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]

        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

          Hi Jeff,

          I agree with your second statement, that aether waves cause the 3 spatial dimensions (and time) to exist, apart from which nothing would exist.

          The physicics community is motivated by the desire to explain everything with a model. My motiviation is different. I started off with the assumption that gravity drives and acceleration field generators are allowed by nature. So I had to figure out what was the ontological nature of space itself. Afterall, general relativity is about curving space-time. If I'm trying to curve space-time, then I have to know what space-time is. Furthermore, I need some way to curve it without using ridiculous amounts of mass-energy. So basically, I took the two postulates of special relativity, I combined them with wave functions, and I created an aether medium that obeys SR and QM.

          Since gravity causes light to freequency shift along the radii of the gravitating body, I decided to try it in reverse. The idea is to emit a linear EM frequency chirp, repeatedly. I hope that this will cause the immediate space-time to curve, thus inducing a gravity field.

          For this to work, I have to overcome conservation of energy, but not violate it. Anyway, thank you for inquiring.

          Jason Wolfe

          • [deleted]

          Hi Jason,

          The more I think about "I agree with your second statement, that aether waves cause the 3 spatial dimensions (and time) to exist, apart from which nothing would exist. ", I am not sure that there is any difference from the other case. It depends on what you mean by "nothing" exists without the waves. Lets assume that all waves are derivatives (changes) in the aether. If those changes go to zero, then there is no structure (matter or energy) and thus time and dimensions have no meaning. But is that really "nothing"?

          I view matter as waves that travel as holes in the aether (versus a particle). If these waves derivatives, (changes of density and pressure) go to zero (change back up to the background pressure and density) then there is no structure, matter or energy and so no concept of space and time but I would not call this "nothing".

          Your thoughts?

          Regards,

          Jeff

          Hi Jeff,

          "I view matter as waves that travel as holes in the aether (versus a particle). "

          As holes? I am familiar with holes (and electrons) from solid state physics and semiconductor physics. Such a hole is an absence of an electron. But now I am puzzled by your idea that matter travels as a "hole" in the aether. I believe that de Broglie waves tell us that matter (electrons, protons, etc) are groups of aether waves that move together. When a particle meets its antiparticle, that which groups the aether waves (into a particle) cancels out. The result is that the energy stored in the particle is now released as a gamma ray burst.

          I am perfectly OK with the idea that a hyperspace might coexist with out space-time. I believe that someday we might figure out how to build a spaceship that can travel through hyperspace thus traveling faster than light. In my interpretation,

          space-time is made of waves that obey,

          [math]c = \lambda f = \frac{1}{sqrt{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}}[/math]

          In contrast, hyperspace is made of waves that obey (the same equation but with c'>>c). The equation won't output.

          The idea is that two universes, with different physics constants, can coexist without one universe being aware of the other. Hyperspace matter can pass right through us without our noticing it.

          My point is that each universe has its own set of aether waves. Each set of aether waves has its own set of physics constants. If aether waves don't exist, then neither does the progression of time nor the existence of distance.

            • [deleted]

            Mark,

            I am with you on most of your explanations. Yes, similar to hole-flow theory but it isn't a complete absence of the aether, the amount remaining depends on the wavelength. Where GR utilizes observers comoving with positive density particles that make up a perfect fluid, I would use observers comoving with reduced density waves in a perfect fluid. It is a classical gauge theory of GR, sort of like a photographic negative of particles.

            As for the hyperspace, what is this hypothesis required to account for that one simple aether universe can't?

            Hi Jeff,

            I mentioned hyperspace for two reasons. First, I wanted to convey the idea that the fundamental building blocks of our universe, and others like it, are aether waves; the physics constants c and h are characteristics of those waves. Second, hyperspace is a fun idea that might even be true. Hyperspace is a way to beat relativity by traveling faster than light, without time travel or any of that impossible stuff. Sure you could travel fast enough, faster than light, to see your own light image jumping into hyperspace; but you can't stop it. You can't stop yourself from jumping into hyperspace.

            If there were aether waves with a speed of light characteristic, then there would be no distance and no progression of time. Is it possible to make the aether waves of our space-time cease to exist inside of a 55 gallon drum? Or some suitable volume? I don't know.

            • [deleted]

            James,

            Ah, I see, you are looking if there are any openings in our physics which might allow for things which are currently considered impossible. I wouldn't call it hyperspace, but the concept of concentrating vacuum interests me since it might have some of the same characteristics you are looking for. I have no idea how it could be done but since it should change some of the parameters such as permeability and permissibility, travel might appear faster than light to an outside observer watching a traveler enter and exit such an area.

            Jeff

            Hi Jeff,

            I've thought about hyperdrives for a while and this is what I think needs to occur. First, we must discover the gravity drive; a gravity drive is an opto-electronics device that can generate an acceleration field equivalent to gravity. In other words a device that can curve space-time. In my essay, I descrescribe such a device.

            Second, such a device must generate an acceleration field from a curved surface that is stronger than the event horizon of a black hole. In other words, the acceleration at the event horizon of a black hole is,

            [math]a = \frac{v^2}{r} = \frac{c^2}{r}[/math]

            If you build acceleration field generators on a spaceship that can create acceleration fields stronger than this, from a hemisphere with a radius smaller than r, then the spaceship will enter hyperspace.

            Am I describing it clearly?

            Jason Wolfe