But why have the best minds in the scientific community been unable devise an experiment to detect the physical properties of space that Einstein was so sure must exist to support the propagation of light.

The reason may be because they are not looking in the right direction.

For example 1887 Albert Michelson and Edward Morley devised an experiment to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary Aether (“Aether wind”) by creating a device that sent yellow light from a sodium flame through a half-silvered mirror that was used to split it into two beams traveling at right angles to one another. After leaving the splitter, the beams traveled out to the ends of long arms where they were reflected back into the middle by small mirrors. They then recombined on the far side of the splitter in an eyepiece, producing a pattern of constructive and destructive interference. If the Earth is traveling through an Aether medium, a beam reflecting back and forth parallel to the flow of Aether would take longer than a beam reflecting perpendicular to the Aether because the time gained from traveling downwind is less than that lost traveling upwind.

However they did not observe a fringe shift and therefore conclude that space did not contain the “physical medium” called Aether. This negative result is generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the then prevalent Aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, in which the stationary Aether concept has no role.  The experiment has been referred to as “the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution”.

However Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity did not endow space with the physical qualities of mass, he endowed it with the geometric properties of a space-time dimension.  Therefore, when Einstein referred to space as having physical properties he may not have been referring to the physical properties of a medium made up of mass such as the “Aether” but those imparted to it by the geometry of space-time.

The significance of changing one perspective form space having the physical properties associated with mass to one of the geometric properties of space or a space-time dimension can be best understood if, as has been done many times in the The Road to Unification one transposes Einstein’s space-time universe to one of four *spatial* dimensions.  This is because one could use the physicality of the spatial dimensions instead of the non physical properties of a time or space-time dimension to derive the physical properties of Einstein’s space. 

Einstein made this possible when he derived the geometric properties space-time, energy and the dynamic balance between it and mass in terms of the constant velocity of light and the equation E=mc^2. 

For example he told us the energy associated with mass causes a curvature or contraction in the “surface” of space-time and when mass is converted to energy it causes the three-dimensional properties of space-time to expand because of a decrease in its curvature he associated with that event.  This spatial expansion and contraction would be analogous to how the two-dimensional surface of a balloon either expands of contract when air (energy) is added or taken away from it.

Observations of our environment tell us that all forms of mass have a spatial component or volume and because of the equivalence defined by Einstein one must assume that energy also has a spatial component.  However, one can use the fact that the equation E=mc^2 uniquely defines the geometric properties of a space-time universe in terms of both energy and mass to convert or transpose the curvature in space-time Einstein’s equations associated with energy to one that would define it in terms of a curvature in a four *spatial* dimensions associated with the *spatial* properties of mass.

Additionally because the velocity of light is constant it allows for the defining of a one to one qualitative and quantitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

This was the bases for assuming as was done in the article “Defining energy” Nov 27, 2007 that one can derive all forms of energy in terms of a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth spatial dimension.

Additionally it tells us the medium Einstein referred to in his address at the University of Leyden was most likely the geometry of three-dimensional space because his theories show that space it in itself has physical properties in that it can cause changes in its environment similar to how the geometric expansion and contraction of the two dimension surface of a balloon can cause physical changes in its environment.

If it is true that the physical medium Einstein was referring to was related to the geometric properties space and not a properties of mass as we are suggesting one should be able to explain why Albert Michelson and Edward Morley were unable to detect it in terms of the concepts contained in that article.

Part of the answer can be found in the article “The causality of motion” May 1, 2013 which derived the causality of an inertial reference frame in terms of the relative separation the “surfaces” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly it showed the causality of all accelerated motion including gravitational was a result of the interaction of an inertial reference frame with the slope of a curvature in the “surface” of three-dimensional space while deriving the causality of its inertial properties in terms of a constant linear displacement of two different “surfaces” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

(This curvature is analogous to a curvature in a four-dimensional space-time manifold Einstein theorized was the causality of all accelerated reference frames.)

In other words it showed the energy of relative motion was not imparted to it by its motion through space but by a displacement of its three-dimensional geometry with respect to fourth *spatial* dimension.

However this means the casualty of the forces experience by the components of an inertial reference frame in constant motion are an integral part of the geometry of their moving environment and therefore would not be dependent of their relative motion.

The theoretical significance of defining the causality of constant motion in terms of the geometry of four *spatial dimensions is that it allows one to understand why the propagation of light or electromagnetic energy is independent of the motion of an inertial reference frame.

As mentioned the article “Defining energy” Nov 27, 2007 derive all forms of energy in terms of a geometric displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

This was the basis for defining the causality of electromagnetic energy in the article “What is electromagnetism?“ Sept, 27 2007 in terms of the differential force caused by the “peaks” and “toughs” of a matter wave moving on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly it showed it is possible to derive the electromagnetic properties of electromagnetism by extrapolating the geometric properties of a three-dimensional environment to a matter wave moving on a “surface” of three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

A wave on the two-dimensional surface of water causes a point on that surface to be become displaced or rise above or below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present.  A force will be developed by the differential displacement of the surfaces, which will result in the elevated and depressed portions of the water moving towards or become “attracted” to each other and the surface of the water.

Similarly a matter wave on the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension would cause a point on that “surface” to become displaced or rise above and below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present.

Therefore, classical wave mechanics, if extrapolated  to four *spatial* dimensions tells us a force will be developed by the differential displacements caused by a matter wave moving on a “surface” of three-dimensional space with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension that will result in its elevated and depressed portions moving towards or become “attracted” to each other.

This defines the causality of the attractive forces of unlike charges associated with the electromagnetic wave component of a photon in terms of a force developed by a differential displacement of a point on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

However, it also provides a classical mechanism for understanding why similar charges repel each other because observations of water show that there is a direct relationship between the magnitudes of a displacement in its surface to the magnitude of the force resisting that displacement.

Similarly the magnitude of a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension caused by two similar charges will be greater than that caused by a single one.  Therefore, similar charges will repel each other because the magnitude of the force resisting the displacement will be greater for two charges than it would be for a single charge.

One can define the causality of electrical component of electromagnetic radiation in terms of the energy associated with its “peaks” and “troughs” that is directed perpendicular to its velocity vector while its magnetic component would be associated with the horizontal force developed by that perpendicular displacement.

However, Classical Mechanics tells us a horizontal force will be developed by that perpendicular or vertical displacement which will always be 90 degrees out of phase with it.  This force is called magnetism.

This is analogous to how the vertical force pushing up of on mountain also generates a horizontal force, which pulls matter horizontally towards the apex of that displacement.

However this also defines the causality of the electromagnetic properties of light and its propagation in terms of the physicality of the dimensional properties of space.

Yet this also means that the propagation of light would not be depend on the existence of the physical properties of mass as most including Albert Michelson and Edward Morley associated with the aether but only on the physicality of of the geometric properties of space.

This also means the velocity of light would not be influenced by the relative motion of an inertial reference frame because as mentioned earlier all of its components including light share the same geometry and therefore the same relative velocity.

This suggests that the “Aether” or the medium Einstein said must exist to support the propagation of light, and the existence for standards of space and time is a physical property of the geometry of space and not that of an independent element as is suggested by the modern interpretation of the Albert Michelson and Edward Morley.

However it also means that according to Einstein space-time concepts no experiment no matter how sensitive to motion will be able to detect any change in the velocity light due to the relative motion of an inertial reference frame.

Latter Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2013

The post Light and the physicality of space appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

“Recapitulating, we may say that according to the General Theory of Relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists Aether.  According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether 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.  But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts, which may be tracked through time.  The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”

But why have the best minds in the scientific community been unable devise an experiment to detect the physical properties of space that Einstein was so sure must exist to support the propagation of light.

The reason may be because they are not looking in the right direction.

For example 1887 Albert Michelson and Edward Morley devised an experiment to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary Aether (“Aether wind”) by creating a device that sent yellow light from a sodium flame through a half-silvered mirror that was used to split it into two beams traveling at right angles to one another. After leaving the splitter, the beams traveled out to the ends of long arms where they were reflected back into the middle by small mirrors. They then recombined on the far side of the splitter in an eyepiece, producing a pattern of constructive and destructive interference. If the Earth is traveling through an Aether medium, a beam reflecting back and forth parallel to the flow of Aether would take longer than a beam reflecting perpendicular to the Aether because the time gained from traveling downwind is less than that lost traveling upwind.

However they did not observe a fringe shift and therefore concluded that space did not contain the “physical medium” called Aether.

However Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity did not endow space with the physical qualities of mass, he endowed it with the geometric properties of a space-time dimension.  Therefore, when Einstein referred to space as having physical properties he may not have been referring to the physical properties of a medium made up of mass but those imparted to it by its geometry.

For example he derived the energy of accelerated reference frames not in terms of mass but how it changes as it approaches a gravitational field by assuming it moved through curvature or change in geometry of space-time.  However he could not do the same for the energy associated with inertial reference frames in constant relative motion because it does not change with time,

Therefore to define the energy and mass associated with of the geometry of an inertial reference frame one must transposes or convert Einstein’s space-time geometry to four *spatial* dimensions because that is only thing that changes in inertial reference frames in motion .

Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he use the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light to define the geometric properties of space-time because it provided a method of converting a unit of time he associated with energy to an equivalent unit of space in four spatial dimensions.  Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also defined a one to one quantitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

(This was the bases for assuming as was done in the article “Defining energy” Nov 27, 2007 that one can derive all forms of energy in terms of a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.) 

However If it is true that the physical medium Einstein was referring to was related to the geometric property of space and not a properties of mass as we are suggesting one should be able to explain why Albert Michelson and Edward Morley were unable to detect it in terms of geometry of its spatial properties.

Einstein told us that gravitational mass was the result of a curvature in the geometry of a space-time manifold.  In other words a change in the relative height of an object in three-dimensional space with respect to the time-dimension was responsible for the gravitational energy of mass

Similarly one could define the energy associated with the constant relative motion of an inertial reference frame in terms of a constant spatial displacement of a “surface” of a three-dimension space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

In other words it showed the energy of relative motion was not imparted to it by its motion through time but by a linear geometric displacement of three-dimensional space with respect to fourth *spatial* dimension.

However Einstein also told us that mass and energy are interchangeable therefore the substance of the Aether he was referring to in his address was the energy of the relative motion of inertial reference frames.

This means in an inertial reference frame in constant motion all of it parts in including the energy and therefore any Aether it contains is part of its geometric properties therefore must share the motion of as all its other parts.

In other words the reason Albert Michelson and Edward Morley were unable to detect the relative motion of an inertial reference frame through the geometry of space-time or four spatial dimensions because the Aether is that geometry.  In other words no relative motion was observed in their experiment for the same reason that an object or reference frame cannot have any relative motion with respect to itself

It should be remember Einsteinâ€s genius allows us to choose whether to define the mass or substance contained in all systems in either a space-time environment or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension when he defined it and the geometry of space-time in terms of the constant velocity of light.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2013

The post The geometry of Einstein’s Aether appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.