The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How physics came to wrongly discard the ether  (Read 1828 times)

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
How physics came to wrongly discard the ether
« on: 02/05/2016 16:43:05 »
Physics theory came to a crossroads in the late 19th and early twentieth centuries, when its most prominent experimentalists conducted a series of experiments designed to detect an ether medium. (the concept of an ether had previously been generally accepted by all the classical physicists, such as Isaac Newton.)

Probably the best known such experiments were done by Albert Michelson. His first experiment in this area was the Michelson-Morley Experiment of 1887 (MMX) which attempted to demonstrate a "wind effect" which was predicted if an ether exists, because it was thought at the time that, as the earth moves through space, its interaction with the ether would produce an ether "wind," which would be an inertial type of effect observable by observing beams of light and how the path of light is affected in the earth's vicinity, as light is conducted through the ether. It was thought that the ether was stationary with respect to a moving earth, and would necessarily exhibit a wind-like effect, the ether "being a stationary medium" in space, and that the wind effect could be detected by measuring a predicted deflection of the path of light in the MMX, using optical methods. -A null result was obtained, and physicists generally accepted this as proving there is no ether medium in space.

In 1925, another experiment was done, the Michelson-Gale-Pearson Experiment (MGPX), which was designed to investigate whether an "ether drag" effect could be measured. (This was intended to refine the MMX, which looked for a stationary ether, by seeing if a non-stationary ether, which is being "dragged" through space by the earth, could be shown to exist.) By the time of the MGPX in 1925, it was possible to measure the velocity of the rotation of Earth, and by also applying measurements of the Sagnac effect as another experimental refinement, it was believed that a drag-effect ether could be accurately tested for. (In the Sagnac effect, two separate light sources located on the equator of a rotating sphere are observed for any effect on the times of arrival of their light beams by the observer.) -The MGPX also showed a negative result, this time for a drag-effect ether.

By now, Einsteinian relativity and quantum mechanics were getting firmly established in physics, and the concept of a universal ether was discarded, which has continued to this day.

I have presented a new model, for a universal ether medium in previous threads in this Forum. -In my ether model, the key players are vibrating elemental ether units (originating in an oscillating original space that existed prior to the first appearance of forces), which act via vibration and resonation. These elemental units are uniform in size scale, and resonate linearly with each other, as their outward vibrations form connections. As these elemental ether units resonate, they produce linear entrainments, which in turn produce larger and larger-scale energy units, "etheroidal" units, and further on, up to our observable quantum-scale units.

Previous models of an ether had focused on a presumed fluid-type behavior, based on the wave-forms that are prominently seen with  the smallest observable particle systems, such as fermions and bosons.

This area of theory, and the prevailing assumptions about how a possible ether would work, is where my ether model would challenge the view of physics that the experiments of the 19th and 20th century, mentioned above, proved an ether does not exist.

My ether model would have it that the presumptions of the earlier experimental physicists (that observations of the behavior of light beams in our earth's atmosphere are an accurate reflection of how an ether would work near the earth) were wrong.

In my ether model, the Waves we see at the smallest observable scales of energy units actually represent an effect arising from an "ocean" of etheroidal units just as they begin mixing transitionally with the smallest observable quantum scale units (fermionic and bosonic), as a "shoreline" effect.

It must be granted that an ether, like I propose, does have fluid-like properties, especially the wave effect. However, I submit that to assume, as they did, that an ether would solely exhibit fluid behavior, as the ether- investigators did, was a key error, and wrongly dismissed the ether.

The way the ether works in the vicinity of the earth has nothing to do with waves or fluid-like behavior in the atmospheric medium near the earth. Rather, a drag-like effect is produced by the ether entirely via a process involving electrical resonance, between the elemental ether units in the space around the earth, and the (identical) elemental ether units from the earth itself. -Being an effect produced by elemental ether units, this effect would not be detectable by any of our technologies. So physics should not continue automatically assuming an ether does not exist. 


 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3927
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: How physics came to wrongly discard the ether
« Reply #1 on: 02/05/2016 22:01:54 »
MichaelMD, it is unnecessary to have an ether. It adds nothing to the knowledge base of physics. If it were to solve outstanding physics issues then that may be a different story. Not one of the 'theories' of the ether posted here have anything new to add and answer no outstanding questions. Why do you think it matters so much?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4724
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: How physics came to wrongly discard the ether
« Reply #2 on: 03/05/2016 08:28:15 »
Being an effect produced by elemental ether units, this effect would not be detectable by any of our technologies. So physics should not continue automatically assuming an ether does not exist. 

This rather begs the meaning of "existence". We assign existence to those concepts that actually affect us in some way, or have some unique and essential explanatory value. The property of existence can be assigned to anything from a lump of rock to a poltergeist, as long as it does something that can't be ascribed to anything else (most poltergeists turn out to be temporary assignments, but nobody assumes their existence in the absence of flying crockery etc).

Thus a substance that has no effect on any sense or instrument and explains nothing that cannot be explained without it, cannot be said to exist. 
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: How physics came to wrongly discard the ether
« Reply #3 on: 03/05/2016 15:29:52 »
Although I didn't include it in my Thread, there are phenomena that physicists can't clearly account for with quantum mechanics and relativity. Just one example is quantum entanglement. It is readily and easily explained, using my model for the ether.

So-called quantum entanglement just represents radiated packets of ether energy which have the same vibratory pattern, such as frequency of vibration. Elemental etheric units are the only actual participants in this phenomenon, with the quantum units being kinetically "walled off," like cool "arms" of a quiet purring mechanism.

I claim to have a potential field test designed to elicit a property of the ether, by showing a predicted decrease in densities of materials in the test system. I just lack the capital to do it. If etheric forces can be elicited, they could have useful unique properties.



 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3927
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: How physics came to wrongly discard the ether
« Reply #4 on: 03/05/2016 19:39:47 »
So basically you are touting for money. Alan asked for the numbers. Without them you will remain short of funds. I would have thought that would be a good motivator to come up with the goods.
 

Online puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 558
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Re: How physics came to wrongly discard the ether
« Reply #5 on: 04/05/2016 14:00:49 »
The concept of dark energy is inferred from affects. However, dark energy, but can't be proven to physically exist, in the lab. This is sort of the same boat the aether is in. An aether can be inferred from wave affects, but we can't prove the existence of the aether in the lab.

I am not sure why science uses a dual standard, when it comes to dark energy and the aether? The first is called science and the second is called science fiction, even though both use the same inference approach, and both have lab limitations.

The dual standard may have to do with the traditions of physics, and deciding addendum, based on changes that help the traditions evolve, and changes which might cause the traditions to diverge too much.

As an analogy, we have the tradition of Santa Claus at Christmas. It is one thing to change the color of the reindeer, to evolve the tradition, but it is another thing to use moose instead of reindeer. The latter can work, however...., changing the animal  may have unintended consequences down the line. Rudolf the red nose moose (moo-ooose) had a very shiny nose, does not have the same clarity or timing in terms of the song. People will complain, so we may need a new song, which will take more funding than everyone wants to provide.

What else can it be, since a dual standard is not rational.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3927
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: How physics came to wrongly discard the ether
« Reply #6 on: 04/05/2016 18:37:35 »
The aether has no detected properties. On the other hand dark matter was postulated to explain an observed effect. Namely the accelerated expansion of the universe so there is no dual standard.
 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: How physics came to wrongly discard the ether
« Reply #7 on: 04/05/2016 18:38:44 »
The OP describes the demise of aether theories quite well. I have been thinking along those lines for a decade.  8D

The "problem" of no aether drag, is a problem with the "understanding" of matter which suggested that matter "should" drag the aether.

In addition to the "problem" of no aether drag, all the old aether models failed to account for the role of the yet-undiscovered dark energy. I believe all the forces between massive particles result from exchange of momentum between light energy (acoustic-like transverse shear waves in a solid medium) and dark energy (acoustic-like longitudinal pressure waves in that same medium). As far as I know, I am the only person to have ever even suggested that the aether may host both transverse and longitudinal waves. And my description of the nature of dark energy is, to my knowledge, the only description of the fundamental nature of dark energy.

I believe the light carrying medium, aka aether, is also the matter carrying medium. I have described my Fractal Foam Model of Universes, here before. I postulate that matter IS light, and light does not drag its own medium.

A force field is where integrating the dark-energy flux over 4pi steradians yields a non-zero vector. A photon receives more momentum from the direction where the dark-energy flux is stronger.

Fundamental particles of matter consist of orbiting pairs or groups of photons, held together by an as yet undiscovered non-linear force. That force is not radially symmetrical, being a function of both the phase relationship between the photons and the angle between their planes of polarity. The ratio of their energies and wavelengths also figures into the magnitude of the force.

A free photon (not part of a particle) perturbs the flux of dark energy in a pattern which is symmetrical relative to the photon's plane of polarity. Another photon passing close enough may be attracted or repelled by the other photon's perturbation of the dark energy, depending on the angle between the two photons' planes of polarity.

The force which holds a pair of photons together is closely associated with zero-point energy. When two photons enter orbit around one another, they fall into a zero-point energy well, which is similar to a black hole, but not based on gravity.

Einstein's relativity may be derived from the fact that the constituent photons that make up a particle are still moving at the speed of light, but in tiny circles. Accelerating the particle forward (in a given inertial reference frame) increases the energy and momentum of one photon and decreases that of the other photon. For both energy and momentum to be conserved, the particle's momentum must increase as ΔE/c; which is why two photons each having no proper mass may add up to one particle having a proper mass equal to E/c2.

(I should mention that I no longer believe longitudinal aether waves to be billions of times faster than transverse aether waves. I always had an uneasy feeling about that claim, and I never worked out the math for how that would affect my model, anyway. So my model requires some rethinking, though I believe it is still viable in principle.)
 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: How physics came to wrongly discard the ether
« Reply #8 on: 04/05/2016 19:21:52 »
The aether has no detected properties. On the other hand dark matter was postulated to explain an observed effect. Namely the accelerated expansion of the universe so there is no dual standard.

There is a unique reference frame in which the microwave background monopole is zero. This is observable evidence of our Sun's velocity relative to the aether, approximately 368 km/s toward Leo.

In my model, the expansion of space is both the source and the destination of dark energy. I don't want to go into too much detail about that, here, except to say that the aether has a foamy structure below the Planck scale; more bubbles equal more space; expansion of the foam pops the bubbles and radiates dark-energy pressure waves; but all that takes place in backwards time in a smaller-scale universe whose cosmic foam is our aether foam. From our point of view, in this universe, dark energy pressure waves converge to a point where they cause an aether-foam bubble to un-pop, absorbing dark energy rather than emitting it.
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: How physics came to wrongly discard the ether
« Reply #9 on: 05/05/2016 12:42:49 »
Just to say that if Phractality wanted to post his own model of the aether, he should have opened his own thread. That way, we  would not each be distracting the readers from focusing on one model at a time.
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: How physics came to wrongly discard the ether
« Reply #10 on: 17/05/2016 09:23:23 »
Most of the responses to the proposal that an aether might indeed exist, are met with stereotypical answers that are trotted out, in most cases without the person even bothering to read the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of the arguments being advanced.  Given below are some typical examples:
..
MichaelMD, it is unnecessary to have an ether. It adds nothing to the knowledge base of physics. If it were to solve outstanding physics issues then that may be a different story. Not one of the 'theories' of the ether posted here have anything new to add and answer no outstanding questions. Why do you think it matters so much?..
.
This rather begs the meaning of "existence". We assign existence to those concepts that actually affect us in some way, or have some unique and essential explanatory value. The property of existence can be assigned to anything from a lump of rock to a poltergeist, as long as it does something that can't be ascribed to anything else (most poltergeists turn out to be temporary assignments, but nobody assumes their existence in the absence of flying crockery etc).
Thus a substance that has no effect on any sense or instrument and explains nothing that cannot be explained without it, cannot be said to exist.
Why on earth  someone should believe that people will come up with a picture of the ether that no-one can detect and that has no possible value is incredible. The poster seems to be so satisfied with the existing state of affairs and so confident that his theory has an explanation for every possible contingency that it is impossible for him to see beyond those self- set limits EVEN though the theory he is is so confident about might be enormously deficient in several key areas.  By now these objections are fairly well known and cracks are beginning to appear in both the theory and the confidence. A typical instance of this seems to be the very different answers that a post like this receives. Such answers would have been unheard of at one time.
 

 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: How physics came to wrongly discard the ether
« Reply #11 on: 17/05/2016 13:20:01 »
If McQueen wants to specify those key areas, where my model for the aether is deficient, I'd be willing to debate these with him.

The criticisms of the model so far in this Thread have not dealt in any specifics.
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: How physics came to wrongly discard the ether
« Reply #12 on: 17/05/2016 13:35:03 »
The aether has no detected properties. On the other hand dark matter was postulated to explain an observed effect. Namely the accelerated expansion of the universe so there is no dual standard.

I'll give my reply to this point of criticism, as to the existence of an underlying ether matrix, which raises a question on how my Model would explain dark matter and the observations of accelerating expansion of the universe.

My model would attribute the expansion of our universe, to my proposal, that our universe is gradually approaching ever closer to another, younger, "stronger," universe, whose forces are pulling on the outermost bodies of our universe, and that this is what accounts for the observations of acceleration of those bodies.

So with my ether model, there would be no need to bring in the theory of a sort of undiscovered "dark," negative, form of energy, to account for the acceleration and expansion.

This concept, of a pending "collision" of two universes, would be analogous in every way to the proven observations of two galaxies colliding. (Such collisions need not be catastrophic, due in part to the fact that large cosmic systems are separated by such great distances of space, on the order of light years apart.)
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: How physics came to wrongly discard the ether
« Reply #13 on: 17/05/2016 14:23:49 »
If McQueen wants to specify those key areas, where my model for the aether is deficient, I'd be willing to debate these with him.

The criticisms of the model so far in this Thread have not dealt in any specifics.

I had merely quoted your statement and the responses it elicited, I did not mean to imply that your theory was deficient, b'cos i have not as yet studied it in any detail.
 

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 194
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: How physics came to wrongly discard the ether
« Reply #14 on: 17/05/2016 18:14:15 »
The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moved through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. The aether is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

Quote
"Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."

if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of particles which can be individually tracked through time. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: How physics came to wrongly discard the ether
« Reply #15 on: 10/06/2016 03:37:20 »
To summarize my picture of the ether. -The key players are the elemental ether units. They constitute an immensely-over-riding sea of uniform, matching, elemental units that interact perfectly-linearly, as their outward vibrations form transient connections with each other. -All other energy processes, such as the quantum-scale energic processes that make up our observable world, are superimposed upon this over-riding elemental ether. -This accounts readily for a phenomenon like quantum entanglement, in which radiated packets of elemental ether units having the same vibratory pattern, such as a matching frequency, resonate with the elemental components of quantum particles. The elemental ether units are the only actual participants in Q.E., with the observed quantum units being kinetically "walled off."

The "waves" we observe at our quantum level of observation just represent an effect produced as an "ocean" of etheroidal units just begin mixing transitionally with obervable quantum units, such as bosons and fermions, as a "shoreline" effect. -The etheroidal units are ocean-like vastly more prevalent than atomic-scale quantum units, but even the etheroidal units are insignificant compared to the over riding elemental ether.
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: How physics came to wrongly discard the ether
« Reply #16 on: 05/07/2016 13:09:21 »
What I would like to point out, as to the believability of my Ether Model, is the incontrovertible fact that it is the only theory, of any type, quantal or etheric, out there, that can rationally account for Quantum Entanglement.

Previously I have given a model for the logical origin of this kind of elemental ether which is made up of uniform, matching, elemental, ether units that comprise an underlying matrix for other forces, such as the quantum forces that constitute our observable world.

Since the ether units are elemental and uniform, the type of resonances they form, as their outward vibrations form connections with each other, are perfectly linear - unlike processes we observe in the quantum world, which involve spin, space-vectors, waves, and the like.

Formation of the orderly systems existing in the cosmos would have to have involved an underlying linearity, such as in my model of the ether.

As ether units interact linearly with each other, the process would include the formation of larger units, such as "etheroidal," and still-larger, units, on up to quantum and atomic - scale units.

In Quantum Entanglement, radiated packets of etheric energy which have the same vibratory pattern, including matching frequency, are the only actual participants. The quantum units being observed in the phenomenon are themselves kinetically "walled off." The underlying process involves elemental ether units forming vibrational connections, which includes their connections with the elemental ether units that are the "building blocks" of the observed quantum units.

The process of Quantum Entanglement should be thought of as the quantum units representing the cool ("linearity cool") "arms" of a quiet, purring, vibratory, underlying ether-mechanism that can turn itself on and off, by itself, at any time.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: How physics came to wrongly discard the ether
« Reply #17 on: 06/07/2016 15:09:24 »
Why on earth  someone should believe that people will come up with a picture of the ether that no-one can detect and that has no possible value is incredible.
 
  The problem is that the Aether exists and is detected. It is the gravitational field itself. this is composed of spherical patterns of dot-waves that constantly move and adjust themselves at the speed of light C. Thus the aether of the Earth is always interacting with the aether of the sun. Light waves and photons travel upon the gravitational aether. There is no stationary aether which would look like a checkerboard upon which the universe exists. We have moving electromagnetic and gravitational (photonic fields) in constant motion correcting themselves at the speed of light C. To say there is no aether is wrong. We have an aether but it is not stationary.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: How physics came to wrongly discard the ether
« Reply #18 on: 06/07/2016 15:13:53 »
-A null result was obtained, and physicists generally accepted this as proving there is no ether medium in space.
All it proved was that there is no stationary ether in space. Gravitational energy flows out of the visible universe and this produces an ether which moves with the planets and stars adjusting itself in steps at light speed C.Thus the Earth produces a constant gravitational wave as does the sun and all other objects in the universe including a lowly proton.
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: How physics came to wrongly discard the ether
« Reply #19 on: 08/07/2016 13:50:54 »
jerrygg38,

If you wanted to describe your own theories about aether, you should have opened your own thread.

My Thread was at a point where posters would reply to my claim of how my aether model can account for Quantum Entanglement, which was where your description of a whole different model of the aether cut in. It's been called hijacking someone else's thread.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: How physics came to wrongly discard the ether
« Reply #20 on: 11/07/2016 00:47:13 »
jerrygg38,

If you wanted to describe your own theories about aether, you should have opened your own thread.

My Thread was at a point where posters would reply to my claim of how my aether model can account for Quantum Entanglement, which was where your description of a whole different model of the aether cut in. It's been called hijacking someone else's thread.
  Did not mean to hijack your ideas.
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: How physics came to wrongly discard the ether
« Reply #21 on: 13/07/2016 16:07:37 »
I don't consider my complaint to have been picayune. Quantum Entanglement (Q.E.) is a major mystery in Science.

In 1935 Einstein took note of this effect and called it "spooky action at a distance." Because of it, he called into question the very foundations of quantum mechanics, an opinion he never really changed.

Today, there is no theoretic model of any kind that accounts for Q.E. rationally and in detail, not in relativity theory, not in quantum mechanics, and up to now not ether theory either.

My ether model presents a neat and concise explanation for Q.E. The idea is that Ether basically consists of a matrix of elemental ether units which, being elemental, are matching and uniform, and that these units are in a state of constant vibratory resonance with each other, as their outward vibrations form loose connections. Such resonances would be perfectly linear, and would be what would account for the build up of larger energic units, up to the observed quantum-scale units which make up our atomically-structured world.

The ether-scale resonances occur between the elemental units themselves, and also include their resonances with the elemental "building blocks" that quantum units are made up of. In Q.E., the so-called "entangled" quantum units are, themselves, kinetically walled off, representing "cool arms" of a quiet, purring ether mechanism that can turn itself on and off, by itself, at any time.

Again, I think this model merits serious, close, careful consideration
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: How physics came to wrongly discard the ether
« Reply #22 on: 13/07/2016 20:45:56 »
I don't consider my complaint to have been picayune. Quantum Entanglement (Q.E.) is a major mystery in Science.

In 1935 Einstein took note of this effect and called it "spooky action at a distance." Because of it, he called into question the very foundations of quantum mechanics, an opinion he never really changed.

Today, there is no theoretic model of any kind that accounts for Q.E. rationally and in detail, not in relativity theory, not in quantum mechanics, and up to now not ether theory either.

My ether model presents a neat and concise explanation for Q.E. The idea is that Ether basically consists of a matrix of elemental ether units which, being elemental, are matching and uniform, and that these units are in a state of constant vibratory resonance with each other, as their outward vibrations form loose connections. Such resonances would be perfectly linear, and would be what would account for the build up of larger energic units, up to the observed quantum-scale units which make up our atomically-structured world.

The ether-scale resonances occur between the elemental units themselves, and also include their resonances with the elemental "building blocks" that quantum units are made up of. In Q.E., the so-called "entangled" quantum units are, themselves, kinetically walled off, representing "cool arms" of a quiet, purring ether mechanism that can turn itself on and off, by itself, at any time.


Again, I think this model merits serious, close, careful consideration
Sounds interesting. Can you explain the Q.E. problem in a few words. right now it appears to me that you have a distribution of homogeneous building blocks that will tend to combine into the protons and electrons of our existence. I guess your model has the creation of these building blocks as space and time compresses.
   Thus the universe precipitates protons and electrons which are the same mass initially and then the proton wins the battle and takes over the center position. To me that is a possibility but am I understanding what you say correctly?
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: How physics came to wrongly discard the ether
« Reply #23 on: 14/07/2016 16:21:37 »
If you are going to use behaviors of quantum units to judge the ether model for Q.E., I can't help, because the quantal systems that protons and electrons are incorporated into are basically different from my model for the ether. In my ether model, the key process is the vibrational resonances of elemental ether units, units which are uniform and interact perfectly linearly, so that, for example, the thermodyanmic effects observed at the level of quantum forces are absent. The mechanisms in quantum processes, such as spin, space vectors, non-matching units, wave effects, and so on, make it impossible to correlate protons, electrons, and such units with ether dynamics.

Quantum Mechanics theory tries to explain Q.E. entirely on the basis of quantal dynamics, which produces a disconnect with my ether model for Q.E., at the most basic level.

If you want to study what the quantum theories are doing to try to explain Q.E., you would want to read up on Bell's inequality Theorem, and the latest experiments on new methods of measuring certain properties of the quantum units in Q.E., especially the latest ones using clever ways of separating the measuring instruments to avoid introducing confounding variables.

But I don't believe quantum theory will ever come up with a coherent model for Q.E. I feel certain my ether model is the correct one.
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: How physics came to wrongly discard the ether
« Reply #24 on: 14/07/2016 16:36:14 »
jerrygg38,

To answer the part of your question about how the ether produces larger units, like protons and electrons, I'll go into details about my model's viewpoint also.

In my model of the ether, the elemental ether units resonate linearly in such a way that their outward vibrations form loose connections between the elemental units. Such connections usually produce resonances forming entrainments, extending over distances, and along which energic impulses can travel electrically.

However, these resonance processes are not invariably the same, and can also produce aggregate entrainments forming larger energy units - "etheroidal" units, and on up, to the quantum scale units such as protons and electrons.

If you want to study the question of how etheric and etheroidal units may interact with quantum systems, I'd suggest reading up on Quasiparticles. Quasiparticles are produced in unusual experimental setups, and are observed as puzzling changes that occur to bosons (like electrons) and fermions. The puzzling moieties produced under such experimental conditions are termed "quasiparticles" when they involve changes to bosons, and when fermions are involved, it is referred to as a "state of elevated excitation."

I believe the quasiparticle phenomenon represents "etheroidal" units "escaping" their normal ether/vibrational setting and emerging suddenly and puzzlingly into our observable quantum setting.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: How physics came to wrongly discard the ether
« Reply #24 on: 14/07/2016 16:36:14 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums