• [deleted]

  • Post #2

Hi Jason,

nicely written, easy to read essay and I really like your various diagrams.

I'm afraid I disagree with your conclusion that everything exists because of the aether medium. I think we have the appearance of existing things requiring sensory data and its transmission through a medium of some kind but that the source objects are independently existing and changing. That doesn't detract from the fact that you have done a good job of presenting your point of view.

By the way,

You wrote (* emphasis added by me): "Does it seem strange that particles can *believe* like waves? Well, it depends what people teach you about particles. In classical mechanics, a professor will draw a Cartesian coordinate system on the chalkboard, and then add a bunch of dots which represent particles. Now does it seem strange that particles can behave like waves?..." Sorry for spotting it but it jumped out at me like a badly concealed subliminal message, though I think its really just a typo.

Hope you get lots of readers and good feedback. Good luck.

    Hi Georgina,

    Yes, that was a typo. It should have been "behave". You are a keen observer of detail. Thank you.

    I thought of you when I conceived of the idea. You and others have favored a universe in which source objects exist independent of their image. There is something philosophically pleasing about that. I believe that scientific progress is held back by the fear of letting go of a limiting paradigm. In a way, I am suggesting that nothing is real, it's all a trick of light of the aether medium. At first, the idea terrified me. To tell you the truth, I had to trust in ... to be able to let go of solid ground. I had to let go of the idea that objects are physically real. It's all just a trick of light of the aether. And it's OK.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #4

    Yes Jason, its a fine thought till you hit the ground : )

    I'm only going half way.

    OK yes, virtual photons and electrical charges do make the ground very hard. But the ground is made of molecules made of atoms made of protons/neutrons/electrons made of quantum particles. Quantum particles are described by wave-functions. Why would we need wave functions if they weren't a phenomenon of nature. All I did was insert an ontological component called an aether wave. Wave-functions describe aether waves. And that hard ground that breaks our fall is just a bunch of aether waves.

    Hi Jason,

    My view on Ether

    Arguments on ether may begin with carryover of Pre-Newtonian concept of space as extension of matter. Cartesian physics considered everything extended to be corporeal, thus rejecting the idea of empty space. Observation of interference and diffraction of light made some theoretician to relate light with sound. In parallel to this, conservation of energy led to unify kinetic energy, heat, light and sound to be collectively and inter-convertibly called energy.

    As sound can not travel without a medium, it was argued by some theoreticians that a medium is required for light to travel. However, light travels through space devoid of any matter. For space to act as a medium for propagation of light a host of properties shall be assigned to space. Considering the fact the value of these properties are unreasonable and sound does not propagate through space, it was a dead concept at the origin it-self. So ether as an all prevailing medium concept was dead at birth. But as usual, in human nature, we prefer not to be negative in our conversations. This makes different thought processes co-exist in a given period of time. The ether concept continued to exist for some time. The argument in favour of ether was a possibility of providing it a unique characteristic of being at absolute rest. (Though, absolute rest was not defined clearly). In terms of Newtonian frame of reference, it was seen as a universal reference frame that assigns each object a value in each of three dimensions of space representing rate of change of position. This association ether with absolute rest was turned down by Michelson-Morley experiment. This was as big an effort as recent discovery of Higgs-Bosons. The proposed defining characteristic of ether at absolute rest was negated by observations by in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley. So ether as a concept similar to a medium that is essential for sound waves died as a result of Michelson-Morley experiment.

    During the time interval between Newton (& Galileo) to Einstein, science was in formative state. From flat earth, to universe with sun as center to doing away with any preferential location or reference was completed in this period. This purified concept of space from all the baggage it carried due to limitations of human intuition and observations.

    In PicoPhysics, we define realities of Knergy and Space as host realities for two opposite concepts. Knergy of Konservation and space is antidote to Konservation. The unary law 'Space contains Knergy' describes the interaction between the two.

    Five Dimensions of universe

    In PicoPhysics we can establish only three dimensions of space. So space has only three dimensions. There is no fourth or fifth dimension of space. Let us consider what a dimension means. Dimension is one of the observable aspects of reality. The universe includes both Space and Knergy. While Space has 3-Dimensions, Knergy has 2-Dimensions. This gives the universe its five dimensions.

    Science also deals with degrees of freedoms in relation of dimensions. Though universe has five dimensions, the degree of freedom is less than four. The dimension of Time is maps conformal to space dimension in drift direction. The dimension of energy is less than one, since it does not allow for negative values. Thus degrees of freedom are at best four for universe.

    Thanks and Best Regards,

    Vijay Gupta

      • [deleted]

      • Post #7

      Hi Vijay,

      It is my view that Michelson-Morley, Newton and others completely misunderstood the aether medium. It's really not surprising, after all they didn't know about quantum mechanics or relativity.

      "For space to act as a medium for propagation of light a host of properties shall be assigned to space. "

      That is the usefulness of it. The aether includes permittivity, permeability, c, and h, the physics constants, as characteristics.

      The aether doesn't have to be anything complicated. In fact it is very simple. It has to satisfy the postulates of SR. So this is the idea I came up with. Calculate all of the wavelength-frequency pairs that satisfy

      [math]c = \lambda f[/math]

      and you have you aether medium. These waves behave like a wave-function for the quantum vacuum and for flat space-time.

      The progression of time is caused by the frequencies of aether waves. The existence of distance is caused by the wavelengths of the aether medium. Space and time are a continuum made of 3D wave-fronts of aether waves that obey

      [math]c = \lambda f[/math]

      It is really that simple.

      Photons are just excitations of aether waves. Without photons/EM radiation, all you have is the quantum vacuum.

      Gravity and equivalent acceleration causes time dilation, gravitational time dilation. When light illuminates curved space-time, the aether medium of a gravity field, it redshifts or blueshifts the light. Acceleration is coupled with redshift/blueshift/frequency shift. If the physics community ever decides it wants to build opto-electronic acceleration field generators, all you do is generate, repeatedly, an EM frequency shift or linear frequency chirp of the form,

      [math]f(t) = \frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}t f_0[/math],

      where

      [math]\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}[/math]

      is as large as possible. Then refine your method. This will reveal a whole new area of phenomena permitted by nature. Propulsion is one obvious application. Experiments will teach how to construct the math.

      I wanted to come up with a gravity drive/acceleration field generator by connecting quantum mechanics and special relativity together in some very simple way that could be experimentally verified. Instead of going for a mathematical model, I went with an intuitive model based upon what I thought was the simplest building block of nature. In my estimation, the building blocks are waves that, first and foremost, support the characteristics of light. The speed of light, c, keeps showing up in physics equations in QM, SR and GR. If the ontological building blocks of the laws of physics were LEGO, then the simplest ontological component would be one Lego brick. I think that the simplest building block of our laws of physics is a wave, described as a quantum wave, that when energized, it becomes a photon.

      I think that wave-functions can become more complicated than nature really intended. So I will say that wave-functions describe waves of the aether medium, but that sometimes we over-complicate our description of aether waves.

      Aether waves are an ontological phenomena of nature. Everything is made of these waves. Aether waves are the complete set of waves that obey

      [math]c = \lambda f[/math].

      This assures that everything that is made of these waves is compliant to the postulates of special relativity.

      The whole reason for this paper was to identify an ontological cause for gravity. An aether medium made of waves gives you a threads out of which the fabric of space-time is woven. Distance between two points in space-time is made of all of the wavelengths of the set of waves. Distance is made of wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. Aether waves are a set of frequency/wavelength pairs. So distance in flat space-time is just the wavelengths of that set of waves. When a photon goes by, it is just an excitation of these aether waves.

      What is the progression of time? We define one second with an atomic clock that is 9.1 billion periods of a Cesium atom radiation emission. Nature has a whole spectrum of frequencies with which to produce the progression of time.

      How does nature produce gravity? It's a curvature of space-time. But space-time is made of waves, right? Gravitational redshift is the illumination of the curvature of space-time, along the radial axis of a gravitating body. That is our hint, our clue for creating a gravity drive.

      Jason

      "a particle with mass is the smallest possible frame", "It's all about c = f.lambda." Your wonderfully crisp, direct and refreshing approach is a breath of fresh air, and, more importantly, IMHO increasingly physically accurate and apt.

      I do hope, and it does seem, that some of our past discussions have helped evolve your views, at least for whatever reason the fundamental kinetics are now highly consistent. You express things in your own inimitable style, but, when describing the truth, there may be a billion different ways of expressing the same truth. I think yours is as clear as they come.

      A tiny typo Georgina didn't spot; On P5 I think you meant; 'curving OR contracting'. Of course 'and' would do just as well, and assume you agree 'dilating' as well as 'contracting'.

      I look forward with great interest to how much sense you can make of my own essay, which takes the concepts rather further, possibly to the edge of human comprehension, particularly considering c=f.Lambda on various transformations and viewed from various frames.

      The simple fact then is; If c is constant locally on transformation both f and lambda must change equally. I suggest that simple statement is as pregnant as any phrase we have ever heard. Wavelength change is indeed time dilation and length contraction due to temporal evolution of interaction, a la Christian Doppler.

      You're certainly a high scorer for me. Best of luck.

      Peter

        Hi Peter,

        I was influenced by your perspective, or at least I think we share a very similar point of view.

        "The simple fact then is; If c is constant locally on transformation both f and lambda must change equally. I suggest that simple statement is as pregnant as any phrase we have ever heard. Wavelength change is indeed time dilation and length contraction due to temporal evolution of interaction, a la Christian Doppler. "

        I completely agree, in fact I thought this was self evident. Trying to explain this to physics educated rocks on sciforum.com has been incredibly frustrating. I would try to explain that the invariance of the speed of light, for all reference frames, is an extremely significant observation; as if the laws of physics were shouting, "It's about properties of light!!!!!!" But I got whacked for trying to use the mathematical " inertial reference frames" as ontological object.

        I wanted to express great appreciation for reading my resume and finding something positive about it. Yes, I will read your resume as well. As for grammatical errors, yes, I admit that MS Word is not a reliable grammar checker.

        Peter,

        I hope you won't mind if I share the Grand Design with you; a simple version. Aether waves are the ontological building blocks of our universe. All the properties of light (permitivity, permeability, etc.) are built into them. They were inspired by wave-functions of the form,

        [math]\psi = e^{i \omega t}[/math]

        and the two postulates of special relativity.

        #1. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.

        #2. The speed of light in free space has the same value C in all inertial frames of reference.

        These postulates are hard to explain ontologically, but there is a way. One has to assume that the laws of physics are implemented by the set of (aether) waves that obey,

        [math]c = \lambda f[/math]

        Inertial frames are a mathematical tool that allows you to set up a coordinate system; but I will refer to them in the ontological sense when I say: inertial reference frames are made of those same aether waves. Particles with mass are the smallest physical objects that can be described with inertial frames. Whatever equations and descriptions are used to describe particles of the Standard Model, those equations describe one or more aether waves. Quarks, gluons, protons, neutrons, hadrons, electrons, leptons all have a unique spectral signature, a range of aether medium frequencies. When those particles are annihilated by their antiparticle, the spectral signature is released as gamma rays. It is this spectral signature that establishes that particle's relationship to its inertial frame's clock (progression of time). This is the simplest way that Standard Model particles can obey the postulates of relativity; they are made out of aether waves which satisfy c = wavelength*frequency.

        We experience inertia because the composition of frequencies that make up our particles, they have to frequency shift from one set of aether wave frequencies to another set of aether wave frequencies. We experience this as a force that disturbs inertia.

        Hello Jason

        I enjoyed reading your paper. Your enthusiastic defense of the aether is spot on. Einstein did physics no favors by deflecting the concept with his too-clever assumptions in SR, sabotaging all the excellent speculation about the aether from Fresnel to Lorentz, Hertz and others. SR 'works' because mathematics allows alternate formulations of what is taking place. I question this banishing of the aether in my present fqxi essay as well as in my 2005 paper Beautiful Universe referenced therein.

        Your concept of a sort of Fourier-like universal wave aether is compelling and you make a good case for it. While I would say that the aether is the carrier and transmitter of waves, I would not go so far as to say that the aether itself is made of waves. Waves of what? And what about dark energy - what compels this expansion?

        You may be on the right track that important aspects of matter (but I do not think all) can be described by waves. You may enjoy perusing the far more detailed analysis of this idea, and the mathematical simulations of this concept in my email-friend the late Gabriel LaFreniere's website Matter is made of waves . Sadly his website was taken down at his death this year, but the link is an archived 2011 version of his website. Gabriel expressed his indebtedness to the work of Milo Wolff whose name reminds of yours - another champion of matter as waves.

        Good luck and best wishes,

        Vladimir

          Hi Vladimir,

          I am delighted that you enjoyed the paper. I am very pleased that you got the " Fourier-like universal wave aether " idea.

          You asked an excellent question, "I would not go so far as to say that the aether itself is made of waves. Waves of what?"

          What are these waves made of? I modeled the idea after wave-functions. In a way, these waves are made out of probability, which sounds evasive and hard to imagine. Waves of aether? What does that mean? Basically, aether is a type of empty space that supports the characteristics of light. The closest analogy I can think of is a virtual environment that has rules; the aether would implement that set of rules.

          4 days later

          hi Jason

          The word 'aether' or 'ether' or 'luminiferous aether' has had so many different physical concepts described by it I feel sorry I used it without explanation here! The ether declared nonexistent by Michelson and Morley and banished by Einstein was the sort of medium that carried e/m waves. Earlier Fresnel had a better idea - an matter "permeable" to ether. In other words everything is made of it. That is the sort of ether I describe in my Beautiful Universe Theory .

          Please also read my fqxi paper to see what I think of probability waves!

          I like your "a virtual environment that has rules; the aether would implement that set of rules.". Those roles are what we can test but we can only guess if our models and other conceptualizations are 'really' how Nature operates.

          Vladimir

          Hi Vladimir ,

          I want to applaud your paper for "A proposal to reconstruct physics from simple physically realistic first principles is outlined using a Beautiful Universe model." The theoretical physics community should be looking for a simple physically realistic building block of some kind from which to construct the laws of physics.

          As a very simple approach to answer this very question, I modeled the aether wave after the wave-function for a plane wave and the two postulates of special relativity. I said that aether waves don't have to be physically tangible for them to exist. They are allowed to be extremely subtle.

          There is only one definition of an aether medium that makes any sense: it has to be a "light bearing aether". Whatever the true ontological medium really is, it enforces the invariance of the speed of light.

          Hi Jason

          Thank you for the positive and encouraging remarks. The sort of physics I am attempting is trying to build from an assumed starting point, and do agree with you on its being light. But rather than just light-bearing I would say it is light itself. But for it to support gravity and create matter the 'light' will have to have some very special qualities as well. In my theory and as far as my limited knowledge of particle physics allows, I think the dielectric nodes I assumed will do most of the above. Or not! The aether is subtle indeed! Oh and I think one should bypass the requirement for constant light speed, as that conflicts with its slowing down in general relativity - as Einstein himself remarked! Let's all keep on at it - one day it will work!

          Cheers

          Vladimir

            Hi Vladimir,

            I'm not convinced that the speed of light, in a vacuum, can be changed locally because of general relativity. Is this experimentally verified?

            Hi Vladimir,

            I just mean that I expect the proper speed of light in a vacuum to reliably be c = 3x10^8 m/s. If the proper speed of light in a vacuum changes from this value, then the permitivity and permeability of free space will change as well. After all,

            [math]c^2 \epsilon_0 \mu_0 = 1[/math]

            In other words, the proper speed of light in a vacuum is reliably constant.

            6 days later

            • [deleted]

            • Post #21

            Jason,

            I do not understand how the wavelengths are the cause of distance as you state:"All of the AM wavelengths, from the Planck length to the diameter of the universe, together they cause distance to exist in nature." Do you mean we have no concept of distance without waves (which I agree with) or do you mean that waves somehow cause the 3 spatial dimensions which would not exist apart from them?

            You might have a look at my paper here if you are looking for a a mathematical start for your hypothesis, since in the most basic level we do agree

            Regards,

            Jeff Baugher