This Is Why Understanding Space Is So Hard

If all the matter in the universe suddenly disappeared, would space still exist? Isaac Newton thought so. Space, he imagined, was something like Star Trek’s holodeck, a 3-dimensional virtual-reality grid onto which simulated people and places and things are projected. As Newton put it in the early pages of his Principia: “Absolute space, of its own nature, without reference to anything external, always remains homogeneous and immovable.” 1

more…

Hmm, From the title I expected this article to be worthless, but it is actually quite good. Brings in the topic of absolute vs relative frames of reference (without wasting time on the non-existent ether), Mach’s principle (without going overboard), quantum foam and the Higgs mechanism.

The only thing it really misses is the cosmological frame of reference as seen in the CMBR, but everyone misses that.

mollwollfumble said:

Hmm, From the title I expected this article to be worthless, but it is actually quite good. Brings in the topic of absolute vs relative frames of reference (without wasting time on the non-existent ether), Mach’s principle (without going overboard), quantum foam and the Higgs mechanism.

The only thing it really misses is the cosmological frame of reference as seen in the CMBR, but everyone misses that.

What evidence do we have that the ether is non-existent?

There are some really crap comments to that article, but I liked this one:

The CMB will be isotropic to an observer at rest and any blue or red shifting, like the CMB dipole , can be used as a substitute for absolute space. In relativity both observers do agree on the value of the spacetime interval. Using absolute space does make the math easier just like assuming spherical chickens and frictionless elephants. Maxwell’s equations are much easier to work with than QED too. Still waiting for the LIGO results…

The Rev Dodgson said:

There are some really crap comments to that article, but I liked this one:

The CMB will be isotropic to an observer at rest and any blue or red shifting, like the CMB dipole , can be used as a substitute for absolute space. In relativity both observers do agree on the value of the spacetime interval. Using absolute space does make the math easier just like assuming spherical chickens and frictionless elephants. Maxwell’s equations are much easier to work with than QED too. Still waiting for the LIGO results…

It is concise. Did you cherry pick it?

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

There are some really crap comments to that article, but I liked this one:

The CMB will be isotropic to an observer at rest and any blue or red shifting, like the CMB dipole , can be used as a substitute for absolute space. In relativity both observers do agree on the value of the spacetime interval. Using absolute space does make the math easier just like assuming spherical chickens and frictionless elephants. Maxwell’s equations are much easier to work with than QED too. Still waiting for the LIGO results…

It is concise. Did you cherry pick it?

I plead guilty m’lud.

Here’s a rather ancient article about LIGO and gravity waves:

http://www.nature.com/news/has-giant-ligo-experiment-seen-gravitational-waves-1.18449

A more recent article:

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/about-this-weeks-gravitational-wave-rumor/

Could be an announcement on Feb 11 apparently.

Or maybe not.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Hmm, From the title I expected this article to be worthless, but it is actually quite good. Brings in the topic of absolute vs relative frames of reference (without wasting time on the non-existent ether), Mach’s principle (without going overboard), quantum foam and the Higgs mechanism.

The only thing it really misses is the cosmological frame of reference as seen in the CMBR, but everyone misses that.

What evidence do we have that the ether is non-existent?

Ever heard of Michelson-Morley? ;-)

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Hmm, From the title I expected this article to be worthless, but it is actually quite good. Brings in the topic of absolute vs relative frames of reference (without wasting time on the non-existent ether), Mach’s principle (without going overboard), quantum foam and the Higgs mechanism.

The only thing it really misses is the cosmological frame of reference as seen in the CMBR, but everyone misses that.

What evidence do we have that the ether is non-existent?

Ever heard of Michelson-Morley? ;-)

Yeah, I’ve heard of them, but I’m yet to be convinced that absence of an “ether” is the only (or even the best) explanation of their results.

Could well just be ignorance on my part of course.