experiment that would differentiate between it existing and not existing.

40

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid, which is described in the following article as the ‘fluidic’ nature of space itself. The article describes a ‘back reaction’ associated with the ‘fluidic’ nature of space itself. This is the displaced aether ‘displacing back’.

‘An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction’

“We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide further evidence of the “fluidic” nature of space itself. This “back-reaction” is quantified by the tendency of angular momentum flux threading across a surface.”

The following article describes the aether as that which produces resistance to acceleration and is responsible for the increase in mass of an object with velocity and describes the “space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity.”

‘Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and fluidic inertia’

“It is shown that the force exerted on a particle by an ideal fluid produces two effects: i) resistance to acceleration and, ii) an increase of mass with velocity. … The interaction between the particle and the entrained space flow gives rise to the observed properties of inertia and the relativistic increase of mass. … Accordingly, in this framework the non resistance of a particle in uniform motion through an ideal fluid (D’Alembert’s paradox) corresponds to Newton’s first law. The law of inertia suggests that the physical vacuum can be modeled as an ideal fluid, agreeing with the space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity.”

The relativistic mass of an object is the mass of the object and the mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the object which is displaced by the object. The faster an object moves with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists the greater the displacement of the aether by the object the greater the relativistic mass of the object.

The aether is, or behave similar to, a supersolid.

You are in a bowling alley filled with a supersolid. You roll the bowling ball. The bowling ball displaces the supersolid. As the supersolid fills-in where the bowling ball had been the supersolid displaces the bowling ball. By definition, there is no loss of energy in the interaction of the bowling ball and the supersolid and the bowling ball rolls forever through the supersolid.

Q. Is the bowling ball displacing the supersolid or is the supersolid displacing the bowling ball?
A. Both occur simultaneously with equal force.