Luminiferous Aether Exists!

But if this "Luminiferous Aether" is right in front of us?

A working assumption: there is no vacuum.
Light always propagates in a medium.

So what is vacuum ?
A vacuum is space that is empty of matter. While a vacuum has no (particulate) matter in it, it still has electromagnetic radiation. EM radiation travels at the speed of light, c (vacuum). If not for special relativity, then there would be no reason to think that light has any special relationship to the vacuum. But since the speed of light is the same for all reference frames, then it appears to be a characteristic built into space-time. What discernible physical difference is there between space-time and the vacuum of space? There is none. They are both describing the same thing: space.

The luminiferous aether is defined as a light bearing medium. The scientific community has failed to detect it. Then they made a mistake. They assumed that it doesn't exist. Why? Because they replaced the aether (a causation) with SR (a mathematical description). Light exists because something causes it to exist. Light exists because something supports the properties of light (wave length, frequency, permittivity, permeability, velocity, etc). "Light bearing" means exactly that. You have a medium that bears light by supporting the properties of light. That's how the luminiferous aether "bears light". A description of light (special relativity) can give you clues as to what causes light to exist; but a description cannot cause anything to exist.

A medium does not cause a wave. If I throw a pebble in a pond a wave is caused. The cause of the wave is not the pond. It is not even the pebble. The wave forms because I put energy into the pebble and the pebble transferred the energy to the pond. If the pond were to exist a billion years with no source of energy to create a wave, then no wave would exist. A wave is energy. You are twisting words to make them seem to support your argument. It is a common mode of argumentation used by politicians, scoundrels and charlatans.

So either logic can be nonlinear or the laws of physics are not logical. Which is it?

You should only attempt logic in when under the supervision of an adult. I am not exactly sure why some people are completely oblivious to logic, but you certainly are. The same could be said of your ideas about the philosophy of physics and the philosophy of mathematics. Like your aether wave theory you pull your ideas out of thin air. You are completely uninformed on the subjects. And you are completely uninformed about logic too. Study a subject before you decide that you are an expert in it. As prometheus said when he moved your thread to alternative theories, your ideas are best described by PIDOOMA. That is very appropriate for just about anything that you write here.

It is a common mode of argumentation used by politicians, scoundrels and charlatans. . . You should only attempt logic in when under the supervision of an adult.
Cheezle, you are genius. There's simply not a modicum of cheezliness about you whatsoever.

Light exists because something causes it to exist.
Since you believe a god exists and you've previously said anything which exists has a cause, as you've just said with light, could you please tell us what caused your god to exist?

A vacuum is space that is empty of matter.
And where is this "empty of matter" vacuum ?
Physicists often discuss ideal test results that would occur in a perfect vacuum, which they sometimes simply call "vacuum" or free space, and use the term partial vacuum to refer to an actual imperfect vacuum as one might have in a laboratory or in space.

I doesn't appear that you know what the word medium means.:bugeye:

Hi Origin! . . . that's the operative word, for sure. I'm waiting for the reply, like the one Clinton gave (concerning Lewinsky: "It all depends on what the meaning of is is").

It is a common mode of argumentation used by politicians, scoundrels and charlatans.
I think you are a hoodlum and a scoundrel.

A medium does not cause a wave. If I throw a pebble in a pond a wave is caused. The cause of the wave is not the pond. It is not even the pebble. The wave forms because I put energy into the pebble and the pebble transferred the energy to the pond. If the pond were to exist a billion years with no source of energy to create a wave, then no wave would exist. A wave is energy. You are twisting words to make them seem to support your argument.
Wave mechanics.

You should only attempt logic in when under the supervision of an adult. I am not exactly sure why some people are completely oblivious to logic, but you certainly are. The same could be said of your ideas about the philosophy of physics and the philosophy of mathematics. Like your aether wave theory you pull your ideas out of thin air. You are completely uninformed on the subjects. And you are completely uninformed about logic too. Study a subject before you decide that you are an expert in it. As prometheus said when he moved your thread to alternative theories, your ideas are best described by PIDOOMA. That is very appropriate for just about anything that you write here.
You are trolling.

Since you believe a god exists and you've previously said anything which exists has a cause, as you've just said with light, could you please tell us what caused your god to exist?
That's a straw man argument.

Can you explain how mathematics causes the natural world to exist?

The speed of light is invariant in vacuum, but not in a medium.
In the atmospheric pressure, on the Earth's surface, the light propagates in a medium and the speed of light is not invariant.
At what distance from the Earth speed of light becomes invariant?

Sure, an electric field is not a medium. The exchange of virtual photons is not a medium. The Higgs field is not a medium. It is not really that difficult. Do you know what a medium is?

Hi origin.

You are making opinion based on assumptions from incomplete/biased perspective which unnecessarily limits the definition of the term to what you obviously 'believe' will 'support' your selectively-biased preconceptual conclusions about this aspect.

In the general physics meaning, a medium is anything that will support/transfer a perturbation along some direction away from the origin of that perturbation. Hence, anything that acts as such is a medium for transferring 'energy-matter' features from one location in that 'anything' to another location in that 'anything' .

For the purposes of highlighting the crucial difference between the term 'medium' and the term 'field': a 'field' is an abstract mathematical term/construct; while a 'medium' is a physical term/concept denoting real entities, some of which are observed as aggregations of atoms, molecules, electrons etc all the way down to the most fundamental particle aggregations capable of transferring/propagating a perturbation/energy-matter feature.

As such, even the 'virtual photons etc' of the quantum vacuum effectively constitute a 'medium' which in itself is generated by quantum processes causing energy-space 'virtual features' to TRANSIENTLY wink in and out from the underlying dynamics/energy 'reservoir' as quantum theory treats it as. So any energy-matter feature/perturbation that is translated along this PHYSICAL (not mathematical) background ''virtual medium' demonstrates that quantum-energy-space dynamical background is effectively the quantum theory physical 'medium' which supports/translates all the phenomena/features which quantum theory studies/describes.

Haven't you learned yet NOT to keep making glib 'corrections/criticisms' of others UNLESS you actually have ALL/CORRECT information and the wider context? It seems that is all you are here for, just to make glib, misleading 'claims/corrections' while not actually being in any way qualified or position to do so. Go get clued up (on a LOT of things) before making scattergun statements which you make sound 'authoritative' but are actually just nonsense from ego/ignorance.

Less personal/ego and more science/care, origin. It would help everyone, including you. Cheers.

The speed of light is invariant in vacuum, but not in a medium.
That would depend upon the characteristics of the medium? If the medium is made of waves that obey $$c=\lambda f = \frac{1}{sqrt{\epsilon_0}{\mu_0}}$$, then the speed of light would be invariant in such a medium.

A medium does not cause a wave. If I throw a pebble in a pond a wave is caused. The cause of the wave is not the pond. It is not even the pebble. The wave forms because I put energy into the pebble and the pebble transferred the energy to the pond. If the pond were to exist a billion years with no source of energy to create a wave, then no wave would exist. A wave is energy. You are twisting words to make them seem to support your argument. It is a common mode of argumentation used by politicians, scoundrels and charlatans.

You should only attempt logic in when under the supervision of an adult. I am not exactly sure why some people are completely oblivious to logic, but you certainly are. The same could be said of your ideas about the philosophy of physics and the philosophy of mathematics. Like your aether wave theory you pull your ideas out of thin air. You are completely uninformed on the subjects. And you are completely uninformed about logic too. Study a subject before you decide that you are an expert in it. As prometheus said when he moved your thread to alternative theories, your ideas are best described by PIDOOMA. That is very appropriate for just about anything that you write here.

Hi Cheezle, pleased to meet ya.

Careful. I bolded that sentence in your opening paragraph, where you unwittingly deny all those orthodox 'explanations' about the big bang being a 'spontaneous quantum fluctuation' in a supposedly 'zero-energy' state which nevertheless gave rise to all the waves/features we observe.

In the analogy of your 'pond', and according to orthodox theory, there WAS NO 'pebble', and yet here is the humongous 'cosmic tsunami' of 'waves ensemble' arisen in the zero-energy state 'pond' that we call 'THE UNIVERSE'.

Bear in mind always that the TOE is not yet arrived/settled, and the 'vacuum' is fast turning into an inherently fundamental physical 'something' (in abstract maths terms it may be called 'field/s'; while in real physical terms it might be called 'medium/s') in its own right, as opposed to being just an abstract mathematical/geometry 'empty space/distance' as some current theories treat it, and which they name 'spacetime' as if that was the real physical rather than the non-real mathematical construct.

When criticizing the logic/claims of others, it would be prudent and more scientific to take extra care not to add your hasty 'corrections/analogies/explanations' to the mix. It does not help anyone. Take care! Cheers.

Hi Cheezle, pleased to meet ya.

Careful. I bolded that sentence in your opening paragraph, where you unwittingly deny all those orthodox 'explanations' about the big bang being a 'spontaneous quantum fluctuation' in a supposedly 'zero-energy' state which nevertheless gave rise to all the waves/features we observe.

In the analogy of your 'pond', and according to orthodox theory, there WAS NO 'pebble', and yet here is the humongous 'cosmic tsunami' of 'waves ensemble' arisen in the zero-energy state 'pond' that we call 'THE UNIVERSE'.

When criticizing the logic/claims of others, it would be prudent and more scientific to take extra care not to add your hasty 'corrections/analogies/explanations' to the mix. It does not help anyone. Take care! Cheers.

Realitycheck,
You are right. Quantum fluctuations are also quantum waves. I proposed characteristics of the aether medium to be based on quantum waves that obey the speed of light. It is a heuristic way to unify SR with QM.

Merely by expressing this idea, it causes a lot of questions and some disagreement. It also attracts trolls.

I bolded that sentence in your opening paragraph, where you unwittingly deny all those orthodox 'explanations' about the big bang being a 'spontaneous quantum fluctuation' in a supposedly 'zero-energy' state which nevertheless gave rise to all the waves/features we observe.

Yes, I considered this when I wrote my reply to Mazulu. That is why I said billion years and not trillion or gazillion. And I also considered the case of virtual photons. But my analogy of a pond is a real world example. It was meant to show a simple explanation of the difference between medium and cause. And though it is possible for a complimentary pair of waves, of the size a pebble would produce on a still pond, to spontaneously appear on said pond, it is such a remote possibility that I did not think it was relevant. I have no idea of the scale of such a remote possibility but it might not happen in the current age of the universe. It is an interesting idea though. But all that is not really what I was addressing. I was talking about the difference between medium and cause. I don't know my latin roots that well but medium probably means something between or in the middle of. A cause would refer to a beginning or start, which is very un-middle-like.

And your example of the Big Bang, an action without a cause, directly refutes Mazulu who said that everything has a cause. Mazulu is all about the "ontology" don't you know.

the medium is made of waves

Do you have an example of a medium made of waves? I am not saying it does not exist, but I can't think of one.

And doesn't this imply that the aether has some meta-medium? And so on ad infinitum. You seem to have a problem of a wave without a medium so it would appear that this is what you are saying. (Which is what I think Alphanumeric was getting at with his god's creator question. Your arguments always seem circular.)

And your example of the Big Bang, an action without a cause, directly refutes Mazulu who said that everything has a cause. Mazulu is all about the "ontology" don't you know.
There is no way of knowing what caused the big bang. Maybe it was God. Maybe it was a natural phenomena. In the absence of such information, it should be left to individual preference.

But a pond is not a good analogy because a pond in made of point particle water molecules. In contrast, the vacuum, space and space-time are something that supports electric fields, magnetic fields, electromagnetic fields, gravity fields and other kind of fields that have energy, interact with matter and with light. The speed of light is a fundamental part of the existence of all of these kinds of fields. Furthermore, fields are spread out and occupy 3D volume. Point particles are localized and only interact by direct contact.

My point is that the speed of light is intrinsic to the aether medium. The aether medium is the ontological reason for why these fields exist.

Mathematical models do not cause anything to exist. Except for maybe mathematicians.

Yes, I considered this when I wrote my reply to Mazulu. That is why I said billion years and not trillion or gazillion. And I also considered the case of virtual photons. But my analogy of a pond is a real world example. It was meant to show a simple explanation of the difference between medium and cause. And though it is possible for a complimentary pair of waves, of the size a pebble would produce on a still pond, to spontaneously appear on said pond, it is such a remote possibility that I did not think it was relevant. I have no idea of the scale of such a remote possibility but it might not happen in the current age of the universe. It is an interesting idea though. But all that is not really what I was addressing. I was talking about the difference between medium and cause. I don't know my latin roots that well but medium probably means something between or in the middle of. A cause would refer to a beginning or start, which is very un-middle-like.

And your example of the Big Bang, an action without a cause, directly refutes Mazulu who said that everything has a cause. Mazulu is all about the "ontology" don't you know.

Understood. Thanks for that clarification of what was in your mind.

The problem remains, though. Any criticism of someone else's 'take' on something cannot itself have it both ways. Either there exists or doesn't exist the possibility (whether in 'eternity' or in finite time is immaterial beause we have no way to judge 'scale' of time/duration when it comes to the big bang and universal phenomena set overall, becaue we have nothing to 'compare the universe to', if you get my drift) that any system is 'spontaneously' capable of producing 'waves' of non-zero characteristics/properties for some 'transient' period before subsiding back to whence it came (the 'pond', whatever/wherever that may be in the underlying 'medium in which and within which our 'universal waves set' arises/evolves/subsides in whatever timescale inherent to universal system (not necessarily within 'human' timescales).

Any little study of non-linear systems and chaos/complexity/emergence theory/phenomena/processes will demonstrate clearly that patterns CAN arise and evolve and subside 'seemingly without cause' for the waves/perturbations constituting the phenomena observed.

I just wanted to caution ANYONE about being too dogmatic when calling/criticizing others as 'cranks' etc just because they have a real physics 'take' on medium/s (aether or whatever terms used) instead of a merely abstract mathematical field/s 'take' which is glibly defaulted to by anyone wishing to disparage others takes.

In short: Until the 'abstract' maths 'field' concept is proved to actually remove the physical/logical need for a real medium in a real (not merely mathematical model of) the universe, then it is unscientifically presumptuous, and even foolhardy, to make pronouncements/comments as if one actually has anything but abstractions and models to counter others' real physical takes on these aspects.

Caution all round when purporting to make counterclaims that are themselves based on opinion/conflation of real/mathematical 'takes' on the same aspects.

Thanks again for your conscientious clarification, Cheezle. Much appreciated. Cheers!

Do you have an example of a medium made of waves? I am not saying it does not exist, but I can't think of one.
Electromagnetic fields are not considered a medium. But physics constants have to come from somewhere. Properties of light come from a medium that I call the luminiferous aether. answer to your question: the only kind of medium made of waves that exists is the medium that supports the properties of EM fields.
And doesn't this imply that the aether has some meta-medium? And so on ad infinitum.
Maybe? What if it is? So what.
You seem to have a problem of a wave without a medium so it would appear that this is what you are saying. (Which is what I think Alphanumeric was getting at with his god's creator question. Your arguments always seem circular.)
I can plot a circular path around the earth. You can visit many new places and discover many new things along this circular path. A circular argument is the same way. A->B->A won't teach you anything. But A->B->C->D->E->A is circular, will teach you many new things and expose you to ideas and viewpoints that you had never thought of. Even if it brings you back to where you started.

The problem remains, though. Any criticism of someone else's 'take' on something cannot itself have it both ways. Either there exists or doesn't exist the possibility (whether in 'eternity' or in finite time is immaterial beause we have no way to judge 'scale' of time/duration when it comes to the big bang and universal phenomena set overall, becaue we have nothing to 'compare the universe to', if you get my drift) that any system is 'spontaneously' capable of producing 'waves' of non-zero characteristics/properties for some 'transient' period before subsiding back to whence it came (the 'pond', whatever/wherever that may be in the underlying 'medium in which and within which our 'universal waves set' arises/evolves/subsides in whatever timescale inherent to universal system (not necessarily within 'human' timescales).

You are bringing concepts into the argument that are beyond the scope of the argument. Mazulu's aether argument has nothing to do with transients or possibility. He is making a statement that something is the case without qualification. In his idea, aether is an underlying causal source for all phenomena. Not some phenomena or only under some cases, ALL.

Any little study of non-linear systems and chaos/complexity/emergence theory/phenomena/processes will demonstrate clearly that patterns CAN arise and evolve and subside 'seemingly without cause' for the waves/perturbations constituting the phenomena observed.

My pond example was obviously not a non-linear system. It was an abstraction meant to be as simple as possible. You seem to trying to conflate your additional ideas and countering concepts with my pond in an attempt to disprove it. When all I was saying was that a medium is not a cause and gave an example. I think it is a very simple and true statement. Please address whether you believe that mediums (in the abstract) are causal. I will admit that some waves can occur in real world mediums but not without some amplification, or addition of energy, or some latent energy and a mechanism to release it, or a highly improbably quantum coincidence. Did I leave any cases out?

I just wanted to caution ANYONE about being too dogmatic when calling/criticizing others as 'cranks' etc just because they have a real physics 'take' on medium/s (aether or whatever terms used) instead of a merely abstract mathematical field/s 'take' which is glibly defaulted to by anyone wishing to disparage others takes.

But cranks do exist and Mazulu is one of them. He is not proposing his aether wave theory for others to consider. He is stating it as an absolute fact that his aether waves are the basis for all existence of everything. He is right and everyone else is wrong. That is a hallmark of a crank. And add to that the fact that he claims to have received this idea telepathically from space aliens, and you have the makings of a mega-crank. Maybe even an ultra-crank. He is constantly trying to bring his aether wave ideas into other people's threads too.

In short: Until the 'abstract' maths 'field' concept is proved to actually remove the physical/logical need for a real medium in a real (not merely mathematical model of) the universe, then it is unscientifically presumptuous, and even foolhardy, to make pronouncements/comments as if one actually has anything but abstractions and models to counter others' real physical takes on these aspects.

Caution all round when purporting to make counterclaims that are themselves based on opinion/conflation of real/mathematical 'takes' on the same aspects.

I see no reason for caution. If you look at Mazulu's claims, that a medium made out of "frequency" waves is responsible for everything, you will find that it is just a bunch of words strung together that make no sense. Maybe it is because he had to translate them from non-verbal space alien mental impressions. Add to this that he is time after time found to not know what he is talking about, and I think I can safely say he is outright nuts.

Deleted