Electromagnetic Propagation

[ShawnD]

The Michelson-Morley experiment, along with many experiments from their contemporaries, "disproved" the existence of an aether by looking for an aether wind caused by our movement through space, and the effects of aether wind on the speed of light. But, what if aether doesn't interact with matter in this way? Does anyone know of any experiments in this field trying to prove, or disprove, aether without relying on "aether wind"?

Doesn't it also seem convenient (or ironic) that dark energy/matter is now widely accepted when it seems the term "dark matter" was manufactured to fill a gaping hole when we couldn't reconcile our math with our observations ( you can't see it because its "dark" ). I'm beginning to think our whole system of thinking, on these matters, is fundamentally flawed.

[labelwench]

Hello ShawnD.

I am not knowledgeable enough on this topic to discuss same with you, yet I keep my eyes open for new discoveries and so came across the following which I post here as I believe it pertains to your thread.

Dark Matter Proof Found Over Antarctica?Anne Minard
for National Geographic News

November 19, 2008
High-energy electrons captured over Antarctica could reveal the presence of a nearby but mysterious astrophysical object that's bombarding Earth with cosmic rays, researchers say.

Or the electrons may be the long-awaited physical evidence of elusive dark matter.


RELATED
Large Hadron Collider: Photos, Interactive, More Black Holes Belch Universe's Most Energetic Particles (November 8, 2007) Tiny Galaxies Shed New Light on Dark Matter (August 27, 200 Either way, the unusual particles are exciting for astrophysicists, who say they could someday confirm or deny decades of unproven theories.

"In the first case, we have now seen for the first time a nearby source of cosmic rays. Nobody's seen that before," said study co-author John Wefel, a physicist at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge.

"In the second case, we may be seeing something even more stupendous."

Annihilation Signal

Cosmic rays are not beams per se but are any protons, electrons, and other subatomic particles that careen toward Earth from a variety of sources, including the supernova explosions that mark the deaths of stars.

Most of the cosmic electrons that reach Earth are low-energy, because the highest-energy ones fizzle the fastest and don't last long enough to get here.

Capturing any electrons at all from the high end of the energy spectrum requires a sustained sampling effort.

The authors of the new study flew a balloon-borne particle collector called the Advanced Thin Ionization Calorimeter (ATIC) over Antarctica.

Circular winds at that latitude allow the balloon to stay aloft for up to 30 days at a time, capturing electrons and measuring their charges, energies, and trajectories.

The team got a surprise: ATIC found inflated numbers of high-energy electrons that match the signal expected from the destruction of dark matter.

The rest of the story at the following link: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ntarctica.html

[ShawnD]

Thanks labelwench, here is another good article on dark matter http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8508662.stm . By my little rant on dark energy/matter people may think I'm disputing it's existence. I don't. I probably should have phrased that better. Our observations showed that there was something out there our math hadn't predicted so the term "dark matter/energy" was manufactured to describe it. I suppose if they had called it "dark aether" or something similar there would have been some ridicule involved.
I just find it strange that there are untold resources being put into proving its existence when all of the experiments on aether that I have read about use only interferometers and the "aether wind" hypothesis. I was wondering if there were any experiments out there on aether that didn't involve this technique.

[labelwench]

Thanks labelwench, here is another good article on dark matter http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8508662.stm . By my little rant on dark energy/matter people may think I'm disputing it's existence. I don't. I probably should have phrased that better. Our observations showed that there was something out there our math hadn't predicted so the term "dark matter/energy" was manufactured to describe it. I suppose if they had called it "dark aether" or something similar there would have been some ridicule involved.
I just find it strange that there are untold resources being put into proving its existence when all of the experiments on aether that I have read about use only interferometers and the "aether wind" hypothesis. I was wondering if there were any experiments out there on aether that didn't involve this technique.

Actually, the article you posted was the one I recall, yet I had not bookmarked it. Thank you for the link.

Let me see if I understand your statement above.

You are not disputing the existence of dark matter.

You are rather surprised at the amount of effort and expense utilized in the attempt to prove the existence of dark matter.

You are asking if there are experiments on aether that are not dependent on dark matter?

I told you that I'm quite lost in these matters but I can be a diversion (or a confusion) until one of the science gentlemen wakes up and comes to the rescue.

[ShawnD]

I'm asking if anyone knows if there have been any experiments to detect aether that don't involve an interferometer and the assumption that it involves an "aether wind".

[SteveA]

The Michelson-Morley experiment, along with many experiments from their contemporaries, "disproved" the existence of an aether by looking for an aether wind caused by our movement through space, and the effects of aether wind on the speed of light. But, what if aether doesn't interact with matter in this way? Does anyone know of any experiments in this field trying to prove, or disprove, aether without relying on "aether wind"?

You hit on a good observation here. In a sense the experiment showed instead that if an aether exists, it's fundamental and is carrying everything along with it.

For example, if we were to be carried by a stream and we tried to "locally" measure the flow, it would appear stationary and we wouldn't find any such "wind", and in terms of light, that was the result.

On the other hand, something to consider is that photons don't necessarily move "through" space as many appear to assume. If we're using light to measure distances in a space, then that light is defining the properties of the space and not moving within the space that it's showing.

A good analogy would be to consider a computer game. The motions of objects on the screen do not exist within the same space as the motions of electrons inside the computer. The monitor just shows a "thin" projection of that space.

Doesn't it also seem convenient (or ironic) that dark energy/matter is now widely accepted when it seems the term "dark matter" was manufactured to fill a gaping hole when we couldn't reconcile our math with our observations ( you can't see it because its "dark" ). I'm beginning to think our whole system of thinking, on these matters, is fundamentally flawed.

It appears there are many areas where potential problems and paradoxes exist in more orthodox views and people have been working to patch over those with attempts to construct new layers of properties, but the fundamental problems are never resolved in this way, though they can make it so confusing and complex that people have a hard time finding those issues (in which case people tend to assume that someone else must know it and they continue to follow the same path of learning ... only to find that rest never did manage to resolve it ).

Light speed gravity and black holes are another good example - if gravity was limited to light speed influences, then black holes would appear to be a paradox as gravity, always moving at light speed, would either have to "suck itself" LOL into a black hole or alter light speed (which is suppose to be constant).

If gravity bends light, then gravity is a faster than light influence.

Also, as something to consider. The speed of an individual photon is not necessarily the same velocity as a collection of photons (which allow for light "waves" to be constructed).

[austintorn@aol.com]

Perhaps space is absolute, real, and is the aether, it being physical, but not material, thus not interacting with the energy that occupies it.

[Meem]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/sc...ce/18dark.html

An international team of physicists working in the bottom of an old iron mine in Minnesota said Thursday that they might have registered the first faint hints of a ghostly sea of subatomic particles known as dark matter long thought to permeate the cosmos.

http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/prog...ril2005PAC.pdf

http://cdms.berkeley.edu/UCBlabs/Main/SuperCDMS


(edit)

The below, was the one I was looking for and thinking of. Finally found it. The state it was in popped into mind.
http://www.sanfordundergroundlaboratoryathomestake.org/
With all the money going into these tpye projects, don't let anyone tell you that considering anything aether like is foolish.

[ShawnD]

Hello Meem,

Thanks, I found that article very interesting. With all the different ways they are conceiving to detect dark matter one would think there was more than just one type of experiment to find an aether.

What if these guys in the underground lab didn't detect any particles, and then said that dark matter didn't exist? Then assume ten separate groups did the exact same underground experiment (but with more sensitive equipment) and still didn't find anything. Would it then be accepted that dark matter didn't exist? Would we then add another complicated mathematical layer to the properties of the universe to explain it? Probably not. But, I am assuming this is what happened to the aether hypothesis.

This is why I am trying to find out if any other type of experiment has been done to find aether. Aether may not exist but with only one type of experiment performed (aether wind hypothesis) I think it was premature to rule it out.

Hmm, perhaps we should do an experiment to see if there is a dark matter wind.
If we can't find it we will rule out the existence of dark matter

[ShawnD]

I just thought of something. We already did that dark matter wind experiment. It is the same set of experiments that disproved an aether wind.

Light changes its velocity depending on the medium its traveling through. The Michelson-Morley experiment (and others) based their conclusions on this premise. They showed there was no appreciable change in light speed, in space, because there was no medium (aether wind) to change its velocity.

Based on these findings, wouldn't this also mean that light's speed wasn't affected by dark matter ("a ghostly sea of subatomic particles thought to permeate the cosmos"). So, if you believe aether doesn't exist based on these experiments then wouldn't it conclude that dark matter couldn't exist either....

Just a thought