The Quantum Luminiferous Aether

A. The Quantum Luminiferous Aether is Now Online.
Version 1 of my paper on the Quantum Luminiferous Aether is now online. Go to my site, click the aether tab, and then click on the link below the heading "2022 - The Quantum Luminiferous Aether" to access the pdf. You can find my website either by clicking on the allowed link at the end of this post and changing the "h t t p s" to "h t t p", or, search "Larson Aether" in google. A google search for "quantum luminferous aether" will also work, but you may have to go to the second or third page of results to find it.

The Quantum Luminiferous Aether assumes an aether exists that has two components: one positive and one negative. Each component is a solid quantized fermion field under tension. Quantum pressure pushes out, and tension pulls in, resulting in an equilibrium size for each quantum. It is assumed that the positive-aether density must equal the negative-aether density. The solid nature means that each quantum is attached to neighboring quanta in the nominal state.

B. Electrodynamics.

Energy can free some of the quanta, producing "detached-aether". Due to its fermionic nature and the equal density assumption, a free quantum will push out attached background aether of like kind, and pull in attached aether of unlike kind. This leads to Poisson's Equation. The pushing and pulling force from the detached-aether leads to what is called the delta-force.

The tension leads to a restorative force if the attached-aether is displaced.

Flow of the detached-aether through the attached-aether leads to a flow force.

Distorting a quantum by expansion or compression changes its quantum energy and tension.

When you move a quantum against the fields of the quantum-force, tension and delta-force, work is done that changes the field energies.

From the above physical attributes, Maxwell's Equations and the Lorentz force Equation are derived. (See the full paper for details.)

C. Gravitation.

Next it is postulated that the tension and quantum forces are reduced when energy (including mass) is present within a quantum. The resulting pushing and pulling from that effect leads to what is called the gamma-force. The gamma-force has two components, one which reduces the tension and the other which reduces the quantum pressure. E=mc^2 gets us to m=E/c^2 and we can assign gravitational-masses to the tension, quantum and gamma field energies. This leads to the following equation for two interacting masses in the case wherein one mass is much less than the other:

F = K1/r + K2/r^2 + K3/r^3.

In the above equation, K1 and K3 are very small compared to K2 at star-to-planet distances. The K2 term is (of course) Newtonian gravity. Numerical integration shows that the above equation leads to the observed "anomalous" perihelion advances, with K3 playing an important role. At large distances, K1 will dominate and we get mv^2/r = K1/r (for small v/c) which tells us that stellar orbits far from galactic centers will have v independent of r. The aetherial field-mass that leads to K1 and K3 is what is known as dark matter. (Again, see the full paper for details.)

Light bending around the sun and the slowing of light as it passes the sun (the Shapiro effect) led to a couple of additional physical assignments for already needed entities. Light bending led to limits on the flow force law associated with flowing energy, and the Shapiro effect led to an assignment of inertial-mass that includes the gravitational potential energy within the quanta. (Again, see the full paper for details.)

D. Commentary.

There are no tensors employed in the analysis, just vector calculus, ordinary calculus and a lot of algebra. Also please note that while it is quite long, part of the reason for the length is that it includes enough of the intermediate algebraic steps to help the reader always follow from one step to the next should they wish to verify all of the math. A future shorter work may be prepared for submission to a journal.

The Quantum Luminiferous Aether is a return to a physical model. The paper is a replacement for General Relativity, as it arrives at an understanding for all classical tests of General Relativity. And the paper also arrives at an understanding for electromagnetism. Gravitation and electromagnetism are seen to have the same fundamental basis in a physical aether. The paper also explains phenomena associated with what are now called dark matter and dark energy. The paper presents a theory of gravity that is consistent with quantum mechanics. Further advantages over present thinking will be discussed next.

E. Overview of The Presently Prevailing Dogma.
If you wish to learn more about the quantum luminiferous aether, please don't be intimidated by what is presently called theoretical physics, especially if you feel you just don't understand it. You are probably trying to understand it as a physical theory. It isn't a physical theory. Einstein, with his Riemannian algebra of covariant and contra-variant four-vectors, and the Standard Model, with its 150+ terms and 90 or so free parameters, are primarily mathematical theories. Additional parameters and algebraic expressions were added whenever something new came along. You can think of it as a giant curve-fitting enterprise with Nobel prizes awarded as it grows. It is never said that this is what it is, because to do so would lessen its aura and mystique, but that is essentially all that it really is.

I do not wish to claim here that I can state with certainty what the presently-prevailing-dogma is. I don't even know that an agreed-upon presently-prevailing-dogma exists. Rather, it is like a misty, foggy swamp. Each traveler and inhabitant likely has a different view. I did take the classes in grad school. Classes that introduced the Pauli Spinnors and the Dirac, Proca, Weil and Klein Gordon Equations. Classes that went over general relativity, including The Levi-Civita symbol and the Kronecker delta. A class covering the gamma matrices. The math, while complicated, was easy enough to manipulate to give results, but in none of the aforementioned was any physical underlying model given. As a physicist who prior to that point always thought in terms of an underlying physical model involving substances, I came to the conclusion that I was simply in a math class learning new symbolic manipulations that yes, did agree with experimental measurements. But it had no tie to any underlying physical model, unlike the physics of my prior understanding.

My understanding of the prevailing dogmatic interpretation is that what non-physicists would call physical objects are instead considered to be manifestations of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) excitations. For instance, let us consider atoms. A non-physicist would consider atoms to be small balls, with smaller balls (electrons) orbiting other small balls (the nuclei). The small balls would be thought of as physical entities, likely continuous on their insides, but perhaps with varying internal densities. In contrast, present dogma is that atoms consist of quark QFT excitations that occupy a spatial region on the order of femtometers to form a nucleus, while electron QFT excitations occupy a spatial region on the order of angstroms. Electron excitations are attracted to the quark excitations by means of quantum electrodynamics (QED). QED is that subset of QFT which involves excitation of photon fields. The QED attraction between the nucleus and electrons results in what we call atoms, as the fields are held together by the QED attraction. The quarks within the nucleus are attracted to each other through a gluon quantum field. All interactions between these fields are point-like, thereby allowing the manifest covariance required by relativity. And while the excitations are field excitations occupying finite volumes, there are no particles in the classical sense of small materialistic balls.

It is in the insistence of relativistic covariance, and its associated point-like interactions, that the prevailing theory departs from a purely physical theory. The quantum field excitation waveforms are not fully physical, since we can't assign them internally to a physical entity: they are relative, and only point-like physical events can be well defined in relativity, since all finite intervals are open to relativistic interpretations. The math works well enough to satisfy many, but if you try to follow it as physics you will run into trouble.

In the case of General Relativity Theory (GRT), Einstein introduces tensors associated with every point. If you want details, see Einstein's work, and while there notice the importance that the underlying curvature has. It all gets complex and hard to visualize or follow physically, but again the math works. Note the title of section B (in the English translation of the collected papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 6, The Berlin Years, page 156) "Mathematical Aids to the Formulation of Generally Covariant Equations". Einstein writes "We now turn to this purely mathematical task". (Page 157.) GRT is a mathematical theory.

So yes, you may be confused about the present-day dogma if you are trying to understand it in terms of a physical theory. But please do not let that confusion get in your way of looking into the Quantum Luminiferous Aether. For the Quantum Luminiferous Aether, it is assumed that fundamental entities ultimately do have a finite size and that they are internally continuous physical bodies. In the Quantum Luminiferous Aether, space itself is considered to be simple and Euclidean. Space is just the stage upon which events play out. Time is what tells us the order of when those events occur. There is no curvature of space, and no unified space-time. Space and time are (obviously) two different things; they are the things you likely already thought they were prior to being introduced to relativity. The physics of the Quantum Luminiferous Aether returns us to something that does not come from alterations and curvature of space and time; the physics results from interactions within the aether. The aether is a physical substance. Everything is understandable in terms of a true physical model once more. You needn't worry about tensors - none are employed. It is all straight-forward vector calculus of fields.

And while the Quantum Luminiferous Aether does conflict with relativity and standard dogma, that doesn't make it wrong. (Although it does present a rather high hurdle for achieving reviewed publication.) It has been known for a very long time that the Lorentz Aether Theory is mathematically indistinguishable from Special Relativity. (Both the Lorentz Aether Theory and Special Relativity use the same Lorentz Equations.) What has been needed is a replacement for General Relativity, and that is what The Quantum Luminiferous Aether provides.

Since the Quantum Luminiferous Aether is a physical model, it returns us to a physics of real physical entities. The aetherial quantum is a real physical thing. Since freed quanta are identified as electric charge, electric charge is also a real physical thing. Since light is a wave on the aether, light is a real physical wave. All of your physical reasoning applies once more. Understanding nature is again possible.

F. Problems with Presently Prevailing Theory.The present theory of the standard model has big problems. Renormalization simply sweeps some infinities under the rug. (This objection was agreed to by all of the founders of QED.) The standard model presently predicts a Cosmological Constant that differs from experiment by about 80 orders of magnitude. The search for dark matter turns up nothing, and yet present gravitational observations require it. Relativity is fundamentally incompatible with quantum mechanics. But the whole enterprise is all accepted because nothing better has come along. Now something has. That something is The Quantum Luminiferous Aether.

Decades ago I thought the standard model was like the cycles and epicycles of the old celestial mechanics. But at least the old celestial mechanics was a physical model. In that sense, the old celestial mechanics was superior to the standard model. And with modern physics abandoning purely physical models for more mathematical ones, it becomes even harder to to get an alternative physical model considered. The abandonment of physical models is presently considered as an enormous triumph involving a breakthrough in thinking; going back to physical models is usually considered retrograde.

Hume, Mach and Einstein argued that only our observations can be trusted, and that an underlying physical model was unneeded. As far as that goes, it is a valid point. But on the other hand, if there are real underlying physical entities that do exist, we will make more progress if we assume such entities exist and try to model them. That latter approach was the one that prevailed before Einstein, and it is the approach taken in The Quantum Luminiferous Aether.

The root cause of all of the difficulty in modern physics today is relativity. Relativity is a pointlike theory in four space. Beyond the question of whether space could actually turn into time, points naturally have infinities associated with them. So relativity has problems on several fronts.

Sure, if we have x, y, z and t we can treat them equally from a mathematical standpoint. However, time and space are clearly different things. I tell my kids that a javelin thrower doesn't grab a stick, which then turns partly into a clock while flying, only to become a stick again when it lands. Still, we can play along with that one. The math does reveal a symmetry in treating space and time variables similarly. Yet while we play along, who can actual understand time turning into space?

But the issue of infinities associated with points cannot be dealt with well at all. If a pointlike object has mass, its mass density is infinite. Ditto for charge. And with 1/r potentials, the associated energies go to infinity. The pointlike aspect of relativity is a real problem.

And on a third front it is relativity alone that precludes a simple and obvious understanding of quantum mechanics. We can easily understand quantum mechanics by assuming that when momentum is transferred, a finite wave function instantaneously collapses to a size determined by the momentum transferred. The probability of where it collapses is given by the square of the wave function. Simple. No deep questions. But if we embrace relativity, this simple explanation is not allowed, since simultaneity becomes relative, and "instantaneous" has no well-defined meaning. Repeating for emphasis, it is relativity alone that precludes a simple and obvious understanding of quantum mechanics.

So let's just set relativity aside. Then we can understand quantum mechanics. There is already an old theory that keeps time and space separate - the Lorentz Aether Theory. The transformation equations of the Lorentz Aether Theory are identical to those of special relativity - they are the Lorentz transformation equations. And the Lorentz force law is applied the same way in both theories. But then we have the problem with the perihelion advance, along with the other classic tests of General Relativity that need a new footing consistent with the Lorentz Aether Theory. The Quantum Luminiferous Aether is the new footing needed. And The Quantum Luminiferous Aether does much more. It unifies gravity and electromagnetism under one physical theory, the dark matter mystery is solved, there are no infinities cause by point-like particles, and again, the theory is completely compatible with quantum mechanics.

G. Politics.
Politics can play a dominant role in any human endeavor. Opinions on any subject can and should be influenced by the thoughts of others. However, in the present political environment of physical theory, any alternative to relativity is usually rejected immediately. This rejection is typically an important time saver, because typically any alternative is simply wrong. And there are many kooky and demonstrably incorrect theories.

During my decades serving as a reviewer for Physics Essays I looked for four requirements when reviewing new theories: 1) the work must contain no logical error; 2) the work must contain no mathematical error; 3) the work must account for all presently known experimental results; and 4) the theory must be testably different from prior theory. The first two requirements listed above would occasionally trip up authors, but the more common problems are the final two. Often, any new theory runs afoul of some already known experimental result. Also often, an author might just be putting forward some series of ideas that don't really do anything new, and no testable difference is proposed. (They are essentially just renaming things.)

I believe The Quantum Luminiferous Aether meets all four of the requirements just mentioned. There is a prediction to test it - it may be possible to isolate and move a portion of the aether and experimentally observe that we have done so. On the other three, I believe the work is sound. However, getting a thorough review is difficult. I myself took six weeks to get through my last full checking; it is a lot of work to check all the math.

H. Let's Discuss.
At this point, I will delay any discussion of the possible practical ramifications of the theory. While a test is mentioned above and described in the main paper, it only scratches the surface on what might be possible. I've already started another thread to discuss ramifications, and it will be what I hope is some fun sci-fi for everyone to think about. But for now I hope to focus on the validity of the theoretical derivations.

What I seek now is careful review and serious commentary from the knowledgeable and open minded. Perhaps my work can be improved. If it is in need of improvement, either a mathematical or logical flaw should be found, or an experiment counter to the analysis should be given. Or perhaps things could be phrased better or typos eliminated. Sometimes my phrasing does not convey what I wish it to, and only when others read and respond is it clear that better wording is needed. (And I believe I haven't yet caught all the typos, since my last proof read unearthed many. However none changed any fundamental equation, so they really were just typos.) Lastly, if it is substantially correct, it would benefit from the validations of others. Perhaps then the tests will be funded and done.

The reason version one appears near the title is I expect there will be a version two once suggestions and comments come in. Indeed, an initial skim-reader has already pointed out some possible improvements, now mentioned on my website. The known issues were not enough yet to cut a whole new draft, however.

At this point, I believe that an aetherial substance exists, and that relativity, both special and general, should be set aside. Doing so brings us back to simple physical ideas. A physical basis for Maxwell's Equations and the Lorentz Force Equation is found. Charge is free, detached aether. Physical currents are flowing detached aether. Light is a transverse wave upon the aether. Dark matter is the mass of the fields that result from aetherial distortion. Quantum mechanics can be clearly understood. We have no infinities associated with points. There is no cosmological constant problem. Time is separate from space. And physics returns to a physical footing.

I look forward to any comments you may have.

What does this mean in layman terms?

a reply to: delbertlarson

You can find my website either by clicking on the allowed link at the end of this post and changing the "h t t p s" to "h t t p", or, search "Larson Aether" in google.

I'm not finding the link anywhere in your writings, nor the name of your website. Am I overlooking the obvious?

a reply to: lostbook

The proposal is that there is a physical substance occupying all of space, that when understood, yields the equations for electricity, magnetism and gravity. If the proposal of a physical substance is correct, we may be able to isolate it and control things that we have not yet controlled. As mentioned in the original posts, a second thread is envisioned that will expand upon what practical benefits are possible. For this thread, the focus is on the fundamental physics, which unfortunately has become a field that requires years of education to understand. I have tried above to make it more understandable, but I may have missed that mark.

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: delbertlarson

You can find my website either by clicking on the allowed link at the end of this post and changing the "h t t p s" to "h t t p", or, search "Larson Aether" in google.

I'm not finding the link anywhere in your writings, nor the name of your website. Am I overlooking the obvious?

I got flagged as spam on an earlier post for posting a link to my site, but I will try here. The link to the site is:

larsonism.com...

Once you click on the above link and navigate to my site, the link to the pdf is near the top of the page.

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: delbertlarson

You can find my website either by clicking on the allowed link at the end of this post and changing the "h t t p s" to "h t t p", or, search "Larson Aether" in google.

I'm not finding the link anywhere in your writings, nor the name of your website. Am I overlooking the obvious?

i too cant find any 'allowed hyper-link' at the end of this post like you claimed in OP

a reply to: St Udio

In his sig, below each of his posts.
Just like the yoobetoobe link under all of your posts, in your sig.

a reply to: delbertlarson

Is this an aether theory?

a reply to: delbertlarson
How would this theory reconcile the concept of black holes?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: delbertlarson

Is this an aether theory?

Yes.

originally posted by: Irikash
a reply to: delbertlarson
How would this theory reconcile the concept of black holes?

There is a brief discussion on pages 161 and 162 concerning black holes. As mentioned there, black holes are outside the scope of the present paper. The present paper considers small deviations from the nominal state of the aetherial quantum, and in the case of black holes that small deviation assumption breaks down. It is a point of interesting future research to consider what happens under such conditions.

However, for the present paper, we find that the small deviation assumption works excellently to deal with Maxwell's Equations, the Lorentz Force Equation, the four classical tests of General Relativity, and dark matter.

a reply to: delbertlarson

All too deep for me but I'm curious and ask if you have heard of Theoria Apophasis and what you think of his conception of the aether.

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: delbertlarson

All too deep for me but I'm curious and ask if you have heard of Theoria Apophasis and what you think of his conception of the aether.

The OP might not have, but I have. And he's nuttier than a tree full of squirrels.

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...

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...

Quite correct. The Michelson-Morley experiment was widely predicted to confirm the existence of aether. To huge surprise it did not. It's been repeated over the past hundred years using more and more sensitive equipment - and aether continues to utterly elude detection. It either is so mysteriously undetectable that absolutely no-one can detect it or (the current consensus) it does not exist. My money's on the latter.