The Quantum Luminiferous Aether

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...

Michelson Morley was explained by the Lorentz Aether theory wherein moving objects shrunk in the dimension that was parallel to their motion through the aether. It was well known that the Lorentz Aether theory led to a conclusion that the speed of light would be measured to be the same in all reference frames, due to the length contraction of the moving measuring sticks and the time dilation of the moving clocks. Einstein simply started with that known fact, raised it to a postulate, ran the derivation backwards, and arrived at the Lorentz transformation equations. (That is why they are still named after Lorentz, not Einstein, even though special relativity arrives at the same transformations.)

In addition to abandoning the aether, Einstein also simply accepted Maxwell's Equations and the Lorentz Force Equation as "nature's laws" which held good in all frames of reference. In the Quantum Luminiferous Aether, Maxwell's Equations and the Lorentz Force Equation are derived from simple physical postulates for the aether. And so when it comes to simplicity, Einstein's acceptance of "nature's laws" is a strike against, because both Maxwell's Equations and the Lorentz Force Equation bring in additional complexity to our overall physics.

But I still maintain that simplicity should not be the determining factor of which theory we accept. I believe the four tests mentioned in the OPs should be the determining factor.

a reply to: delbertlarson

I'm sorry, you obviously seem to believe your rehash of the theory, but my money's still on Einstein and Hawking. No proof of the existence of aether of any kind has ever been detected.
Frankly the concept is, to me, laden with so many conflicting attributes that it's unworkable.

a reply to: delbertlarson

You are mostly right, but it is not called aether, it is called vacuum of space now a days, a low density of particles, predominantly a plasma of hydrogen and helium, as well as electromagnetic radiation, magnetic fields, neutrinos, dust, and cosmic rays.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: delbertlarson

I'm sorry, you obviously seem to believe your rehash of the theory, but my money's still on Einstein and Hawking. No proof of the existence of aether of any kind has ever been detected.
Frankly the concept is, to me, laden with so many conflicting attributes that it's unworkable.

Thanks for the comments. If you are willing to take the time, please dig through the paper and its math. It can be great for someone who is critical to look to find weaknesses. If you find one I can work to address it. I don't believe there are any conflicting attributes, but perhaps you will find something that presents difficulty. If so I will work to overcome it. A check of the math would also be very welcome.

I've been at this a very long time, and believe it is quite an accomplishment just in the arena of deriving Maxwell's Equations from an aetherial underpinning. Prior to Einstein a generation of physicists worked toward that goal without success. I believe that goal is fully achieved as one part of the paper, but again, please have a critical look and let me know if you find anything problematic.

a reply to: delbertlarson

Hi there, you caught my eye when you mentioned the pushing out and pulling in part... You know there are theories that our reality, is expanding since the big bang, and it might snap right back at some point, well i believe we are experiencing this in the micro scale all the time, its not just the big bang and snap, its a continuous convulsion that makes up what we are experiencing. It happens in the smallest of scales.

Our brains and sensory organs are equipped for observing this in real time (whatever that means) but evolutionary pressure has somehow blocked us from observing this because it is not vital for an organism to experience that, it does not bring food to the table or keep you warm at night.

Sounds like a reverse engineered four electrode spark plug and its electronic ignition system.

a reply to: delbertlarson

I'm the wrong person to ask to check maths, as I am severely out of practice. However, I am aware of the contradictions in the luminiferous aether. I will quote Lord Kelvin, who put it with great effect, even if it was before the concept had been exploded by experimentation:

Now what is the luminiferous ether? it is matter prodigiously less dense than air - millions and millions and millions of times less dense than air. We can form some sort of idea of its limitations. We believe that it is a real thing, with great rigidity in comparison with its density: it may be made to vibrate 400 million million times per second; and yet to be of such density as not to produce the slightest resistance to any body going through it.

In other words it's supposed to be the least dense but most rigid substance in the universe.
As I said, my money's on Einstein.

a reply to: delbertlarson

Good to see you making progress

S&F

I really don't think anyone here has actually read your paper yet..
I will give it a go, but since its quite exhaustive it may be a while before I'm able to give any reasonable input.
However the thought that everything is vibration, resonates with me.

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...

plus.maths.org...

maybe there is no aether needed?

it's relative to the observer?

Let's look at some examples of the iteration of x2 + c when c is a complex number: if c=i, then the orbit of 0 under x2 + i is given by

x0 = 0

x1 = 02 + i = i

x2 = i2 + i = -1 + i

x3 = (-1+i)2 + i = -i

x4 = (-i)2 + i = -1 + i

x5 = (-1+i)2 + i = -i

x6 = (-i)2 + i = -1+i

originally posted by: JoacimK
I really don't think anyone here has actually read your paper yet..
I will give it a go, but since its quite exhaustive it may be a while before I'm able to give any reasonable input.
However the thought that everything is vibration, resonates with me.

It would take a fair amount of time to study the paper, so you are almost certainly correct on your first statement. After you get into, just let me know if you find any issues. Thanks.

originally posted by: delbertlarson
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.

I love it. I have been looking into this subject matter recently, but having a look at your paper, well maths is straight over my head.

a reply to: delbertlarson

It's all very speculative delbertlarson, and probably a bit above my head in this day of age.

I had lecturers at college and uni that frowned upon "aether theory" buddy.

As has been pointed out the "Michelson–Morley experiment" back in 1887 pretty much suggested that the "aether" did not exist.

Then there are the subsequent experiments that have been performed, none of which to my knowledge have confirmed the existence of said "aether".

See what comes next is crap like "Electric Universe theory" for a start.

Interesting all the same but "aether" remains in the realms of pseudoscience until an experiment can be devised that proves otherwise.

a reply to: delbertlarson

I like what you put forth, it is intriguing and deserves merit. I fully believe in the aether but more along the lines of a conscious aether on the idea that our universe or multiverse is a conscious entity in which we all inhabit and are fractalizations of the one infinite creator. We are these fractals that help the universe have experience per say, to understand itself. We then learn the lessons of love and ascend though each density on an octave scale eventually becoming energy and/or become planets, stars and then galaxies and eventually become our own universe when that harmonic scale reaches past a certain point. Energy, frequency, and vibration are the keys.

Our established science does not recognize that the universe is conscious and that's why they are.stuck, for lack of a better word. It is to keep us ignorant.

Our alternative sciences and secret classified information in special access programs and unacknowledged special access programs recognize this as fact and use this to their advantage. When one has an understanding that literally everything is a conscious entity and our thoughts and actions have a huge effect on our reality, it then opens up your life.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Aerogel is likely on the right track of creating a "luminiferous ether" being a tangible non theoretical. If experiments with other elements along the same sort of lab to make aerogel continue they'll likely make some... phosphorus and liquid helium maybe?

a reply to: Crowfoot

Yes, but we can't detect it. That's the stumbling block that killed this theory as a serious scientific concept for the past century. No matter how 'elegant' a theory it might seem to some, it fails the reality test. No-one can detect it and Einstein's theories turned out to be the solution to the question of how light behaves in the way that it does. Relativity is provable. The aether is not. Every experiment to try and find it has been a complete failure.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg


ah ha... slipping into the doorway of metaphysics & alchemy.... maybe even the spiritual realms the native americans walked in

a reply to: delbertlarson

I was literally telling my kids and mom today about the ether. Good to see I cannot spell.
It was in reference to the beginning of physics. Sort of a history lesson that I understand in a cloudy way.

The aether, guess I'll spell it that way now, was searched for by the likes of Newton. How can light travel on a wave if there is nothing to wave on? Does a fish know it is in water? By this logic, there is no true vacuum in space.
And the search for the aether was to find the substrate on which the universe hangs. To decipher this substrate on which light waves, you could better put together a theory of what the universe is.

Then Newton declared light a particle.

Then the double slit experiment proved light was also a wave.

Then Einstein.

But, going back to the double slit experiment, light behaves as a particle or wave based on if someone is observing. This is thought to be proof that consciousness is the foundation of our universe. This is also supposed proof that we are in a simulation.

Without doing any math, I came to the conclusion that we there is an aether as previous scientists proposed in the 19th century. I also understand why some think this is proof we live in a computer simulation. BUT, I think an equally valid, actually much more valid, argument is that we are organic simulations. Another way of saying this is we are simulations in the mind of God.

So I didn't work out any mathematics. I find that to be cumbersome, a skill I do not possess, and possibly even misleading.

Great OP! I obviously don't know sht. But I find it interesting that I was talking about the ether I learned of 30 plus years ago just today. And then you post this article on the "Above Russian Secret website" that used to have a plethora of such topics. Gives me hope this site will return to its roots.

a reply to: FingerMan

By definition, "a vacuum is devoid of matter."

Space is almost an absolute vacuum, but not a complete vacuum.

It's just rather empty because most of the matter that used to be out there has fallen together and become the asteroids, planets, moons, and stars down to gravity.

Light apparently does travel as a wave through a vacuum, but it does not require a medium because in empty space the wave does not dissipate no matter how far it travels, down to the fact the wave is not interacting with anything else including "Aether".