• [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

    Hello. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

    This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

    Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

    A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

    An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

    Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

    Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

    Thank you and good luck.

    Vladimir

    Hi Jason,

    Glad to see you in another contest. I worked for Tektronix a few years back, in large screen CRTs.

    Yes, the world does change.

    I like your presentation, and would like it even better if you got rid of the Aether and have a type of wave that just connects masses without any substance in between.

    However it still desirves a high rating.

    Best of Luck,

    Don L.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #39

      Hi Jason,

      With not many days till the end of community voting I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at my essay. If you feel able to give some thoughts on it that would be helpful. It is a very different offering from last years. Much easier to read. I hope it is also enjoyable and a bit surprising, as well as methodically presenting a solution to the set essay question.

      I haven't forgotten your meteoric "last minute rise" up the ranking in last year's contest. So I remain hopeful of some reshuffling of positions "late in the day".

      Kind regards Georgina

      Hi Don,

      It's pretty amazing to meet someone else who worked at Tek. I hope you've moved on to bigger and better things.

      The aether is meant to express that the vacuum of space and the geometry of space-time are "something", a medium of some kind, as opposed to the scientifically accepted "nothingness". The Michaelson & Morley experiment struck down "aether particles" and "aether winds" and paved the way to special relativity (which is accurate). SR and GR are very accurate mathematical descriptions of physics. But space and space-time are not made out of mathematics; they are made of some kind of medium which has properties. Such a "fundamental medium" is obviously not made of atoms or particles. In my view, this fundamental medium is made of that which wave-functions are meant to describe.

      Thank you for looking at my paper. Good luck in the contest.

      Jason Wolfe

      Hi Georgina,

      It is always good to hear from you. Yes, I will read your paper and evaluate its elegance.

      Good luck to you in the contest.

      Best wishes,

      Jason Wolfe

      After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

      Cood luck.

      Sergey Fedosin

      Hi Jason ,

      I don't know if you have yet read the essay by Benjamin Thomas Solomon. His interest is interstellar travel and I thought that since you two have that interest (and determination) in common, you might be able to have some fruitful discussion. I told him I would mention his essay to you.

      Hi Georgina,

      Sure, I'll take a look at Benjamin's paper.

      Jason

      Hi Vladimir,

      If you change the permittivity, you change the electric field strength and the voltage. We've sent probes beyond the earth's gravity. If the permittivity was changing, it would mess up the circuitry in these probes. Since there are probes (satellites) that still work beyond earth's orbit. then the permitivity isn't changing.

      If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

      Sergey Fedosin

      Hi Jason,

      I find what you write in the essay quite interesting. I've rated the paper quite highly. It may be worthwhile to consider your proposal of the origin of gravity further.

      One might recast the olden concept of aether (as something with physical characteristics) into something more aligned with the concept of fields. Fields, as conceived by Faraday and Maxwell were not at all liked by Maxwell's mentor Lord Kelvin (William Thompson). He considered them entirely meta-physical. And maybe Lord Kelvin had a very valid point. Fields would seem to be an abstraction of something that complies with a structure and set of mathematical rules. What the fields represent physically is force and energy, i.e., the fields encode the relationships between the application of force and the existence and movement of energy.

      With that in mind, the concept of aether seems to be an acknowledgement of the structure and rules governing the behavior and evolution of energy and force. My essay investigates some of those mathematical rules in regard to the origin of relativity and may have interesting parallels to ideas in your essay.

      Thanks for your contribution,

      Steve

        Hi Stephen,

        Thank you for taking the time to read my essay. I think you are om the right track in that you see the logical connection between fields (measurable) and the aether medium (the ontology). That makes you one of the most keen observers in the physics community.

        I gave you a high score. I wish you luck in the contest.

        Jason Wolfe

        2 months later

        Gravity Generator Experiment Tonight!

        It's a very busy night where I work. However, I hope to have time to perform the frequency shifting experiment I've been talking about for the last couple of years. I'm going to test two frequency sweeps,

        (1) 1GHz to 2GHz every microsecond,

        (2) 100MHz to 2GHz every microsecond.

        I'm using an arbitrary waveform generator to generate the frequency sweep. If you've ever looked at gravitational redshift, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

        I'm going to try to generate that wave one million times per second. I hope to be able create a time dilation field and the associated gravity field. This is a direct assault on conservation of energy; I am looking for a loophole. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So where did the energy of the big bang come from? Well, I think that gravity is the anti-energy that, when combined with the energy of the big bang, nets to zero. So if my experiment works and I create a little bit of energy, that new energy will also have a gravity field to balance it to zero. This is known as the Zero Energy Universe hypothesis. You've all heard of particle-antiparticle creation/annihilation, right? I have this idea that there exists an Energy-anti-energy mechanism where gravity is the anti-energy.

        I believe that the idea will work. However, I am less hopeful that my frequency sweep will have sufficient quality or ampltitude to produce a measureable change in the acceleration field measured by an electronic scale. We'll see what happens.