[N0B0DY]

This portion below reminds me of people who cling to things in general, when none is needed.

Great article, RP.

"Historians wonder whether Lorentz would have been Einstein had he been able to surrender his attachment to aether, which he kept as a silent partner in every area where he made breakthroughs. Indeed, no one had done more to renovate views about aether. Lorentz seemed ready to abandon any of the pillars of physics, bar that “world-spirit”. By 1892, he had declared that the aether-ion was outside Newtonian mechanics. Three years later, he let go of Newton’s law of action and reaction because aether had to be immobile.

"In 1902, Lorentz suggested that aether was not just in between the atoms and electrons but inside them. Going further, he imagined matter as a local modification of aether. Shortly afterwards, he considered that aether could “be the seat of an electro-magnetic field with its energy and its vibrations”. Nonetheless, he still regarded aether “as endowed with a certain degree of substantiality, however different it may be from all ordinary matter”.

"Lorentz appreciated that Einstein would never have reached either of his Theories of Relativity had he clung to aether, remarking, with typical grace, how we were lucky that Einstein had given it up."

http://home.alphalink.com.au/~loge27...r_einstein.htm

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY This portion below reminds me of people who cling to things in general, when none is needed. Great article, RP. "Historians wonder whether Lorentz would have been Einstein had he been able to surrender his attachment to aether, which he kept as a silent partner in every area where he made breakthroughs. Indeed, no one had done more to renovate views about aether. Lorentz seemed ready to abandon any of the pillars of physics, bar that “world-spirit”. By 1892, he had declared that the aether-ion was outside Newtonian mechanics. Three years later, he let go of Newton’s law of action and reaction because aether had to be immobile. "In 1902, Lorentz suggested that aether was not just in between the atoms and electrons but inside them. Going further, he imagined matter as a local modification of aether. Shortly afterwards, he considered that aether could “be the seat of an electro-magnetic field with its energy and its vibrations”. Nonetheless, he still regarded aether “as endowed with a certain degree of substantiality, however different it may be from all ordinary matter”. "Lorentz appreciated that Einstein would never have reached either of his Theories of Relativity had he clung to aether, remarking, with typical grace, how we were lucky that Einstein had given it up." http://home.alphalink.com.au/~loge27...r_einstein.htm

The aether debate may or not ever be resolved. It seems ancillary to the controversy of finiteness and infinity - all which is familiar to the human experience has a beginning and ending; ergo, that quality - limitation, if you will - is frequently projected on the universe at large; accompanied by proferred reasoning for a universal beginning and ending.

The same rationale is applied to conductors for propagated signals of various description. Sound waves, for example, require a conductor, as water waves likewise require.

In accordance with the known mechanics of propagation, a conductor for EM continues as a consideration.

Whereas, the alternative scenario suggests that light may be 'self propagating'.

(Thanks for the compliment on my cache of urls, dipayankar & Nobody - I located the one we're relating to here <Which is exceptionally stellar?>, while on a search for 'Lorentz'.)

Just as this thread has a beginning, so too will it end, but not necessarily ending the enigmatic controversy it addresses.

[N0B0DY]

The aether debate applies to waves, yes, but not to photons. I think Ed Witten had alot to do with the influential assumption of positing a membrane which conforms to Einstein's GR. In this way, any disturbances in the membrane require a medium, as all waves do, but in QM the energy transfers can be quantized according to probability effects that can jump any distance without propagation - no space, time, motion, mass or medium is required if the information is recreated - sort of like instantaneous teleportation.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY The aether debate applies to waves, yes, but not to photons. I think Ed Witten had alot to do with the influential assumption of positing a membrane which conforms to Einstein's GR. In this way, any disturbances in the membrane require a medium, as all waves do, but in QM the energy transfers can be quantized according to probability effects that can jump any distance without propagation - no space, time, motion, mass or medium is required if the information is recreated - sort of like instantaneous teleportation.

"Quantum leap". Doesn't this mean, moving from one location in space to another, without ever occupying the interval of space dividing two (or more) different points?

Such an event seems to transcend 'propagation' altogether.

Without so far finding it, Nobody, I've been looking for a discussion on the 'quantum leap' on Google and elsewhere; finding any number of dissertations on quantum mechanics, but none that specifically address the paradox of the quantum leap, as I understand it.

Might you know of an url - or a discussion - that specifically talks about this?

Hey Nobody, I'm back with an editorial addition to say I will start a thread asking just exactly what is a quantum leap, anyway - words to that effect. Hope you join me.

Best regards,
- RP

[N0B0DY]

Although our interpretations differ greatly as to the whole mechanics of the universe, I wouldn't look any further than Bob Campbell of this site. Next to you (as in side-by-side) he is quite ingenius.

I won't post his link in others' threads, but he's easy enough to look up.

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff "Quantum leap". Doesn't this mean, moving from one location in space to another, without ever occupying the interval of space dividing two (or more) different points?

The phrase you're after is quantum tunneling. Quantum leap is, I think, the term reserved to describe an electron jumping from one energy level to another.

[N0B0DY]

That's a good point, Neutralino, though the mechanics are the same. I was going to make note of a picture RP once posted of a spiral, which would conform better to classical continuity whereby the "jumps" to different quantum states are smooth and continuous.

Yet, even in this respect we can deduce that there is no transition because the observable energy is discrete.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by neutralino The phrase you're after is quantum tunneling. Quantum leap is, I think, the term reserved to describe an electron jumping from one energy level to another.

Thank you, Nobody and *Neutralino. The term I'm referring to is as *you qualify it here, with "an electron jumping from one energy level to another."

(Doesn't 'tunneling' still connote a connection of some kind?)

Please refer to and consider the proposal at:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/quantu...mechanics.html

[gopalanand saraswati]

The whole concept of motion is an illusion, based on a point of origin and a point of observation of disturbance, in the space-time continum. The truth is that the universe is existing in an Infinty and not vaccuum. Our problem is that a fish swimming in deep ocean is tring to deny the existance of water because it cannot see the water.
Gopalanand

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by gopalanand saraswati The whole concept of motion is an illusion, based on a point of origin and a point of observation of disturbance, in the space-time continum. The truth is that the universe is existing in an Infinty and not vaccuum. Our problem is that a fish swimming in deep ocean is tring to deny the existance of water because it cannot see the water. Gopalanand

Hi GS;

Can you walk to the store ?
Do you have proof that the universe is infinite ?
It does not exist in a vacuum but ether.

Best to you,

Pat