The Quantum Luminiferous Aether Version Two. No Black Holes.

Hi OP, your thread is very interesting Just a question that will help me understand you better, when you say "Quantum", what are you specifically referring to? I ask you this question to know where you are standing, because, as you probably know, there is nothing in nature to which we can refer as being Quantum. It's also a very "mediatized" word, that Sci-Fi writers love to use because it sounds cool, but the world simply means quantity, lol. So, when you use Quantum (Quantity) before the concept of the Luminiferous aether, what are you actually "counting"?....

a reply to: ltrz2025

The model hypothesizes that the aether consists of two substances. Each substance is itself made up of a large number of individual entities. These individual entities are the smallest amount of each substance that can be isolated; the substances cannot be further subdivided. An individual quantum is then modeled as a cube, and tension and quantum-pressure forces are analyzed on the faces of that cube. The quantum-pressure comes from an analysis of the cube's internal quantum-energy via standard Schrodinger analysis and then virtual displacements are used to find the force (and pressure) on each cube face.

From that basis, tension and quantum force fields are found. Two additional fields are motivated and derived (the delta and gamma fields). And after that, motion of the quantum (the small cube) is evaluated to see what work is done by the quantum against the fields, or by those fields against the quantum. The fields have an energy, and hence a mass. And from there all of electromagnetism and gravity results.

a reply to: delbertlarson

I see friend, thanks for the answer. Ok, so to summarize: quantum is not a thing, but a conceptualized (not existing in nature) "unit of measure", right? Just like time. This has been one of my differences with "mainstream physics", which tries to achieve the absolute by using human units of measure. Maybe that's not the way to go.

I mostly agree with much of what you said throughout your thread, however, understanding that I do differentiate that I'm less "materialistic", in the sense of actually trying to find something palpable, measurable ("quantable"), either particle or substance. I wouldn't go that way if I was you, but interested to see where you go whatsoever.

You brought electromagnetism now, picking up from there and thinking of an object that does exist in nature: a magnet. What makes something magnetic? Where is that substance/particle that gives a magnet its magnetic properties? You say that the fields have an energy..., just like with the magnet, where does this energy / magnetic attributes comes from?...

a reply to: ltrz2025
To answer your question I will reference my document. You can get a copy by googling "quantum luminiferous aether", clicking on the larsonism result, and then clicking to download the PDF. It is free and there are no adds or signups or anything like that. Here goes:

Magnetic fields are B = del X A, which is the vector cross product of the del operator with the vector potential. (See Eq. 124 of my online paper. Here A is the vector potential.) A is proportional to the transverse part of the aetherial displacement, P_T (See Eq. 114.) The P_T equation of motion is caused by moving detached-aether (moving charge) and by tension (Take the transverse part of Eq. 104). In my model, it is the vector and scalar potentials that are the physical things, and from there it is well known how the electric and magnetic fields follow. (The derivation from potentials to fields is presented in section C.11.)

So physically, for static magnetic fields, currents (whether moving charges or spinning charges) move P_T, A is simply a quantity proportional to P_T, and then the magnetic field B is del X A. When you have a P_T you are also forcing a displacement against the tension, and that is where the magnetic field energy comes from. Mine is a physical model and it has physical answers to these questions, which is one of many improvements (in my opinion) that my model has over the status quo.

a reply to: delbertlarson

Hmm. Well, I see that you are very invested in promoting "your" model, I was thinking more of having an exchange here. No issue. Then, ok I see that you are describing the magnetic scalar potential, we are back at "quantities". But we are still not defining anything, just theorizing things we could "count".

As I understand it, a vector and scalar potentials are not physical things (or things at all whatsoever) but again, they are conceptualized quantities, units of measure, functions. Don't you think that assuming these conceptualization as actual physical things is working against your model?

I'm sure you are right in your description within your own math model, no question. I'm just questioning the postulates on which you are working on, to understand it beyond its intrinsic description. Telling you fully respectfully, even though I see that you are able to describe the functions, I don't think you have still defined the actual variables.

Don't worry, no one in mainstream physics, particularly those working in quantum, have done it yet. I was just curious if you had. I'm always on the look for that. I do congratulate you to bring the luminiferous aether to the equation though, that is brave of you, and I think that it makes you closer to the truth than anyone else working from the quantum perspective. Although, I wouldn't go the way you are going.

Just to show you what I meant regarding the lack of definition, this is Richard Feynman (The Quantum Man) "trying" to answer/define what I asked you about magnetism. Very funny

youtu.be...

Good luck with your model!

PS: sorry for my limited expressivity, English is like my 5th language.

a reply to: ltrz2025

Hmm. Well, I see that you are very invested in promoting "your" model, I was thinking more of having an exchange here. No issue.

Not so much promoting as wishing to have a discussion about my model. I think it is a significant advance. I seek to let others know about it, gain validation of it if others study it and find no flaws, or learn from others if any flaws are found. If flaws are found I will see if they can be corrected.

Then, ok I see that you are describing the magnetic scalar potential, we are back at "quantities". But we are still not defining anything, just theorizing things we could "count". As I understand it, a vector and scalar potentials are not physical things (or things at all whatsoever) but again, they are conceptualized quantities, units of measure, functions.

In the model, P is the vector displacement that the positive-aether moves from its ambient position. The vector potential is proportional to the transverse component of P. (See Eq. 114.) The gradient of the scalar potential is proportional to the longitudinal component of P. (See Eqs. 56 and 58.) And so the electromagnetic potentials are related to the physical motion of a physical aether.

Don't you think that assuming these conceptualization as actual physical things is working against your model?

No, they are working with my model. My model is a physical model. I start with a physical idea for a quantum of aether and then mathematically model the physical processes that occur when that quantum is stretched or displaced while in the presence of force fields. Various things then get physical interpretations, such as just described for the vector potential and the gradient of the scalar potential.

Telling you fully respectfully, even though I see that you are able to describe the functions, I don't think you have still defined the actual variables.

I believe all variables are defined within the paper. Section B.1, for instance, defines P as well as a few other vectors. I tried to be careful to define everything and present all the math. That is why the paper is so long.

Don't worry, no one in mainstream physics, particularly those working in quantum, have done it yet. I was just curious if you had. I'm always on the look for that. I do congratulate you to bring the luminiferous aether to the equation though, that is brave of you, and I think that it makes you closer to the truth than anyone else working from the quantum perspective. Although, I wouldn't go the way you are going. Just to show you what I meant regarding the lack of definition, this is Richard Feynman, "trying" to answer/define, what I asked you about magnetism. Very funny

Thanks for the support. I watched the Feynman video. He took seven minutes to say he really couldn't explain the force between magnets in terms of something commoners could understand. Electromagnetic forces, including those between magnets, are described by the Lorentz Force Equation. In my model that force results from a physical modeling, but I must admit it isn't simple. The full derivation is in sections C.13 through C.17. Also note that the Lorentz Force Equation depends upon the electric and magnetic fields, and they arise from Maxwell's Equations. So the whole enterprise is rather complex. Of course, complexity is nothing more than a lot of simple pieces. What my work shows is how the simple pieces each come from a simple physical cause. Then, all of the simple pieces are put together to arrive at the complicated equations of physics that presently have no physical underpinning. And in some cases (the field-masses, dealing with dense objects) additional effects are shown to exist that the present physics status quo does not have.

a reply to: delbertlarson

Fully understood. I don't agree with several things you claim, but I understand where you are coming from and, from your perspective, you are not wrong. Good luck in your quest!

Regarding Richard Feynman, to take 7 very cringe minutes to just say "I can't explain it to you with normal concepts", sounds like a very long answer. I think is that he realized that he couldn't define magnetism (not how it seems to work, but it's actual source), and his mind went into dissonance. At the end, he just said that he couldn't.

a reply to: delbertlarson

My entire work hinges on a postulate of an aether that is made of two materials, at least one of which may not be prevalent outside of the aether itself.

So you are looking for two materials that form an aether, One material maybe prevalent outside this aether. Now it sounds like you are trying to get into quantum tunneling, instantaneous transportation and faster than light communications. Is this the kind of thing you hope to achieve?

I have skimmed through further in your theory, I am not in any position to check your math. So with your work so far, have you found anything that stands out between the attached and detached aether? On the surface it looks like the detached in an inversion of the attached. Is there any other difference between these two aethers that you can define?

a reply to: kwakakev

I was hoping to get a review by someone who could easily follow the math and could check it over, and while it is mostly algebra and rather trivial integrations, the sheer volume of it would be a lot of work, so perhaps no one here will do that. My son and daughter (who are taking Ph.D and undergraduate physics courses) have checked some of it, but only the first 40 pages or so. (I've checked numerous times of course, but sometimes one is blind to their own errors, so I'd really like additional reviews.)

To answer you, note that the attached aether consists of two infinite seas of charge, one positive and one negative and the quanta are all fermions. The detached aether occurs when enough energy is put into the attached aether to free small bits (a quantum) of it from its attachment. The charge and spin from the quantum could go into an electron-positron pair, or a proton-antiproton pair, or any other singly charged particle-antiparticle pair. I believe it is likely that the attached-aether quanta each have a charge magnitude equal to that of the electron. Then, both the electron and the proton contain one unit of detached-aether, as detached-aether is the origin of charge. However, the mass of the electron and the proton are different from each other, and since the mass of the negative-attached-aether equals the mass of the positive-attached-aether, that means that the attached-aether can't be made up of electrons and protons.

The mass of the attached-aether quanta could be anything. I was hoping the theory would determine it, but the theory still has a few free parameters and the mass is not yet known. As an example I don't think is correct, let's say it is 100 times greater than the proton mass. When enough energy is put into the aether to create an electron-positron pair, a virtual aether-anti_aether pair forms and it then decays quickly to the electron-positron pair. A similar situation occurs if there is enough energy for a proton-antiproton pair to be formed. During these decays into the final pairs, the mass of the end pair is reduced from the original pair, but it still contains the charge and spin from the original virtual aether-anti_aether pair. The mass reduction comes by adding and/or removing some extra pieces. Since the original production was virtual, those extra pieces may not be observed experimentally.

The pair-production process is somewhat similar to what we see in high energy colliders in some cases. Consider the case of muon pairs produced in an accelerator collision, which can subsequently decay into electrons by emitting two neutrinos. The neutrinos carry away some energy, allowing the electron mass to be less than that of the muon. However, if the process starts with a virtual muon pair production, the two neutrinos would not be seen as there would not be enough energy to form them for real. (The topic of virtual particles is familiar to physicists, but might be a bit hard to follow at first. The bottom line is that quantum uncertainty allows things to happen for a short time in violation of conservation rules, but the end state must obey the conservation rules. Essentially you can have a muon/anti-muon pair form even though there isn't enough energy for it, that pair decays quickly to an electron/positron pair and neutrinos, and then the neutrinos annihilate each other because there is only enough energy to make the electrons. Many other examples are possible. Others on this site might be able to add more details and a greater level of accuracy from what I've written, but that's the gist of it.)

So what happens when attached aether is kicked out and becomes detached is that some other stuff is added or subtracted to become the prevalent particles we see.

I hope this helps to clarify the situation, although I understand it is a bit tricky.

a reply to: delbertlarson

To double check your algorithms, then developing some sort of computer code will help churn through the numbers and find if / where things need some work. If you don't know where to start here, maybe Matlab is one to check out? Something like C++ or Java will also work fine. It does read like a lot of your calculations are already defined into various functions.

It does sound like this unattached aether is more about what happens in the subatomic quantum realm. I am a novice in this field and don't really know what is going on here. I have seen some reports on how these quantum parts can decay through a chain of various components so I get the basic principle. As for the actual mechanics I am still scratching my head.

The mass of the attached-aether quanta could be anything. I was hoping the theory would determine it, but the theory still has a few free parameters and the mass is not yet known. As an example I don't think is correct, let's say it is 100 times greater than the proton mass.

This does make sense when trying to define the specific light frequency of a specific molecule. There is something in the weak nuclear force that combines to determine the specific color of the material.

So what happens when attached aether is kicked out and becomes detached is that some other stuff is added or subtracted to become the prevalent particles we see. I hope this helps to clarify the situation, although I understand it is a bit tricky.

It is getting a bit clearer where you are trying to go. It does sound like a tricky place to make sense of.

I am up to page 110. The one thing that stuck out was how tension is one variable / dimension that does not cross this attached / detached place you are looking for.

As for one proposition to define this separation between the attached / detached place. Maybe sub atomic and greater atomic?

In terms of getting the resources you need, I will need $20-$50K to give it the serious time it needs to go through each variable and code it up. Even with that money it won't be complete, but hopefully have enough to see if it adds up or don't. So far it looks like a serious contender, you have looked at that spherical angle.

A better option is to give it to a younger IT student mind, just something about math, IT and kids. A lot of universities are looking for special projects. It will either break them or help set them on a path of fame and fortune, most will be broken but it is the few that make it worth it. I have already been broken a few times so I don;t care about that. It is a big endeviour and looking at 3-12 months to see if what you say is even viable on a logic level.

At this time, aiming for a java library with functions like C.3 – The Detached-Aether-Immersion Force is one way to share this knowledge and verify its validity. As for coming from a physic background, Matlab might be better if you can get into it. Perhaps a duel prong approach if the support is there.

a reply to: kwakakev

As an accelerator physicist it was hard to support my family and I didn't want to move all around the world just to find a job. Plus, since I had unpopular views of the status quo in science, it added to the difficulties. So to earn my pay I am a java developer. If you do read further you will see that there are several codes written to evaluate things later on. I also have a code to do the math when numbers are involved. While there is a lot of algebra and simple integrals, I don't think any code will really help to check it. The issue is that yeah, I could have made an algebra error in the thousand or so expressions, but also I could make a data entry error into any code just as easily, maybe more-so. The vast majority of the algebra is quite easy to do, it is just tedious. But so would be checking the data entry of a code. Typos are another thing, which are innocuous, but I'd like to correct them. I do have two college students undertaking a review already, and they have found a few typos and grammar corrections through the first 40 pages that are already corrected.

I am up to page 110. The one thing that stuck out was how tension is one variable / dimension that does not cross this attached / detached place you are looking for.

Tension is only supported within a solid, and therefore only possible within the attached-aether. The detached stuff just freely moves around within that solid, and since it is not attached, there won't be a direct tension force on any detached cube. There are indirect effects on the detached which you should have seen in the Lorentz Force Equation derivation.

As for one proposition to define this separation between the attached / detached place. Maybe sub atomic and greater atomic?

The substances themselves are the same. As one example, the detached could be a free electron while the attached would be a block of electrons all stuck together. In the attached, each electron would be bound to the ones next to it. The detached electrons would move about freely. As we've discussed, I don't think the aether is made of electrons, but this is just to try and convey the idea.

a reply to: delbertlarson

The substances themselves are the same.

Sure the substance is, but the scale is not. It comes across as trying to view biology and chemistry as you take this attached aether we all know and love and got, there is muon, positron stuff going on.

If you can crack open an antimatter moment of time, who knows where that may lead? I might take me a few days to get back to you.

a reply to: delbertlarson

Got through your paper, with the bits I could understand.

Maxwell’s Equations and the Lorentz Force Equation are invariant in form under a Lorentz Transformation. In frames moving with respect to the aether, meter sticks shrink, clocks slow down, and the electromagnetic fields transform in just the right way so that the equations retain their form.

I did not know space also dilates with time as things speed up. It makes sense, also puts another boundary to the Universe a lot closer than one an infinite distance away. Just takes infinite energy to get there when any mass is involved.

And then the theory that gravitational wave move at the speed of light. Looks like the Higgs Boson is adding up as mass is caused by the particles drag on the aether.

In looking for the big bucks, you are going to need some practical application. Your work with particle accelerators does help when trying to get a clearer picture on some of the darker things out there. There is a lot of energy all wrapped up in everything and seeing how matter handles under stress, maybe there is some subtle, deeper signal packed up in the photon and this detached space that can provide a complementary, but different view on things?

Would setting up an array of detectors sensitive enough to pick up on the detached events find anything new? A kinds of negative mass detector? Or is this principle already partly at work with different types of photodetectors already in action?

A raytracing algorithm that can account for the gravitational bending of light and find a more realistic map of our galaxy. Is there enough gravitational distortion to use objects like the Moon and Jupiter as they pass through the light of more distant starts to validate and tune in this theory?

You do have some ideas where your theory can go, any that might be more realistic to achieve? A step closer to some of the more resource intensive endeavors? Any business case that might have a chance it you had just a little bit more?

Your theory on black holes looks more reasonable than just calling it a singularity. There are some suspects of where a black might be from some gravitational lensing effects. As for what exactly this object is and how it works? As for how this Big Bang might of kicked off you are getting into a little more detail.

When it takes 250 variables to get close to what the orbit of our planets are, we still have a long way to go to to develop an accurate model of how it all works.

a reply to: kwakakev

The next step in aether science should be for other scientists to study the paper to either validate or invalidate it. As a reviewer, I always looked for four things: 1) no math error; 2) no logic error; 3) explains all known experiments; 4) proposes something new. If other scientists could scrutinize it under those criteria and find that it passes those tests, then we move on to the next step, which is to build upon the theory and work toward tests and applications.

Items 1 and 2 from above should be fairly straight forward for any physicist to check. But it is time consuming. On my last check through the main document it took me six weeks, although I do have two outside jobs, so if I could focus maybe it would take only a couple weeks. But I am the AUTHOR. For another physicist to get up to speed it may take quite a while longer. So there is a time investment to do that.

And the sticking point is item 3. The physics-industrial-complex has assembled a truly gargantuan amount of experimental data over decades, ranging from recordings of events in particle accelerators to observational data from telescopes. Almost all of this enormous data presently is consistent with Einstein's General Relativity Theory (GRT), Quantum Mechanics (QM), and the Standard Model (SM). I don't believe any one person is expert on all of the data. There are known problems, such as: the incompatibility of QM with GRT, the 90 free parameters of the SM, the cosmological constant being off by 80 orders of magnitude, the need for renormalization (setting an infinite integral to a constant), and the singularity of black holes. And while those problems are indeed significant, they don't stop physicists from mathematically modeling all of the decades of data assembled by an army of scientists and engineers: except for the issues mentioned, the data all agrees with GRT, QM and the SM. The problem with any of us is we don't know what we don't know, and so it would be hard for any individual reviewer to know it all. This, coupled with the length of the paper, will make finding a reviewer difficult. In my past, I've had reviews that only say (paraphrasing): "this paper is to be rejected, If true, it would change everything we know about physics."

While it may be difficult to get the needed validation from theoretical physicists, if it would come then the next step (item 4) would be to start formulating and doing tests. The first test might be to see if we can observe time dilation of an atomic clock immersed in high power RF radiation. Such radiation should move the aether back and forth over the clock and we might be able to see something, although the effect might be quite small; perhaps too small to observe. (It depends on how fast RF moves the aether, and the theory doesn't specify the magnitude.) For the vast majority of other present day tests, my theory agrees with the present theory, however. This is because I derive the equations the present theory uses in many cases. (Those derivations are new though, and I view the derivation as quite an accomplishment. The derivation of Maxwell's equations was sought for decades by the best physicists of the era and they came up lacking; I've derived Maxwell's equations plus the Lorentz Force Equation and Newtonian gravity in the applicable limit.)

And the real goal is eventual practical application, as you state. I've got a ten-page paper I will soon publish on my website about some aetherial speculations that will discuss the dream applications that may eventually be possible, and plan a separate thread here on ATS for that. It should go up before too long. One reason for the delay is the time our discussion is taking, but I think this discussion is valuable also, as it is offering a chance to try to explain things to a non-expert. Our discussion may be useful for others if there are any others reading it.

I had been hoping that some of the physicists here would comment in some detail, to either validate or offer reasons for invalidation. I used to have some really good discussions here with some that are quite knowledgeable. But I really haven't gotten much in that regard yet. Ever since I posted version one over a year ago it's been mostly crickets.

a reply to: delbertlarson

The first test might be to see if we can observe time dilation of an atomic clock immersed in high power RF radiation. Such radiation should move the aether back and forth over the clock and we might be able to see something, although the effect might be quite small

To get to those last couple of degrees off Absolute Zero, it is how it was done. Still might be a small fraction off. For a cost effective proof of concept it sounds reasonable. As a method to preserve bodies on the way to repair, a small step in a long direction. What this kind of rattle can do to a biological system has a lot of grave concerns.

ATS has usually had a small physics front, the UFO tech dragged a few in. Seams to have gotten quieter since covid on this angle. Already plenty of other conspiracies out there. The physics headbangers do make a good break from the others. Been a more medical and political crew for a while.

At least one thing ATS gave you, your sales pitch sucks. Most just went WTF???. In looking at the logic of your start:

Quantum; Yes.
Luminiferous; A little, you do take in account photons and light, but also include other things like mass.
Aether; Yes, it is an old term with a lot of fuzzy contentions.

As one pitch, 'The Detached Quantum Realm'?

In going through your stuff, it was this idea about the attached / detached space than went hmmm... This starts to describe how this sub atomic world starts to interact with the atomic world. It does sound like these subatomic parts do extend outside the atom.

As one interpretation of this negative mass, it is the combination of forces outside the axis of movement. The stronger the pitch, the harder the force.

For the general math, what is it that you done with Maxwell, Lorenz and Newton that is different?

As for your no black hole theory, could also do with some work as well on the sales side. You are not denying forces exist strong enough to bend or absorb light, perhaps a 'Dark Grey Hole' theory as you are trying to put some light on how these events emerge. It is still pretty dark inside, as for getting through the event horizon it's one angle.

The Detached Quantum Aether might work. I know that is what you are use too and saves a lot of work.

a reply to: kwakakev

For the general math, what is it that you done with Maxwell, Lorenz and Newton that is different?

For Maxwell, Lorentz and Newton the math ends up the same except for gravity which now has two field masses. But beyond the math, I have derived the equations from a simple underlying physical model. Prior to my work the equations have just been written down without any physical underpinning. They just work. Maxwell himself tried and failed to derive his equations from a physical model, as did others. Relativity largely put an end to such efforts. If we are to move beyond relativity, what was once important (physical models) will be important again. I've succeeded in basing the Maxwell, Lorentz Force, and Newtonian gravity equations on a physical model. It is the physical model that then leads to the proposed test mentioned earlier. So it is different.

a reply to: delbertlarson

Maxwell's equations, or Maxwell–Heaviside equations, are a set of coupled partial differential equations that, together with the Lorentz force law, form the foundation of classical electromagnetism, classical optics, and electric circuits.

Maxwell's Equation Wikipedia Link

Looks like these two have been linked for a while. Bringing in Newton has some good, solid relationships. On the relativity issues, the Lorenz Transformation covers it well.

How you are looking between the subatomic and astronomical scale with some good results is promising. One direction that can help verify the math and more easily share this model is to build up a Java Class around it. It has been a while and a bit rusty on Java, If available I would have a look with what I have seen so far. There was a brief mention of some coding done later in the paper, not enough to gauge any progress on this front.

From your position there are Intellectual Property issues, do you go open source or propriety code? There are also building a reputation issue as well. If you are going to get a patent, you need something a bit more concise with the 4 hours of adjudication provided to the average patient application.

Coming from a physics background, there will be more resources available going open source, others can more easily check, hack and rip apart your code. You will also lose some control of it. Bill Gates was great at was software patents, it is why Microsoft dominated the marketplace. Now its vaccine patents.

Maybe some kind of open source / patient mix? Let the people use and abuse the code any way they want. If someone starts making millions off it, just ask for a small piece of the pie.