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

      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]

      • Post #23

      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]

        • Post #25

        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]

        • Post #27

        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

        8 days later

        • [deleted]

        • Post #29

        Hi Jason,

        Missed your reply earlier. Only thing I can definitively state is that I don't know. Not countering anything you are stating but before we tackle something like this I would feel much more comfortable knowing exactly what mass and inertia are. Mass plays a pivotal role in the Schwarzschild radius, and it seems it would be helpful to understand the equivalence principal in order to be able to predict the effects you are proposing. I think we are missing something very foundational.

        Regards,

        Jeff

        Hi Jeff,

        The only building blocks I am using are aether medium waves that obey

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

        Mass is of course made of particles; each particle has a unique frequency signature or fingerprint. That way, when a particle and antiparticle annihilate each other, gamma rays are released. A particle is just a composition or cluster of aether waves, a cluster of aether waves frequencies. There is energy content that excites those aether waves across a range of frequencies.

        Inertia is just the tendency of matter to continue to occupy the same set of aether waves as it moves through space. The reason that we feel acceleration and deceleration of an automobile, for example, is because when we slam on the breaks or apply the gas, we are forcing the particles of our body, of everything in the car, to change to another set of aether waves. Aether waves are things that extend across space. Inertia is when we travel along the same set of aether waves. We feel a force when we change to another set of aether waves.

          Hi Jeff,

          The whole idea of aether waves is that I wanted to be able to say something about the properties of space and time from a mechanistic point of view.

          Wave-functions are just mathematic solutions for quantum systems; wave-functions are not considered to be physically real objects. Just because I can't physically touch a wave-function doesn't mean that it can't be something that carries the ontological properties of space and time.

          If the vacuum of space was made of wave-like objects that acted like quantum waves, then it would be no surprise that we have to use wave-functions in the QM mathematics that describes quantum systems.

          What about special relativity? After all, it is pretty strange that all inertial frames observe the speed of light (vacuum) to be the same. So I followed that logic. If wave-functions, however unphysical, are somehow responsible for the characteristics of space, then such waves should obey the speed of light (somehow). We're talking about waves.

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

          is a wave equation. Why not let aether waves embody the characteristics of light such as the permitivity and permeability of free space? Then, we let the wavelength of these aehter waves (which behave like wave-functions) express the existence of distance in space.

          Likewise, we have a whole range of frequencies. Why not let the frequencies of the aether waves cause the progression of time in an inertial reference frame?

          • [deleted]

          • Post #32

          Jason,

          If I don't answer, please leave a note in my thread so that I get an email. Not a big fan of this forum format since it doesn't seem possible to subscribe to someone's thread.

          You and I are thinking along the same lines. To me the easiest way to tackle this is through known errors in equations and once those are corrected to understand how we have been missing the wave equations within them. But first we need to understand why General Relativity can be so accurate in producing answers, but yet still be so incorrect. The only way I know to do this is to invert the equation so that instead of solid "particles" moving within a void, the stress energy tensor describes waves moving within a solid. From that point we can figure out wavelengths and how waves embody the characteristics of light such as the permitivity and permeability of free space, as you state and I agree with. Easy formula switch but the conceptual changes will take a while to intuitively understand, however without doing this first I think we are fighting an uphill battle.

          I added a small sketch to my thread to help better explain what I mean, let me know what you think.

          Jeff

          19 days later

          Hi Hoang,

          Thank you for taking the time to read my essay.

          You asked: "Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?"

          According to the famous equation E=mc^2, mass is just stored energy. This stored energy can be released in a particle-antiparticle annihilation event. When that occurs, both particles are converted to photons (gamma rays).

          The mass of something, let's call it mass m, is the same on the Earth, the moon, in space, everywhere. What changes in the acceleration of gravity. The gravity on earth is 1g, so the force that a mass exerts on a scale is F=mg. On the moon, the acceleration of gravity is much less (approximately 1/6), so the force of gravity is F = (a/6)*m = ma/6.

          Again, thank you for reading my essay.

          Best wishes,

          Jason Wolfe

          Dear Jason,

          I think the aether medium is made not only of waves (photons and neutrino) but also of charged particles. With this is possible to explain the electrical force and gravity. The structure of medium is found in the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter (my essay).

          Sergey Fedosin

          Jason,

          You bring an interesting point. Question: Have the permittivity and permeability been ever measured in other than Earth's gravitational field, say near Sea Level?

          Vladimir