1

New Theories / Can this model resolve theoretic problems inherent in Quantum Entanglement

« on: 24/09/2023 15:33:29 »

I have posted a number of times in this Forum, but none very recently. My past posts presented a non-mainstream model of a universal ether, challenging standard quantum theory. Recently I authored a Paper, based on the Model, that would sensibly account for quantum entanglement. The online link for this would be https://www.onlinescientificresearch.com/articles/ether-model.pdf

2

New Theories / Re: Can An Ether Model Best Account for Creation

« on: 23/03/2022 15:35:09 »

generate an energy field that is selectively etheric

How do you do that?

See my Reply #24 above. I wouldn't go into more detail than that, except for a possible sponsor.

3

New Theories / Re: Can An Ether Model Best Account for Creation

« on: 22/03/2022 15:11:02 »

Can An Ether Model Best Account for Creation? Precisely to the extent that bullshit begets bullshit. Whatever makes you happy, makes you happy. But if it doesn't make accurate predictions, it won't interest anyone else.

An objectifiable test to demonstrate ether could be done: a field test designed to generate an energy field that is selectively etheric, i.e., atoms inside the system would contain a higher-than-normal amount of ether units, and proportionately less quantum units. One would predict a decreased density of objects in the test system. -No known form of energy has that property. This type of field test would use certain naturally-occurring materials in the test system, in order to generate what is predicted to be a unique, selectively-etheric, field.

4

New Theories / Re: Can An Ether Model Best Account for Creation

« on: 22/03/2022 14:59:34 »

Can An Ether Model Best Account for Creation? Precisely to the extent that bullshit begets bullshit. Whatever makes you happy, makes you happy. But if it doesn't make accurate predictions, it won't interest anyone else.

A proposed objectifiable test to demomnstrate ether could be done: a field test designed to generate an energy field that is selectively etheric, i.e., that would contain a higher-than-normal amount of ether units, and proportionately less quantum units. One would predict a decreased density of objects in the test system. -No known form of energy has that property.

I hAV

5

New Theories / Re: Can An Ether Model Best Account for Creation

« on: 22/03/2022 14:16:27 »

After a universal ether, made up of units of various sizes, appeared, radiating etheric forces eventually included linear patterns that produced partly-quantized "islands." Then, it became feasible to project quantum units, from such an island, through the ether, in order to creationally produce a quantum/atomic universe like the one we are in now. The quantum-scale units that were projected through the ether were photon/electron units. As these traveled through the ether, it set up self-sustaining chain-reactions in the ether that resulted in the systematic formation of the protons and atoms in our universe. Since the photon/electron was the unit used, its velocity (speed of light) became the highest speed-limit in our world.

I'm sorry but this makes absolutely no sense.

Origin: As a fellow scientist, what kind of model of the universe does make sense to you? -Is it the currently-accepted model of a "Big Bang," and "then atoms appeared?"  My ether model is the only kind of model that does make sense.

6

New Theories / Re: Can An Ether Model Best Account for Creation

« on: 21/03/2022 15:14:09 »

My Ether Model's key points, in comparison to the standard model of the world as currently accepted by cosmology and physics, would be as follows -

A universal ether appeared following a first-causal transition of a universal point-oscillation to point-like ether units that vibrate, rather than oscillating. These extremely tiny "elemental" ether units are able to interact with each other as their vibrations come into contact. Larger and larger energy units are formed in this ether "matrix," as etheric vibrations of smaller units "lock" and link up with each other.

After a universal ether, made up of units of various sizes, appeared, radiating etheric forces eventually included linear patterns that produced partly-quantized "islands." Then, it became feasible to project quantum units, from such an island, through the ether, in order to creationally produce a quantum/atomic universe like the one we are in now. The quantum-scale units that were projected through the ether were photon/electron units. As these traveled through the ether, it set up self-sustaining chain-reactions in the ether that resulted in the systematic formation of the protons and atoms in our universe. Since the photon/electron was the unit used, its velocity (speed of light) became the highest speed-limit in our world.

Compare this Model with the currently-accepted model, which proposes that atomic systems developed following a "Big Bang." Even if one includes the controversial Higgs boson, this model lacks the Ether Model's full stepwise rationale for how the atoms formed as they did.

7

New Theories / Re: Can An Ether Model Best Account for Creation

« on: 18/12/2021 12:24:35 »

my kind of ether model, in which the ether is composed of super-rarified units that do not interact in any inertial fashion with the much-larger quantum units that transmit visible light. 

Is that meant to mean something?

If you took the time to read my basic ether model, you would have appreciated that the ether, that I propose exists, arose first-causally, as ultimately-elemental units transitioned from reciprocally-oscillating to independently vibrating, and thus would most likely have been of a first-causal, ultimately-tiny, size scale, and probably would not fall into the scale of the energy framework of our present quantized world. The ether units thus would probably have been unimaginably rarified in size.

8

New Theories / Re: Can An Ether Model Best Account for Creation

« on: 17/12/2021 17:25:16 »

There have been serious proposals to re-visit the Michelson Morley Experiment (MMX), in recent years, by running the MMX in space, as a way around persisting questions about the definitiveness of physics dismissing the ether by using MMX as a basis for it.

This runs against the point you made that further experiments in physics are thought to have have "nailed" the ether question.

No, it just means you don't understand how science works.
They are doing an experiment to confirm what they already know from many other experiments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether#Negative_aether-drift_experiments

They expect the shift to be zero.

Now, please go and look up what the luminiferous ether was meant to do.
Then , when you realise that its job was to carry light (it didn't have another role at the time), you will see why this

my Model would have it that although photons do not interact inertially with ether,

 (like your previous post) makes no sense.

You are saying that the waves hitting the beach have no interaction with the seawater

Chemist, you keep citing concepts of light-propagation according to  the views of quantists. By denying the existence of any type of underlying universal ether, they overlook my kind of ether model, in which the ether is composed of super-rarified units that do not interact in any inertial fashion with the much-larger quantum units that transmit visible light.  An ether model like mine is basically very different from quantum theory, as to how light propagates.

In my Model, the primary initiation of transmission of a light beam occurs at the level of the ether. Ether units at the source of the light beam vibrationally "feel" the linear forces of other ether units at a nearby source of energy, causing further ether units in the area to align with each other, rather than vibrating quietly and randomly, so that their vibrations increasingly come into contact with each other. This in turn increases the entrainment of the ether units into larger and larger light-energy units, which take on a photonic type of vibratory pattern, as they entrain with each other, up to the size-scale of the visible units of light energy (photons).

It is this underlying linear etheric vibratory process that underlies the visible quantum-dynamic processes involving waves and fields. It is the ether that represents the true origin of the light we see.

(In my ether model, although ether units involved in light-transmission do not interact inertially with the vastly-larger light-units like photons, the photons, which, like all larger units, were originally formed by entrainments of vibrating elemental ether units, still retain the ability to interact vibrationally with the ether units all around them in the ether matrix. 

Photons seen with a sun beam can number in the trillions. You might ask a quantist where all those photons are coming from, when the source of energy is millions of miles away. -The ether is everywhere, and its vibratory dynamics are conducted in a  continuous way, over any transmissional distance (although, in my Ether Model, the ether units are not perfectly contiguous, being vibrational, the ether's transmissibility is unlimited by distance.) Your references to "luminiferous" are not relevant. My ether model of light-propagation is the correct one.

9

New Theories / Re: Can An Ether Model Best Account for Creation

« on: 15/12/2021 06:07:33 »

When Michelson and Morley ran their experiment in 1887, and got a "null" result for the existence of an ether, they assumed that any type of ether would necessarily have to interact with the visible light beams they measured.

Again, that's part of the definition of the luminiferous ether

There have been serious proposals to re-visit the Michelson Morley Experiment (MMX), in recent years, by running the MMX in space, as a way around persisting questions about the definitiveness of physics dismissing the ether by using MMX as a basis for it.

This runs against the point you made that further experiments in physics are thought to have have "nailed" the ether question.

10

New Theories / Re: Can An Ether Model Best Account for Creation

« on: 13/12/2021 13:07:15 »

the physics consensus has been inflexible in dismissing the ether-concept

Not really.
Here's a list of the experiments put into showing that ether isn't real.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether#Negative_aether-drift_experiments

It's not as if science simply dismissed it; they puta lot of effort into showing that the ether is not real.


And then you come along and say that they are all wrong.

And when I ask for evidence about that, I get this hogwash.

physical experimentation (which would require financing) would have to come after serious consideration of it by science.

Well, science did seriously consider it.
That's why nobody would fund your ideas.

Regarding evidence used to dismiss the ether,Science has yet to entertain my Ether Model, which would represent a completely rational basis for a universal ether to exist.

In my Model, a universal ether arose as part of a a first-causal world-setting, in which ultimately-rarified, "elemental," point-localities transitioned, from oscillating reciprocally with all other "points," to vibrating independently, and interacting with each other, via vibratory contact. This all occurred in a pre-quantum world-setting, and the ultimate kind of diminutiveness of those "points" was, and is, much too small to mentally-grasp from the perspective of scientists accustomed to thinking in terms of  size-scales of the energy units seen in quantum physics.

When Michelson and Morley ran their experiment in 1887, and got a "null" result for the existence of an ether, they assumed that any type of ether would necessarily have to interact with the visible light beams they measured. With my "first causal" model of how an ether, composed of super-rarified, vibrating, elemental units, originated, there would be an enormous difference between the super-fine size of elemental ether units, and the size=scale of quantum units such as the photons in the light beams that Michelson and Morley measured, or that scientists have used since to judge the existence of an ether.

One could compare this kind of disconnect, between the concepts of scientists running experiments to search for the ether, and how the kind of ether in my Ether Model would work, to how a motorcar travels through a cloud of dust. -As the motorcar ("photon") moves through the dust, it does not interact inertially with the dust particles ("ether units"), but rather just brushes them aside.

(Parenthetically, my Model would have it that although photons do not interact inertially with ether, as experimenters normally assume they should, nevertheless, the photons do interact vibrationally with the ether units, because photons, like all quantum units, were originally formed via alignments and entrainments of "building block" ether units, and still retain the ability to interact with the ether vibrationally.)

In my Model, that's why experiments using traditional approaches will never detect the ether. Instead, one would have to apply an indirect approach, one using naturally-occurring materials and a non-laboratory setting, to indirectly demonstrate the ether's existence.   

11

New Theories / Re: Can An Ether Model Best Account for Creation

« on: 10/12/2021 13:45:00 »

etheric energy

You need to provide experimental evidence of these.
Without them, you might as well say "the fairies make it work"

For a theoretic model like my Ether Model, physical experimentation (which would require financing) would have to come after serious consideration of it by science.

So far, the physics consensus has been inflexible in dismissing the ether-concept. About all that's left, for someone advocating a major alternative to a major stance of the Consensus, is to post on the Internet, as I have been doing.

12

New Theories / Re: Can An Ether Model Best Account for Creation

« on: 08/12/2021 13:15:30 »

After a number of posts, I might go through two topics that I consider most-key to understanding how my Ether Model out-performs the "no ether" consensus model of quantum physics - quantum entanglement and the nature of Time.

With my ether model, quantum entanglement (QE) represents radiated packets of etheric energy which have the same vibratory pattern.. Elemental ether units are the only actual participants in the QE phenomenon, whereas the pair of quantum units in question are, as far as their energy-dynamics as unit-moieties, kinetically "walled off," like cool "arms" of a quiet, purring, universal, ether mechanism.
Important to note in the model is that the quantum units were originally formed by identical "building block" elemental ether units, which is why they are still ,able to react, vibrationally in QE, with the ether units all around them in the ether matrix.

The question of the nature of Time is still not agreed upon by theorists. -In my ether model, Time represents a Rate, specifically the rate of vibration of the ether units comprising the universal ether matrix, because the ether is everywhere, both inside and outside of everything.

13

New Theories / Re: Can An Ether Model Best Account for Creation

« on: 25/11/2021 12:33:22 »

proposes that a universal ether arose first-causally, and is composed of individual first-causal units that are so super-rarified that the photons which transmit visible light merely "brush them aside,

You are proposing an ether that isn't the ether.
Why are you doing that?
Do you not realise that words have meanings?

To add one more reason to seriously consider my Ether Model, I would propose re-thinking the question of the nature of Time. The question of the true nature of Time has been an ongoing controversy for a long time. A few fairly well-known theorists have even suggested abolishing the idea that Time exists at all.

If you generally-review my Ether Model, it is based on the concept of a first-causal state that existed everywhere (i.e., it transitioned from an initial universal state that originally existed in Space, of symmetrical  point-oscillation) ether composed of individual ether units that vibrate (rather than oscillate.)

to apply this model to the question of the nature of Time, it is that Time represents a Rate, specifically the rate of vibration of the units of the ether, because such an ether must exist, and exert its influence, everywhere, both inside and outside everything.

14

New Theories / Can An Ether Model Best Account for Creation

« on: 15/11/2021 13:40:50 »

A new model to account for creation can be outlined based on the existence of a universal ether. -I submit that, if an ether exists, it must be universal, and if so, it would have to have originated first-causally as part of a process that occurred uniformly throughout the universe.

At present, physics denies the existence of an ether. Their denial of ether dates to the famous Michelson-Morley Experiment in 1887, in which the behavior of light-beams, that were subjected to different gravity-settings relative to earth's rotation, was measured, using optical instruments. (It was expected that light beams would have to interact with any type of ether, and that this could be detected optically.) The result of MMX was "null," or negative, and ever since, physics has pointed to this as proof that an ether does not exist.

My alternative model, based on an ether, proposes that a universal ether arose first-causally, and is composed of individual first-causal units that are so super-rarified that the photons which transmit visible light merely "brush them aside," like a motorcar passes through a cloud of dust, without interacting, inertially, with the dust particles (ether units). -This would invalidate the key assumption in MMX, that a light beam must interact inertially with any possible type of underlying ether.

(In my "origin" ether-model, what existed first was original space, which was extremely self-compatible, so that super-rarified, original, or elemental, point-localities were oscillating in reciprocity with each other everywhere. Then, oscillatory fatigue set in (oscillatory fatigue is a known process. It occurs in metals, for example), which caused neighboring "points" to move toward each other and combine into doubled-up "Yin and Yang" couplets, in a process in which oscillation of units transitioned to a vibration, in which the units now could interact with each other, as their vibrations came into contact. -In my Model, what happened next was that wherever a pair of Yin Yang doubled units contacted one another, their matching vibrations locked them together in a four-unit tetrad. -This kind of model would then be a template for how ever-larger units formed in the ether, all the way up to the size of quantum units and atoms.

One can compare this kind of model with the standard model of physics, based on a "Big Bang," followed by large numbers of "solid particles," including a key particle called the Higgs boson, all of which lacks any sequence of logical steps such as this ether model outlines.

Just one example of how this ether model is able to deal with questions in physics is the phenomenon of quantum entanglement (QE). In my model, QE represents radiating packets of etheric energy which have the same vibratory pattern. Elemental ether units (not the larger matched-up units) are the only actual participants in QE, with the (so-called"entangled") quantum units "walled off," as discrete entities, like the cooler "arms" of a quiet, purring, universal, ether mechanism.

It's important to note here that these quantum units, like all larger units, had been originally formed through the combination of etheric "building block" units. That is how they are still able to interact, vibrationally, with ether units surrounding them in the universal ether matrix.

As for how Creation would fit into this model, it's proposed that, following an initial "first world," in which etheric forces were appearing, there existed radiating fluxes of etheric forces everywhere, and eventually, forces that were more linear, produced (through a process of linear alignment of etheric vibrations) entrainment into larger units, up to atomic sizes. This in turn produced solid moieties. As glancing ether radiations began reverberating around one such "cosmic egg" kind of moiety, the energies produced an intelligent Entity capable of initiating creational processes. -By sending quantum electrons through the ether, the linear paths of the electrons aligned the vibrations in the ether, producing the protons, neutrons, and atoms of our universe..

15

New Theories / Re: Can an ether-based model account for the strange results of 2-slit experiments

« on: 30/08/2021 12:54:37 »

What makes you think that the results of double slit experiments are strange?

Yusuf,

To evaluate my thread, concerning interpretation of results of double-slit experiments, in light of my ether/creation model, you would have to read closely my earlier postings as to my models' view of how an ether came to exist, along with the rationale for how it would now work.

Don't judge my model by the posts quantum theorists have been making here, such as citing various aspects of  current quantum theory to make assertions why my model can't be right.

16

New Theories / Re: Can an ether-based model account for the strange results of 2-slit experiments

« on: 28/08/2021 11:48:22 »

By saying muons are "hypothetical," I was generally thinking in terms of my creation/ether model, and trying to indicate that muons are not necessarily as significant as quantum theory now holds.

Then you should not say hypothetical since significance in not part of the definition of hypothetical. 
So what you meant was muons are not significant.  That seems like an odd thing to say, but, OK.

In my Model, what was important that happened in the context of cosmically generating tiny energy units

What is an energy unit?  It seems like you are saying unit is like a particle.  Energy cannot be a particle, it is a conserved property.

As ether units there radiated, and interacted, their vibrations and their linear movement through the ether matrix aligned the vibrations of elemental ether units in the ether matrix, so that they began to entrain with each other, forming larger and larger energy units, up to the size of quantum units and atoms

You are treating "energy" as a particle which doesn't make sense if you are talking about the normal definition of energy.  Perhaps you are talking about something different than what is commonly known as energy.

You continue to criticize concepts in my Ether Model using criteria from quantum theory.

In my Model, there is no such thing as "particles." The correct term would be "particle capacities," because in my Model, all energy units now called particles have been originally formed out of elemental ether units, which interact via contact vibration, and entrain into larger and larger units that way.

17

New Theories / Re: Can an ether-based model account for the strange results of 2-slit experiments

« on: 26/08/2021 18:04:35 »

Your reference to my mislabeling one minor hypothetical unit (muon) in quantum theory was not worth making a point of in the overall context.

The devil is in the details and the details are important!
For instance how can I proceed in the discussion after reading your sentence above?

You wrote, "hypothetical unit (muon)", what does that even mean?  Muons are not hypothetical, they are real particles that are clearly defined and easy to detect.

The second issue is I don't think I ever even mentioned muons, so I am not sure why you brought them up.

 

I objected to the implication that I made a significant error by mislabeling one term in quantum physics.

I never did that.  I was reacting to what you wrote, if your reply back to me was something like, "I didn't mean electrons, I meant...", I would have said fine.

By saying muons are "hypothetical," I was generally thinking in terms of my creation/ether model, and trying to indicate that muons are not necessarily as significant as quantum theory now holds.

In my Model, what was important that happened in the context of cosmically generating tiny energy units was that certain significant energy units appeared within an early "ether world" that preceded our quantum world. As ether units there radiated, and interacted, their vibrations and their linear movement through the ether matrix aligned the vibrations of elemental ether units in the ether matrix, so that they began to entrain with each other, forming larger and larger energy units, up to the size of quantum units and atoms. Quantum moieties then appeared, and eventually, a sapient Entity appeared. Then a quantum world was created for better magnetic stability.

Creationally, the smallest and speediest quantum unit, the electron, was projected toward an ether region. As electrons traversed the ether, their linear motion and their vibrational property (in my Model, electrons, being quantum units, were originally formed out of vibratory ether units, and still retain vibrational properties; which is the basis for how my model explains quantum entanglement) aligned the vibrations of ether units so that they began entraining. As they entrained with each other, they generated larger units. The pattern of units generated in this cosmic context by the electrons were protons, neutrons, and atoms. This was a self-sustaining chain-reactional quantum-creational process.

In my model, muons would likely not have been part of the process. -When I see that a "new kind of particle" has been discovered artificially through research using accelerator/colliders, my reaction is "So what?" -The important question should instead be, how were energy units and atoms generated cosmically? 

18

New Theories / Re: Can an ether-based model account for the strange results of 2-slit experiments

« on: 26/08/2021 17:18:21 »

The analogy I would draw here would be with a motorcar travelling through a cloud of dust. The car ("photon") would not interact with the dust particles

Of course the dust interacts with the car!  What are you talking about?

The dust particles ("elemental ether units" in my Michelson Morley analogy) are inertially insignificant relative to the motion of the car (photon.) MMX had been searching for a more readily-detectable interaction than that, in their assumption about how interaction with an ether medium would influence the passage of a light beam.

19

New Theories / Re: Can an ether-based model account for the strange results of 2-slit experiments

« on: 26/08/2021 17:11:12 »

Your criticisms include petty nit-picking about my ether model's slightly misidentifying a term in an area of quantum theory that is based upon denying that an underlying ether exists..

If you misspoke and I responded to   it, please let me know what it was that was misspoken.

What I was referring to was not that you misstated anything. I was referring to your seemingly "scoring debate points" where I mistakenly  attributed a tern used in quantum physics (muon).  -I objected to the implication that I made a significant error by mislabeling one term in quantum physics.

My position in a dialogue like ours was that the main crux of a debate should focus on whether quantum physics is wrong in discarding the ether, and whether my ether model would be the correct one. -Your reference to my mislabeling one minor hypothetical unit (muon) in quantum theory was not worth making a point of in the overall context..

20

New Theories / Re: Can an ether-based model account for the strange results of 2-slit experiments

« on: 25/08/2021 17:52:06 »

In previous threads, I have described how my model of a universal ether ...

You haven't explained why you drew up a model based on ether which was disproven a century ago.

I assume you refer to the Michelson-Morley Experiment of 1887 (MMX), which attempted to find an ether they assumed would be acting as a medium for the passage of light beams through it. They assumed that if an ether exists, they should be able to demonstrate its interaction with light. MMX used optical measurements of light beams, taken at different angles with respect to earth's rotation. Their measurements and calculations failed to show any interaction between light beams and what they assumed would be an ether, which physics has ever since to as "the null result" of MMX. -From time to time afterward, other investigators have applied different modifiications to MMX (other than varying gravity settings), but physics still retains the concept that MMX disproves ether.

However, in my Ether model, the ether is predominantly composed of ultimately-rarified "elemental" units, which are vanishingly smaller than the photons that transmit visible light beams. There would be no inertial interface between the ether units and the light beams in MMX. Therefore, MMX's attempts to show an interaction between light beams and ether were based on a false assumption about how ether would behave in the presence of light beams.

The analogy I would draw here would be with a motorcar travelling through a cloud of dust. The car ("photon") would not interact with the dust particles (elemental ether units), but instead would just brush them aside. -In technical terms, there is no inertial interface between the car and the dust particles. 

(Actually, in my Ether Model, this is an over-simplification of how ether units and photonic units are connected, because in my Model, the ether units are vibratory, while the larger photonic units are able to "feel" these vibrations, because photons, like all quantum units, were originally formed out of elemental ether units, and still retain the ability to "feel" ether units vibrationally.) That kind of vibratory interaction is the basis of my model's explanation of quantum entanglement.)

Photons just can't interact with the ether inertially.