The Aether Reality

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by primalfractal
Ok, this is my solution that needs aether to resolve. The theory is about light wave packets curving through space in response to the device emitting them.

Modern mainstream science says that the wave portion of a photon wave packet duality is purely a mathematical abstraction with no real physical existence.

Aether theories, including my own, say the wave portion of the wave packet polar duality is real and exists in another dimension physically underlying our own, the same place where the electrons disappear to.

I guess I don't understand your light wave packets curving through space. Can you enlarge on that a bit?

As far as the other, I tend to use whatever view seems best in the circumstance. For example, if I'm working on radio, I don't generally use particle type viewpoints. Hell, I don't for light, either, unless there's some reason to do it as particles. I see it as a preference - sort of like solving problems in frequency or time domain. Some things solve better one way, some the other.

And what's with disappearing electrons? Haven't seen that one.

With my theory there is no reason for a "mathematical" wave to move sideways or radially through space or respond to the movement of the device, only a wave that existed physically would exhibit such qualities and show such effects.

I think it's obvious I don't understand your thought experiment here.

Move sideways?

So, if I can do the experiment and prove the theory I can show the Aether is real.

The experiment I have designed to show it involves spinning a fluorescent molecule with lasers at over 6 billion revolutions per second.

How do you see this as proving 'aether'? Do you have math that shows what the "aether=true" results should be, vs "aether=false"? Is the thing falsifiable at all?

I've read your OP a few times, still not clearly seeing your issue that requires aether. Not being contrary, just don't see it.

You have said you dont understand the op, thats fine. Bit hard for you to make any judgement though really. I will try and explain.

This theory operates at the distance of one wave packet and while one packet is being emitted, say around 5m. Imagine a lightsaber being ignited from base to end, while being moved through the air. The sideways movement is the curving vector potetial of the theory.

A photon connected to a "maths" wave would shoot out in the initial trajectory, leaving time and space gaps between wave packet emissions, with a constantly operating device, which is impossible because wavepackets are joined end to end and emitted constantly- no gaps, by a laser etc.

The curve would only occur if the wave part of a photon wave packet exists physically somewhere.

A "maths" just wont move a photon sideways through space.

reply to post by john_bmth


Cant answer the op eh. Typical. Making comments about something you dont understand.

What was that about the op, nothing again, wow what an arguement, blistering man.

Quantum Physics experts on the subject, from the worlds biggest physics forum and many more from elsewhere, are not argueing with the theory, but you are because........

Please address the op.

Originally posted by primalfractal

You have said you dont understand the op, thats fine. Bit hard for you to make any judgement though really. I will try and explain.

Not judging YOU, just that you don't need aether, if you mean luminiferous aether, to explain EM.

This theory operates at the distance of one wave packet and while one packet is being emitted, say around 5m. Imagine a lightsaber being ignited from base to end, while being moved through the air. The sideways movement is the curving vector potetial of the theory.

Hm. Light sabers?

oooook. So, are you puzzled by the behavior caused by the motion of the saber, or its extension?

A "maths" just wont move a photon sideways through space.

I actually don't think any are.

Originally posted by primalfractal
reply to post by john_bmth

 

Cant answer the op eh. Typical. Making comments about something you dont understand.

What was that about the op, nothing again, wow what an arguement.. blistering man.

To be frank, your exposition in the OP is a bit vague. I still don't understand what's bothering you, and when I ask, I get light sabers.

Try stating it a bit more simply. Assume I am a gnat's ass away from a physics doctorate. I understand the math parts. I understand optics. I don't understand what's bothering you in this particular circumstance, and I'm not interested in reading a 10000 post "vortex math" thread to ferret it out.

Pitch it to me, intact.

Are you bothered by moving objects emitting light? If so, what aspect of it bothers you?

Originally posted by primalfractal

A potential method to do the experiment would be to spin a fluorescent molecule with lasers.

How expensive would it be to get this done?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by primalfractal

A potential method to do the experiment would be to spin a fluorescent molecule with lasers.

How expensive would it be to get this done?

And does the math say it would be conclusive one way or the other? And do others agree?

reply to post by Mary Rose


No idea really, anyone?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by primalfractal

A potential method to do the experiment would be to spin a fluorescent molecule with lasers.

How expensive would it be to get this done?

Originally posted by primalfractal
reply to post by john_bmth

 

Cant answer the op eh. Typical. Making comments about something you dont understand.

Cant answer my theory, eh? Typical. Making comments about something you dont understand.

See? This is why shifting the burden of proof for baseless speculation is stupid. My argument has as much credibility and basis in reality than yours. Prove my theory wrong, or maybe you don't understand my theory? This essentially your argument, after all. It's putting the horse before the cart.

reply to post by kamebard

Originally posted by kamebard
It becomes a lot more complicated when you start to consider all the other discrete packets in this reality (energy, spin states, wave functions).

Here is an interesting thought experiment. We know that h is smallest unit of length in this universe. Given any two points A and B, they can be no closer together than h. What is keeping them from getting closer? What is in between the A and B (in the Aether as it were)? What if we took two tachyons and brought them together? Could we squeeze them closer together than h?

Taking this a bit further, let us assume we have a wave function defined in two regions A and B. What happens at the boundary. Let's assume I shrink down smaller than h and can observe what is happening. I turn to my left and I see the wave function on side A. I turn to my right and see the wave function on side B. What do I see in between those points?

Other implications of the discreetness of space-time

Imagine a vacuum space going on to infinity in all directions (but constrained to our physical laws). You have two laser beams running parallel to each other. Go stand out anywhere along those lines and they will always be the same distance apart (because we are in a vacuum we don't have to worry about gravity or other E/M distortions). Bring the two beams so that they are parallel, but are separated by the distance h (assuming these beams are one plank length wide). Again, go out to infinity and they will be still 1h apart.

1) Cross the beams such that when you move 1h away from the origin (crossing point) the beams are 1h apart from each other.
2) Is there any configuration of the beams which would allow you to be greater than 1h away from the origin and still have the beams only 1h apart? If you could, would this mean that the beams were no longer straight but jagged?
3) Go out along the line to a point where the beams are separated by a distance of the width of the sun. Put a star there and return to the origin. What would you see? Would you be able to see the sun, or because of a (angle of incidence) resolution issue would the sun not be visible?
4) What does this mean when thinking about the formula for brightness and intensity? Because we know that light has a finite energy and finite wavelength (now discreet) could there come a point that this light becomes no longer resolvable at a greater distance?
5) Does this not cap the wavelength of light at 1/h as a maximal? If we somehow were able to force a longer wavelength of light, what would this do to the frequency?

We know that we can get space time dilation due to a change in velocity. Could we also get a space time dilation due to time and distance independently? Could the Hubble effect be explained by this dilation?

I can only resolve things so big. The further away from me you are, the smaller to me you appear. At some point you get so far away that your h becomes apparently compressed in my field of view. However, because in reality h can not be compressed, I experience this "squishiness" of you as a velocity of you moving away from me even though you and I are stationary WRT each other. How would we test this? Get two known light sources with know frequencies. Move them sufficiently apart from each other but renaming stationary to a neutral background space. The receptor on each end would test for a shift in frequency. I imagine that this would not be too hard to set up even on earth.

Great idea for an experiment, interesting. Worth doing certainly.

In relation to other types of wave packets I also have an idea about cymatically braiding gravity waves into vortex's, creating anti gravity, amongst other things, based on the tree of life pattern.

Thanks for the excellent contributions to this thread.

reply to post by john_bmth


Ok, put yours on physicsforum.com and see if it goes in the hoax bin, if it does, it is a hoax. Thats a good test of your "theory" by professional quantum physicists that your " theory" hasn't any wont possibly pass, that my theory has.

That and making any sense.

Your ridiculous arguement makes absolutely no sense. You did what with your cat ?

I have a pet parrot that can mimic me, its called, what was your name again?

reply to post by primalfractal


No, a good test would be validating or invalidating your hypothesis with experimental data before claiming you have the answer and challenging people to refute it. I'm assuming you have done this already, no? Forgive me for not taking a Vortex Math advocate seriously.

Edit: where on earth did I mention cats?

Double edit: if you want to live and die by physicsforums.com's decision why don't you go ahead and post your theory with this opening paragraph and see where it ends up?

Ancient esoteric knowledge says the female, negative polarity aethric element underlies this 3D one and that it is based on the flower of life/tree of life. It is the energy or prana/chi that mystics throughout the ages report seeing, the paisley of the 60’s, Celtic knot work, sacred geometry etc.

The ancient Greeks associated the dodecahedron with the firth Element Aether. Their reason was that it most resembled the celestial sphere, which they regrded as containing this parent Element. This, of course, is wrong, as are their reasons for believing that the particles of the four physical Elements have the shapes of the first four Platonic solids.

The five Platonic solids has now been shown to embody in its geometry the root structure of the rank-8, exceptional Lie group E8 and its four exceptional subgroups:
smphillips.8m.com...
The first four Platonic solids have been shown to embody the number 1680, which was recorded a century ago as the number of circularly polarized oscillations in each whorl of the particle claimed by the Theosophists Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater to be, according to their remote-viewing ability, the basic particle making up atoms:
smphillips.8m.com...
This particle has been shown to be the subquark state of the E8xE8 heterotic superstring. In what amounts to a tour de force integrating discoveries in superstring theory and esoteric/mystical traditions, the paranormally described structure of this particle has been shown to be represented in sacred geometries such as the Tree of Life and the Sri Yantra, as well as the Platonic solids and the disdyakis triacontahedron. See here:
smphillips.8m.com...
The problem in discussing the concept of the aether in a modern context is that discussion too often confuses "Aether" with "etheric matter". According to esoteric Hinduism, there are seven sattvas, or forms of the primordial Cosmic Substance (Mulaprakriti). Aether is Akasha sattva, the fifth cosmic sattva. It is the substance of the fifth plane of consciousness (the Atmic plane in Theosophy). So it is simply does not make sense to regard Aether as a source of physical matter. Semantic confusion has arisen because Victorian scientists often used the word "Aether" in the context of the "luminiferous Aether as the medium for light waves. They reduced its meaning to a narrow, physical context. Any attempt to re-write physics in terms of an Aether is totally misconceived because it would be based upon the physicists' narrow (and wrong) concept of Aether, whereas the true meaning of this word is far more subtle and metaphysical, having NO connection to physics per se.
The website above proves conclusively that the sacred geometries of various mystical traditions encode a mathematical paradigm that describes TWO kinds of physical matter:
1. superstrings of ordinary matter whose forces have a symmetry described by E8;
2. superstrings of shadow matter whose forces have a symmetry described by ANOTHER Lie group E8.

In other words, physical matter consists of E8xE8 heterotic superstrings - one of the five types of superstrings. The mathematical evidence presented at this website for this statement is OVERWHELMING. It is no longer a speculation or theory (the kind of thing you often see on New Age websites) but a rigorously established, mathematical fact. So I suggest you look at this before wasting your time in pursuing a misconceived project of returning to materialistic Victorian physics because you erroneously thought the Aether spoken about by ancient philosophers refers to the source of physical matter. It doesn't. Instead, Aether is the mother of four kinds of matter, the first of which is physical. You need to understand that a Law of Correspondence exists at all levels of reality. To understand the physics of physical matter, do not confuse the absolute concept (which is metaphysical, referring to superphysical reality) with its counterpart in the physical universe, which is what physicists study.

reply to post by john_bmth


I am not claiming I have "the answer", just that I could possibly have if the experiment is done.


So you admit you are prejudiced against Vortex Math believers of whom you have no idea if I am one. Do you hate other minorities too? Am I a "witch" or something

reply to post by primalfractal


I think I get it and I'm not sure I want to.....I will go back and re-read though just to be clear.

Those pretty little picture boxes discribe various humans and their complexity just nicely, and indeed I think all things measurable would exhibit such a picture, if only you had the tech to measure it.

What it says is that the very end or sum or complete vision of the thing was absolutely present at the first else it would not form a picture at all.

Like fate only much more concrete, I hope you are not responsible for killing the dream weaver of infinite possiblities....

Please tell me what you think of my theory of your theory, most wouldn't.

Can you do that with circular mandalas that differ from top to bottom?

reply to post by micpsi

"The website above proves conclusively that the sacred geometries of various mystical traditions encode a mathematical paradigm that describes TWO kinds of physical matter:
1. superstrings of ordinary matter whose forces have a symmetry described by E8;
2. superstrings of shadow matter whose forces have a symmetry described by ANOTHER Lie group E8. "

Is #2 the same as what myself and science is describing as aether, is it the same Lie group I mentioned earlier? As you said this is the common scientific belief, and it is more the idea of this wave dimension, and the experiments result, than its name that is important. I was previously calling it dimension-n like Bohm. Hard for me not to be Victorian being from there, here in Australia lol.

Great info, the deeper pattern continues into more dimensions, closer to the truth and further from physics or maths.

You could be right about the name "aether" but science could also keep this and rename the "the fifth cosmic sattva", it being the scientific and prehaps also metaphysical norm in the west. Other systems in other traditions have completely different names for the various dimensions.

Also, I guess "aether" just an old English translation for the Indian word meaning"the fifth cosmic sattva", not what the Indians actually called it in Sanskrit.

reply to post by AussieAmandaC


Thanks for replying to my thread with such a deep level interpretation and interesting question.

I believe that part of the "dream weaver of infinite possiblities" is our own higher selves lucidly dreaming this life (the quantum theory came from a dream) and rather than destroying it/ourselves this is hopefully helping show us the way home.

I think a lot of the negative comments you get arise from the use of the word aether alone. It´s a centuries old concept, claimed to be proven and disproven time and again, and generally considered to be non-existent by mainstraim scientists. Maybe you should come up with an alternative phrase and avoid attracting debunkers-by-default to your threads by using these conservative, controversial terms.

On the matter at hand, I think the wave aspect of photons, and all other particles, is real, i.e. physical and that wave-particle duality is an invented scenario to explain phenomona that they cannot explain otherwise, with current understanding. I believe there´s an underlying, undetectable "field" ("aether") that is the vehicle for all wave functions. This field is one; it is impossible to divide into smaller parts and therefore consists of nothing but itself. So instead of a "smallest building block" we have an infinitely big building block of which we observe agitations. This may explain why quantum entanglement is possible, since any agitation on a point in the field is the same as agitation of the whole field.

Excuse my non-scientific wording, I´m not a physicist, just expressing the stuff I think about and how I feel the universe functions. I have read a lot about quantum physics, string theories and what not, and my main conclusion is that "the experts" have as much as an idea about what´s going on as I do. Maybe we just have to conclude that humanity is incapable right now, and never will be, to observe, measure or predict the true underlying physics, and that we can only perceive the effects and never the causes.

Originally posted by RationalDespair
Maybe you should come up with an alternative phrase and avoid attracting debunkers-by-default to your threads by using these conservative, controversial terms.

My understanding is that "zero point energy" (ZPE) is the equivalent term, but that it is an unnecessary substitute which may have been brought about by the physics community trying to save face for their refusal to recognize that the official story, that Michelson - Morley proved that there is no aether, is wrong.

In a Coast to Coast interview recorded in 2004, posted in 12 parts on YouTube, I heard Eugene Mallove say that the Michelson - Morley experiment proved only that there is no electromagnetic aether, and that what we have is an aether that is a "mass-free plenum."

What do you mean by "curving vector potential"? Are you talking about the A field? Can you write it down mathematically?