The Quantum Luminiferous Aether

Thanks to those who continue to comment. There seems to be some confusion still concerning Michelson Morley and its relation to disproof of the aether. The confusion results from how things have been taught in universities for decades now. As mentioned above, the Lorentz transformation equations were derived under an aetherial assumption, and under that assumption (of course) there is still an aether. The original derivation, due to Lorentz and others, was that motion through the aether caused sticks to shrink and clocks to slow. The original derivation of the Lorentz transformation is completely consistent with (and indeed was partly motivated by) the Michelson Morley null result.

People have argued that Einstein gained primacy over Lorentz due to the simplicity of his formulation, but that also isn't fully correct. On a simplicity side, both Lorentz, with his two postulates of length contraction and time dilation, and Einstein, with his two postulates of a constant speed of light and relativity, are about the same. What really led to adoption of relativity over the aether theory was general relativity, which answered the unknown problem of the advance of the perihelions plus a calculation of light bending around the sun. (While GRT also leads to a calculation of the gravitational redshift, this can be calculated by just looking at conservation of energy. The Shapiro effect is yet another test that came far later.)

Most people are far more familiar with special relativity than they are the general theory. The general theory is extremely complex in its math. But even the special theory isn't fully appreciated by most.

And getting back to Michelson Morley, there is another item of possible interest. Decades ago I wrote a paper showing how one can derive the Lorentz transformation without use of a physical length contraction of moving objects. Such a theory only needed an alternative explanation for Michelson Morley, which I provided. I wrote a thread here about that here at ATS some years ago, and I've bumped the thread just now.

a reply to: St Udio

That's as easy as staring at one point until everything "glows" then closing the eyes on the same "point" until it is as if you have opened your eyes... it'll look exactly the same as before you closed them aka the "other world".

Perhaps the "glowing" when that occurs is what was termed the "luminiferous ether"... since one can then stand up and walk around behind the eyes so to speak it is just as firm a place as when they are or were open. It is a much "purer" place so in order not to sink or fall through it as firm ground simply be "good" falling will likely occur at some point... so it is best practiced when sitting standing or laying down... advanced practice is the walking around part.

Can your theory explain torsion issues that occurred during nuclear device testing ? All the nuclear bombs tested had small to medium run away yields above their source . This might suggest a vortex or torsion grid in our planet as well the universe.
reply to: delbertlarson

originally posted by: DaturaStramonium
Can your theory explain torsion issues that occurred during nuclear device testing ? All the nuclear bombs tested had small to medium run away yields above their source . This might suggest a vortex or torsion grid in our planet as well the universe.
reply to: delbertlarson

I certainly don't have a ready explanation for the effect you mention. My theory shows how electromagnetism and gravity result from aetherial distortions, and the derivations assume those distortions are small. Once we get larger distortions, such as in neutron stars or black holes, the theory will need to be extended. It is possible that nuclear explosions could lead to a violation of the small distortion assumption, but I have not looked at that.

I really enjoyed your piece , and continue to wonder . Im off to the blocked universe & my double slid sunglasses. a reply to: delbertlarson

In my plant induced walks over the void Ive experienced the universe as fluid crystals. I believe that is how light bends … more on rails than waves when experienced . a reply to: delbertlarson

An update. Besides posting here I sent my paper out to perhaps a dozen or so people. I got no response at all from most. I did get four responses. A journal editor complimented it as being monumental. A highly respected engineer remarked that if true it is a far simpler underpinning for physics and that it is rather compelling, but given the many great minds who have formed the present standard models perhaps I was simply being delusional. A highly respected physicist mentioned several times it would never be published and offered critiques about Hubble telescope results and the missing analysis on neutron stars and black holes. And my son has been inching along with his review, finding a handful of typos so far.

All of those who commented help to some degree, as it is the silence that kills. My son's work is very valuable as he is slowly working through everything and finding typos. In my last draft I found over 1000, and judging by past similar efforts I estimated there are likely still 10's of typos remaining. The way many of the analyses were done was to copy from one section and then edit that copy for the new section, changing a subscripted Q to a subscripted T, or changing "expanded" to "compressed", or similar types of changes. That is because the analysis is very similar from one place to another, but each place has some differences in the specifics. Also, during the many drafts I sometimes had to flip a sign on the whole thing, and that of course might lead to places where one misses the correction here and there. It was and is all very tedious, but I believe it was important to work through each such contributing analysis. I believe the important pieces are all correct, but some subscripts or descriptive words might have still escaped correction. No fundamental change in an equation was found on my last review, so I believe the numbered equations are all correct, but I really do appreciate any improvements found by anyone. My son has found about one correction every eight pages or so, on par with expectations.

I didn't at first understand the critique about the Hubble results, but came to realize that the misunderstanding was over my new Equation for gravity in the case where one mass is much less than another. The important point there is that the equation should not be applied when two attracting masses are of approximately the same mass. If one carefully goes through the derivation it should be clear that it is the aetherial displacement that leads to terms proportional to 1/r and 1/r-cubed, and that there will be no such aetherial displacement equidistant between two equal masses. Hence, for equal masses you don't get the extra terms. What the work really shows is that there are two types of field-mass resulting from the quantum, tension, delta and gamma fields. One field-mass is repulsive and the other is attractive, and the theory tells us what forces to expect when a small mass is in a field predominantly determined by a much larger mass. The repulsive field-mass leads to perihelion advances, and the attractive field-mass leads to what is presently called "dark matter". I will try to make this point more clearly in the next draft.

As for neutron stars, in version one I did a quick calculation of the "effective mass" of a neutron star and found it was negative. (The effective mass includes the original mass of the object plus effects of its field-masses.) In the derivations it is always assumed that any deviation in size of an aetherial quantum would be small as compared to the size of the quantum itself, and all along I anticipated that a large enough mass might cause a violation of that condition. So when I saw the negative effective mass of a neutron star I just thought that the deviation of the quantum might now be large, and so I listed it as outside the scope of the paper. But the highly respected physicist said I could not avoid this topic, and it got me to thinking more.

I now realize there was a second reason that the "effective mass" of a neutron star can be calculated as negative, and that is because if we ignore the negative field-mass effect on aetherial displacement, then that negative mass can exceed the positive mass. And for version one I always ignored the negative field-mass effect on aetherial displacement, and it is perfectly good to do so in less extreme environments. But for the case of a neutron star, you can't ignore the negative field-mass, as it will lead to a mitigation of the aetherial displacement which is important to the physics there. So I am now at work on that, and hope to get an understanding of neutron stars in the coming weeks or months.

I am also hopeful that my understanding of neutron stars will directly lead to an understanding of what are now called "black holes". My theory does not have a singularity, and objects more massive than neutron stars should really just be more massive neutron stars with some additional compaction in their cores. The Fermi pressure (or degeneracy pressure) can continue to increase as each neutron is squeezed to a smaller confined space, and this can continue to offset growing pressure from additional mass. There is no magic condition wherein this will collapse to a singularity. Now, we must remain humble enough to admit that it might collapse to something besides a neutron, but it won't be a singularity in my theory. There will be no black holes.

So those are the updates on how the work is progressing. As for other matters, I have written a "science fiction" thread about what one could do in a future world wherein we control the aether, but I wish for the science to be fleshed out a bit more fully before I post the science fiction.

I would still like any comments from the physicists here. I hope some can take the time to read my work. I believe it to be of some importance, and your feedback is always appreciated.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: delbertlarson

Does Einstein's "theory of relativity" not provide a simpler explanation than the alleged existence of "aether"?

One that does not "require an absolute omnipresent medium for the motion of light."

And then there is the "Michelson–Morley experiment" which apparently failed to detect the existence of "luminiferous aether".

en.wikipedia.org...

They like to call it dark matter now... same thing, round and round we go.

Think of it as job security...

a reply to: delbertlarson

I had a look at your paper again. I forgot that it contains mathematics and physics formula's that go way over my head.

Though I am curious for your take on Ken Wheeler and well, this information below where he talks about the Aether.

UncoveringTheMissingSecretsOfMagnetism

Is your research similar?

a reply to: delbertlarson

Now, we must remain humble enough to admit that it might collapse to something besides a neutron, but it won't be a singularity in my theory. There will be no black holes.

Hi Delbert.

I also cannot account for a singularity black hole in my own model either. Although, i do have a singularity. And, it is of positive aspect only. Where, the negative aspect is a result of rotation of the positive repulsive energy at 1/2 of the rotation. The negative aspect being anti-positive and attractive. And, is easier to explain in quark terms as a coordinate system. Where, up and down quarks are positive. The up quark and down quark are rotated to their opposite coordinates and create new points which are negative and are the anti-up and anti-down quarks. Becoming dualistic. The complete rotation sees the up coordinate now containing an up quark and anti-down quark and the down coordinate a down quark and anti-up quark.

If you can remember the old video games. Asteroids in particular, The spaceship at the centre of the screen can be viewed as positive (electro) energy. It can travel from the centre point upwards (positive and repulsive) to disappear out of the top of the screen and, reappear from the bottom of the screen now still travelling upwards but, back towards the centre point (anti. Negative and attractive (magnetic)). As up quark, anti-up quark for example. Where rotation carried it from the up to down (top to bottom of screen) coordinates.

As always. I wish you all the best with your model.

originally posted by: DaRAGE
a reply to: delbertlarson

I am curious for your take on Ken Wheeler and well, this information below where he talks about the Aether.

UncoveringTheMissingSecretsOfMagnetism

Is your research similar?

I looked into the 236 page Ken Wheeler article. I took some notes as I went, and spent a couple hours with it. The upshot is that the Ken Wheeler work is vastly different from mine. As one critical difference is that after looking through 102 pages I didn't see Maxwell's Equations, nor Coulomb, nor Ampere, nor Biot-Savart equations. It is certainly OK to try different explanations for things, but with electromagnetism experiments so overwhelmingly in agreement with Maxwell, a paper on magnetism should discuss the status quo and explain how the new work is different, and how the new work still agrees with all the experimentally proven parts of the existing theory. (I didn't see equations for forces or for magnetic and electric fields in terms of the new work either, although I was skimming rapidly after a while.) Another difference is that Wheeler writes on page 31 that, "the Ether is the inertial plane". That would be quite different from both my view and the view of physics circa 1900, where the aether is a three dimensional solid. Wheeler also denies the existence of the electron, and that places the Wheeler work in an extreme fringe category. In contrast, some of the basic foundations of my work would have been considered mainstream in 1904 and I thoroughly account for the results of the status quo, while also highlighting the substantial differences from the status quo.

a reply to: blackcrowe

This applies to both your post and the work of Wheeler: Ideas are great, but one must eventually resolve them into mathematical expressions that are capable of calculating experimental results. It is through such calculations that mankind achieves useful ends.

Additionally, the equations developed must be both different than the status quo in some way (or it is just renaming things) and also be equally valid when compared to all experimental evidence. It is a high bar indeed, and I wish you luck in your efforts.

At present it is unclear to me how your rotations in some parameter space will lead to the needed equations, and how they lead to your conclusions regarding singularities.

Thanks a lot for commenting. It is very helpful to keep the discussion alive.

a reply to: delbertlarson

Thanks for your reply Delbert.

The equation i use is quaternionic. However, i have replaced the terms i/j/k for L/H/W (length, height, width) as they are the dimensions we're concerned with.

It relates to the 10 dimensions of the Poincare Groups 3+3+(3+1).



The following diagram is of Maxwell type equations explaining divergence as a vector. Not my own work. But, fits with the quaternion equation above.



I hope that helps.

a reply to: blackcrowe

Glad to see you started looking into group theory for your ideas. I haven't studied group theory much myself, as my approach is more old-school. (I model physical cubes of stuff and apply vector calculus. The cubes often are a subset of a field of stuff.) Since I am not expert in group theory, perhaps the equations in the picture you uploaded are correct, but one equation looks like it says "the square root of 3" is greater than 0 is greater than "the square root of two squared". Now, zero is not greater than "the square root of two squared", and the latter is a funny way to just say "two", so perhaps there is an i squared in there somewhere that I am missing, where i squared is minus one. And then to go on to say it is equal to (1 0 -1) seems to indicate some renormalization, of which I am not a fan. The minus sign in the -1 does seem to reinforce that perhaps an i is missing somewhere. Perhaps you can comment.

In my grad classes I always recoiled when there was a setting of c = hbar = 1. Once one got familiar with it, it was a new set of units that led to a shortening of equations. (These were named "natural units".) But I always liked knowing explicitly where such factors were. This way of doing physics got even more involved, with gamma five being a product of the first four gamma matrices times i, for instance. It makes the equations neat, clean and concise, which is a posiitve. But it lacks clarity for students and the uninitiated, as only those "who are in on it" can readily understand, once you've buried factors into new units and new notation. There was a lot of this in the advanced classes. I always wanted to break the matrices down and work it out the long way to gain a further understanding. But when you do that you destroy the "beauty and elegance of the theory". (Because, of course, it isn't really elegant at all. It is tremendously complex.)

Maybe your equation does something similar, or maybe it is just wrong. I really don't know. Is it a mistake? Or is it something from group theory that is correct but obfuscated? If it is correct, then someone has either incorporated an i into some sort of unit, or they've defined commonly used symbols such as the greater than sign (or the equals sign) to mean something else. The fact that it is hard for me to tell lets you know a lot about what I think about where physics went in the past decades.

a reply to: delbertlarson

Thanks again Delbert.

Yes, -1 is an imaginary number.

The point of my reply however was not to compare or compete with your model. But, to support your "no black holes" comment. And, if what i said is useful to you. Then you are more than welcome to use it as further evidence in support of your comment.

Time for an update. The past three months I have been working on an appendix to my paper that deals with white dwarfs, neutron stars, and what are presently called "black holes". That work has gone well, and I am checking things over now. Once the checking is done I will also add some typo corrections and some minor clarifying statements to the main paper and update version 2 to my website. I plan on a new thread once the update happens.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: delbertlarson

Yes, -1 is an imaginary number.

-1 is not an imaginary number. The square root of -1 is an imaginary number. Since this was off-topic for me I just let it lie until I got around to another update. But I thought it should be pointed out to clear up any confusion.

a reply to: delbertlarson

Very good!

Have you ever thought to use tensors to describe easier what you have done and maybe provide a shorter version of your work?

As I can't read at the moment the entire work can you briefly provide a summary for example on how Aetherian theory accounts for Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity. Does it predict the existence of Dark Energy or Dark Matter? Is it compatible with the Big Bang Model?

You probably know this but Dark Matter and Dark Energy are presumed to exist. It doesn't mean we have proven yet their existence. I am sure you have come across Galaxy Rotation Curves where Dark Matter can be made a prime candidate for the higher speeds observed at longer distances.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Einstein's general relativity is a mathematical theory of point-like events based on a four-dimensional, curved, space-time manifold. The Riemannian algebra and Einstein's associated tensors were crucial there. My aether model is a physical model of a continuous substance within a flat Euclidean three-dimensional space with an independent time, and for that, vector calculus field theory is preferred.

My model shows that a localized energy source (such as a mass) results in the displacement of the aether, with one component of the aether displacing away from the source and the other component displacing toward the source. These displacements affect the quantum and tension fields within the aether and also give rise to another field called the gamma field. The aether displacements also result in field energies different from the undisturbed values. The paper then shows how immersing a second localized energy source (another mass) within the displaced aether leads to Newtonian gravity as the second mass will achieve a lower energy state if it moves toward the first one. If you are only interested in gravity you can perhaps read just section D through section D.6 to see how Newtonian gravity is achieved. From there, the quantum, tension and gamma field-energies are equated to two masses. One of these field-masses leads to dark matter in a way that perfectly explains the orbital speeds of stars distant from galactic cores. The other field-mass perfectly explains the advances of the perihelions and it is highly relevant in dense objects. Please note that these field-masses arise from the energies of the fields needed for Newtonian gravity; they are not ad hoc additions, as the energies are already there. With a few simple proposals explaining multiple phenomena, the theory has an elegance of underlying physical simplicity.

The paper mentions briefly how dark energy could arise, but dark energy does not have the elegant and rigorous derivation that dark mass has, as it requires an extra ad hoc proposal of an aetherial boundary condition.

Present work on dense objects is relevant to the big bang model, and that relevance will be discussed in the appendix being added into the upcoming version.

General relativity is not a result of the theory. Instead the quantum luminiferous aether is a replacement for general relativity. My aether theory explains everything that is explained by GRT and also explains much more. For instance, Einstein accepts the Maxwell and Lorentz Force Equations as "nature's laws". The quantum luminiferous aether theory derives them, and it derives dark matter as well.

Thanks for commenting.