Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: McQueen on 23/04/2017 14:40:57

Title: Re: Aether Fields
Post by: McQueen on 23/04/2017 14:40:57
Quote
geordief: Particles are described as "excitations in the Field".  How many kinds of Field  are there(or can there be)  and is there only one kind of a Field to which this particle description applies?


This is a very pertinent description. It is almost a tacit admission of the existence of an aether like entity. There were at one time according to Feynman more than 400 different fields each with its associated particle. Quite crazy and Dirac had to advise physicists to stop looking for new particles and their associated fields. 

Every particle has a corresponding field that permeates all of space in the same way the Higgs has a field that is supposed to do.

The spin up electron. The spin down electron. The spin up positron. The spin down positron.

The up quarks (all three colors and both spins).The down quark (all three colors and both spins).Same for the charm, strange, top and bottom. And double that because all those quarks each have an antiparticle with the corresponding anticolor and opposite electric charge just like the electron had its antiparticle, the positron.

Then there two more leptons like the electron the muon and the tau lepton (each has two spins and an antiparticle with opposite electric charge).

That's all the fermions that have electric charge. Then there are the eight gluons and they would have three spins each but since they are massless they have two helicity states instead, and they are their own antiparticles)

The gluons are also bosons like the photon, there are only two photon fields, one for each helicity (there would be three spins but the photon is also massless)

There are yet more bosons, the W+,W+, W−,W−, and ZZ each of them have three spins. And the neutrinos are the charge-less fermions and the charge-less leptons. There is one for each of the charged leptons (one for the electron, one for the positron, one for the tao and one for its antiparticle, one for the muon and one for its antiparticle).


But hold on there is room for hope. All of the above particles ( few in number admittedly compared to the 400 that are supposed to exist)  most of which exist in the nucleus are virtual particles  which fits in beautifully with the Gestalt Aether Theory concept of a virtual photon universal aether that permeates the universe.

We live in a gauge Universe governed and controlled by gauge theories, Gestalt Aether Theory fits in very well with this concept.
Title: Re: Aether Fields
Post by: McQueen on 23/04/2017 21:38:15
I would just like to state that I appreciate that my post on this subject was moved here to New Theories from Physics Astronomy and Cosmology rather than deleted. I had taken quite a bit of trouble to write the post and it is gratifying to note that it was not deleted but merely moved. Incidentally the OP was not mine and was made in Physics Astronomy and Cosmology by geordief.

Also note that all of the information given on the various particles and their associated fields is 100% accurate with the exception of my reference to the aether, which again is after all only just one more gauge field involving 'virtual particles'.
Title: Re: Re: Aether Fields
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/04/2017 21:41:06
One of those fields is the electromagnetic one- which carries em radiation.
It doesn't behave like the aether.
Title: Re: Re: Aether Fields
Post by: nilak on 23/04/2017 21:56:59
The classical EM field can give us an idea of how photons can travel. But the EM field is not a simple classical field just as photons are not just classical EM waves. The problem with other fields associated to fermions is that the velocity of propagation is variable, and the mechanism from EM waves doesn't look the same anymore. However the helical wave structures can have variable propagation velocity for wavefronts with the same linear propagation velocity c. That is why I think it is likely there is a single field where various wave structures can be created. The EM field might have some unknown properties we don't take into account. After all, in certain cases, light can be turn to matter and matter to light.
Title: Re: Aether Fields
Post by: McQueen on 23/04/2017 23:40:13
Quote
Boiring Chemist : One of those fields is the electromagnetic one- which carries em radiation. It doesn't behave like the aether.


Hello, knock, knock. Wakey! wakey! This the New Theories Forum!

Quote
Nilak ; That is why I think it is likely there is a single field where various wave structures can be created.


I am not sure about the rest of your post but I do agree with the above statement. If time is taken to think about Quantum mechanics and the almost  fanatical or rather more than fanatical loyalties it gives rise to, it is possible to see that it is in every sense an extremely unfinished science. Yet the phrases that are bandied about by QM enthusiasts, are ones like; 'the most perfect science devised...', 'nothing can approach even near to ...' etc., et., The reality is very different. Take for instance the theory of the propagation of a current in an electrical conductor, QM enthusiasts will swear blind that it is a perfect explanation, yet it is far from being so, what for instance are the fields surrounding a conductor ? The QM explanation is a horrible hash of classical physics and quantum mechanics principles. 

How does a current propagate, what are the charge carriers ? According to Quantum mechanics the charge  carriers are electrons but get this, the manner in which a current moves through a wire is as an electromagnetic wave travelling from electron to electron! If a little thought is given to this theory one realises that it is both absurd and deceitful apart from being inaccurate. What happens to photons in this scenario if the current is propagated as an EM wave from electron to electron? How does this EM wave convey exact energies when a wave is known to disperse energy, what is the exact mechanism by which such transformations take place ?  I know the perfect solution is to introduce yet another abstract phenomenon ( one more complication in an already complicated theory) called 'phonons' which are particles of sound! What in hades name does sound have to do with the propagation of an electric current ? Yet any criticism of this theory will result in a lot of abuse a lot of denial and an obnoxious 'QM knows better scenario.'  The main objections that have been raised remaining unanswered. If it is a wave that carries the current, how does it deliver energy or does the wave undergo mysterious transformations from wave to particle whenever desired? Which, if it is the claim of QM, is one of the most absurd theories( solutions) to be put forward in the History of Physics. The fact that no-one is willing to question such absurd logic is even more fantastic.  That is just one aspect of  Quantum Mechanics, one could go on and on and never see the end.

Take for instance the dispersion of electromagnetic radiation. Can any theory ever put forward in the history of mankind be so reverently received and so absurd at one and the same time. I cannot think of a single instance when such absurd theries have been taken so to heart  unless it is ones like 'the earth is at the centre of the Universe' or that 'the world is flat'. How can a wave ( at this point, according to QM it could be either wave or particle)travelling from one point to another,  disassociate itself, even travel in other dimensions that are not even comprehensible or explicable to the human mind ( if you ask anyone to explain what these dimensions are they would not be able to explain) and then materialise at a single spot  when someone happens to notice it?

Gestalt Aether Theory gives a complete and reasonable explanation for all of these phenomena without having to resort to any of the utterly absurd machinations and convoluted thinking that is necessary to make theories like  QM  or string theory work.
Title: Re: Aether Fields
Post by: PhysBang on 23/04/2017 23:52:42
Quote
Boiring Chemist : One of those fields is the electromagnetic one- which carries em radiation. It doesn't behave like the aether.


Hello, knock, knock. Wakey! wakey! This the New Theories Forum!
But it is not the fiction forum. The fact remains that the EM field does not act like an aether. Nothing has been shown to act like an aether.
Title: Re: Aether Fields
Post by: MichaelMD on 24/04/2017 04:55:18
I have a model of Aether that is simpler, and quite rational.

Using empirical data from quantum mechanics (Q.M.) produces a variety of slightly varying hypotheses for different models of the aether. - Of course, Q.M. forces involve spin, vectors, waves, and other non-linear mechanisms.

My aether model is based on a concept that a universal aether would have originated from a First World in which elemental point-localities were oscillating symmetrically, which induced oscillational fatigue of neighboring "Yin and Yang" "points, which broke the symmetry, causing a transition to a vibrational (as derived from the oscillational) universal aether, comprising a sea of elemental, minuscule, point-like elemental aether units. Such elemental units would have been identical to each other, and as they vibrate outwardly, would form loose connections that are perfectly linear - no spin, vectors, waves, or other non-linear mechanisms, as seen with Q.M. forces. -As multiple elemental aether units form connections (resonate), they would form entrainments, producing larger and larger units, up to the scale of quantum and atomic units.

This aether model would have it that underlying our quantum atomically-structured world, there exists an unstructured aether matrix, basically composed of a sea of elemental aether units which, being elemental, are identical to each other. Everything in our world is basically made of these elemental aether units, and space contains the same units, as an "elemental aether-unit continuum." -Gravitation would represent constriction of the aether between a pair of "dense" mass-bodies, where the spaces between elemental aether units has been erased, as the units contact each other vibrationally.

The best phenomenon to illustrate how this model of Aether works would be quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement would represent radiated packets of etheric energy which have the same vibratory pattern. Elemental aether units are the only actual participants in this phenomenon, with the pair of quantum units kinetically "walled off," like cool "arms" of a quiet, purring, aether mechanism.
Title: Re: Aether Fields
Post by: McQueen on 24/04/2017 12:37:36
Quote
PhysBang: But it is not the fiction forum. The fact remains that the EM field does not act like an aether. Nothing has been shown to act like an aether.
PhysBang,  I hope you are not offended but you seem to have your head so far up a wrong place that you haven't a clue as to what I have been saying or you are absolutely oblivious to certain facts that have been put forward.  That much is fairly obvious to me.

 For instance are you aware  that the Michelson & Morley experiment was looking for an aether with the following properties:

1.   It was tasteless
2.   It was odourless.
3.   It had a rigidity more than several million times that of steel.
4.   It was flexible enough  that the planets could move through it without causing any disturbance whatsoever.
5.   It could pass through matter as if it didn't exist and vice versa.


These are just a few of the qualities that the Michelson & Morley experiment were apparently looking for. Is it such a great surprise that they could not find it?  IMHO the only  people other than yourself  who had their heads so far up a wrong place seem to have been Michelson & Morley. An aether that was several millions of times more rigid than steel! Do you have any idea how rigid steel is, try thinking of something  several million of times more rigid than that. At the same time this substance had to be completely invisible and undetectable. So here we have something that is millions of times more rigid than steel, yet is completely invisible and completely non-tactile, what exactly do you think were the chances that Michelson & Morley would find such a substance? The answer is NIL!

If you really desire to make meaningful comments about my posts at least address the issues that are raised. That might have some meaning. Here is a brief overview of the
Gestalt Aether theory (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66178.0):

On the other hand if you are still depending completely on established physics and cannot or do not have the capability  to read the post. Then one possible course of action would  be  to keep your opinions to yourself, just a suggestion.

Lastly, I am pretty sure that if Physicists had persevered and waited to find an aether that would fit all the criteria, as the Gestalt Aether Theory has done.  They would have found it.

Title: Re: Aether Fields
Post by: PhysBang on 24/04/2017 14:19:26
For instance are you aware  that the Michelson & Morley experiment was looking for an aether with the following properties:

1.   It was tasteless
2.   It was odourless.
If you have to list tasteless and odorless on a list of properties of the aether, then you really are hopeless. You can't even identify the salient physical properties of the very thing that is the center of your own crank theory.

Quote
3.   It had a rigidity more than several million times that of steel.
Please provide a citation for this claim.

Quote
4.   It was flexible enough  that the planets could move through it without causing any disturbance whatsoever.
Again, you don't seem to understand the basic features of the aether. The planets had to cause a disturbance, because the planets are made of matter that interacts via electromagnetism.

Quote
5.   It could pass through matter as if it didn't exist and vice versa.
Actually, they were looking for an aether that surrounded matter in a manner that showed that it did exist; hence the point of an experiment looking for its effects. The problem is that nobody can find any evidence that it exists and no theory that includes an aether can match the physical evidence.

Quote
Is it such a great surprise that they could not find it?
It is surprising that you would give that list, yes. It was surprising that they couldn't find an aether; remember, they went looking for it.

 
Quote
IMHO the only  people other than yourself  who had their heads so far up a wrong place seem to have been Michelson & Morley. An aether that was several millions of times more rigid than steel! Do you have any idea how rigid steel is, try thinking of something  several million of times more rigid than that. At the same time this substance had to be completely invisible and undetectable.
Again, not undetectable, detectable in a specific way.

Quote
So here we have something that is millions of times more rigid than steel, yet is completely invisible and completely non-tactile, what exactly do you think were the chances that Michelson & Morley would find such a substance? The answer is NIL!
Your claim seems to indicate that you do not understand what the aether is in general.

Quote
Lastly, I am pretty sure that if Physicists had persevered and waited to find an aether that would fit all the criteria, as the Gestalt Aether Theory has done.  They would have found it.
Please do one simple optical problem using GAT.
Title: Re: Aether Fields
Post by: jeffreyH on 24/04/2017 14:26:35
Since the aether by definition is equivalent to absolutely nothing at all then it has no affect on any physical processes and can be dismissed outright.
Title: Re: Aether Fields
Post by: GoC on 24/04/2017 15:15:45
Actually, they were looking for an aether that surrounded matter in a manner that showed that it did exist; hence the point of an experiment looking for its effects. The problem is that nobody can find any evidence that it exists and no theory that includes an aether can match the physical evidence.

An ether of c spin particles would be indistinguishable from Relativity and move the electrons. Moving the electrons is what theories are missing.

Since the aether by definition is equivalent to absolutely nothing at all then it has no affect on any physical processes and can be dismissed outright.

That is circular reasoning that is not accurate for all ether types.
Title: Re: Re: Aether Fields
Post by: PhysBang on 24/04/2017 21:56:53
An ether of c spin particles would be indistinguishable from Relativity and move the electrons. Moving the electrons is what theories are missing.
There is no content to the phrase, "c spin particle".

Quote
Since the aether by definition is equivalent to absolutely nothing at all then it has no affect on any physical processes and can be dismissed outright.

That is circular reasoning that is not accurate for all ether types.
Yes, the problem for aether theories is that, they either fit the facts and can't be detected or they can in principle be detected but that means that they don't fit the facts. They are at best an extra addition to physical theories that cannot be supported by evidence.

It could very well be that an aether theory is correct but we will never have evidence for it or that a particular aether theory is correct and we will one day have evidence for it. The real problem is that people advocate aether theories that can't even do basic EM physics.
Title: Re: Aether Fields
Post by: McQueen on 25/04/2017 03:24:28
Quote
If you have to list tasteless and odorless on a list of properties of the aether, then you really are hopeless. You can't even identify the salient physical properties of the very thing that is the center of your own crank theory.


This is really such a deficient comment that it is difficult to answer........

Quote
Please provide a citation for this claim.
If you have to question the claim that the aether was supposed to possess a rigidity millions of times that of steel, you shouldn't be on this forum, least of all making snide remarks about my posts.

Quote
It could very well be that an aether theory is correct but we will never have evidence for it or that a particular aether theory is correct and we will one day have evidence for it. The real problem is that people advocate aether theories that can't even do basic EM physics.


An improvement and a better approach. In a new theories forum an open mind a rational outlook is more productive.
Title: Re: Aether Fields
Post by: McQueen on 25/04/2017 03:59:05
Quote
JeffreyH: Since the aether by definition is equivalent to absolutely nothing at all then it has no affect on any physical processes and can be dismissed outright.


Jeffrey H for a Global moderator you seem to be a bit obtuse or maybe it is the result of too much pressure and too much to do. I will give it the benefit of the doubt.   I request you to once again to go through  the link I had posted  (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66178.0): and tell me how you see that the aether is equivalent to nothing and can thus be dismissed?

I have made  perfectly clear the following points:

1) What the aether is : it consists of randomly oriented di-pole points (photons with very low energy on the order of 10-40eV)  that in the presence of a real photon, line up in the direction of propagation of the real photon forming a line whose ends rest on the shoulders of infinity. So here is the first point that an aether serves, it serves as the medium of propagation for electromagnetic radiation. It serves to show exactly how electromagnetic radiation disperses in keeping with the inverse square law. The energy of the photon travels not the  photon itself, while the identity (energy) of each individual photon remains unchanged. The identity is preserved. Now , I will say this once, I hope I do not have to repeat it, the quantum mechanics which you are such a slave to, does not have any such explanations. For dispersion of electromagnetic radiation, it needs both disassociation (check out the meaning of the word) and while in this disassociated state of travelling through extraterrestrial dimensions. (Do you at least agree with this?) Along the way of course, the fact of how the electromagnetic radiation disperses is completely lost. -

Surely as an intelligent member of the community, you at least possess the capability of seeing that these quantum mechanics theories are more than slightly bizarre and that if an alternative is presented that does not include such sinister  theories it would be only too welcome?  Like it might be alright to wear zippered jackets and Goth make up but not everyone is comfortable with it, right ? Unless you get a misanthropic thrill from it which is generally the motivating force.

2) It (the aether and Gestalt Aether Theory) shows how radio waves form and accounts for the fact that both high energy photons Infrared and above and extremely low level energy photons possess exactly the same properties down t the last detail. Further consider the fact that a 60 Hz wave has a wave-length of 5000000m how can the vibration of an electron (or an ion another physics anomaly two explanations for a single phenomenon) result in such a phenomenon ? The quantum mechanics version of how  radio-waves form is extremely vague involving quantum entanglement and the spontaneous emission of particles, their mutual annihilation and the creation of new particles. Right can this theory account for the difference between a 100 MHz radio wave and a 101 MHz radio wave. I think not. QM is just  hot air and very little substance most of the time. Can you tell me the process behind how radio waves form according to QM or at least the processes involved. I think not.

3) Is there any point in taking this any further, I personally  very much doubt it.  Again I would like to point out that this is the New Theories forum I have put forward a cogent well supported theory quite unlike your criticisms which are based on a theory that you slavishly adhere to, so what is the point? You are absolutely deaf and dumb to any new theory....

Title: Re: Aether Fields
Post by: PhysBang on 25/04/2017 11:40:36
If you have to question the claim that the aether was supposed to possess a rigidity millions of times that of steel, you shouldn't be on this forum, least of all making snide remarks about my posts.
So, like all of the claims that you have been asked about before, you can't provide a citation.

Quote
Quote
It could very well be that an aether theory is correct but we will never have evidence for it or that a particular aether theory is correct and we will one day have evidence for it. The real problem is that people advocate aether theories that can't even do basic EM physics.


An improvement and a better approach. In a new theories forum an open mind a rational outlook is more productive.
Yes, a rational outlook would be nice. But it seems that all we get are cranks that can't do basic physics and that misrepresent the history of science.
Title: Re: Aether Fields
Post by: GoC on 25/04/2017 18:13:19

Yes, a rational outlook would be nice. But it seems that all we get are cranks that can't do basic physics and that misrepresent the history of science.

Interesting so cranks do not understand basic physics. So PhysBang what makes the electron move? It does not get anymore basic than that. Or are you a crank that can't understand basic physics?
Title: Re: Re: Aether Fields
Post by: McQueen on 26/04/2017 00:08:19
Quote
PhyBang: So, like all of the claims that you have been asked about before, you can't provide a citation.


I can't play this nursery school crap with you. You have had your say, get off my thread!

Title: Re: Re: Aether Fields
Post by: PhysBang on 26/04/2017 12:53:50
Quote
PhyBang: So, like all of the claims that you have been asked about before, you can't provide a citation.


I can't play this nursery school crap with you. You have had your say, get off my thread!
Yes, I agree that you can't play  "nursery school crap" like providing evidence to support scientific claims.
Title: Re: Aether Fields
Post by: jeffreyH on 26/04/2017 13:00:28
Science is evidence based so physbang is making a valid request. The aether has never been detected and so is equivalent to nothing.
Title: Re: Aether Fields
Post by: GoC on 26/04/2017 15:14:28
Then

1. So is the BB.
2. So is the photon as a particle.
3. So is a cause of gravity.
4. So is a cause of magnetism.
5. So is the cause of the weak force.
6. So is the cause of the strong force.
7. So is the cause of c being constant.
8. So is the cause of electron motion.
Shall I go on?

The two of you must be young about thirties. You just settled in on what you were taught and remained satisfied. The two of you are probably not worthy scientists yet.

McQueen on the other hand makes the argument of being in new theories which needs some leeway to say the least.

Jeff let me ask you a question. If aether particles were spinning at c what could you possibly use to detect them? You would need something faster than c and nothing is faster than c. Indirectly a interference on the spin c could propagate that interference at c. Would you consider that a detection? How about the correlation between mechanical and photon clocks reading the same in every frame? How about a slower electron producing a faster photon. How about how the photon remains constant in a vacuum.

If science waited for something to be detected we would not even have the atom for reference.

Rather than be defensive of what you have learned how about using what you learned to try and further the knowledge of science.

Never been detected is a limit of man but not a limit of knowledge.
Title: Re: Aether Fields
Post by: PhysBang on 26/04/2017 15:35:26
Then

1. So is the BB.
If you pay attention to cosmologists, you will find that the status of a supposed first event "big bang" is dubious. But the "Big Bang Theory" is not, because that theory is not really about the first instant.
Quote
2. So is the photon as a particle.
There are many ways to detect particle-like behaviors from photons. But you are right, photons are not classical particles, they are quanta.
Quote
3. So is a cause of gravity.
Yeah, we know the nature of gravity pretty well, but one can always look for a cause. In doing so, one should actually try to produce evidence about the nature of the phenomena being investigated and show how the cause actually helps us gain more and better evidence about the phenomena.
Quote
4. So is a cause of magnetism.
Well, magnetism is due to the EM field, but you can always look for a cause of that.
Quote
5. So is the cause of the weak force.
6. So is the cause of the strong force.
7. So is the cause of c being constant.
8. So is the cause of electron motion.
Shall I go on?
Please don't because you aren't adding anything to the conversation. You are just idiotically trying to defend a poster who has cherry-picked quotations from scientists and misrepresented their works. That poster is now refusing to provide a citation for something that they claim is fundamental and you are defending the refusal to provide evidence.

Quote
The two of you must be young about thirties. You just settled in on what you were taught and remained satisfied. The two of you are probably not worthy scientists yet.
Who cares if we are scientists or not or how old we are? That doesn't change that McQueen has tried to deceive other people here and that they refuse to provide verifiable evidence to support their claims. You may like evidence-free claims, but that doesn't seem like science to me.

Quote
McQueen on the other hand makes the argument of being in new theories which needs some leeway to say the least.
What theories need is evidence.
Quote
Jeff let me ask you a question. If aether particles were spinning at c what could you possibly use to detect them? You would need something faster than c and nothing is faster than c. Indirectly a interference on the spin c could propagate that interference at c. Would you consider that a detection? How about the correlation between mechanical and photon clocks reading the same in every frame? How about a slower electron producing a faster photon. How about how the photon remains constant in a vacuum.
That doesn't even make sense. One can detect particles through collision, regardless of whether they are spinning.

If you have a theory, then show us the numbers and how they work out.

If there is an aether, then either it has no effects and is superfluous for our reasoning or it has effects and these can bear on evidence.

Quote
If science waited for something to be detected we would not even have the atom for reference.
Science does wait for things to be detected. One should believe in atomic particles because of the detectable evidence, not because it is an interesting theory with leeway. I urge you to read about the history of the evidence for atoms.

Quote
Rather than be defensive of what you have learned how about using what you learned to try and further the knowledge of science.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe that is what people are doing when they question someone like McQueen? There is a vast amount of evidence out there that McQueen seems to be ignoring or distorting. You want us to forget about all the evidence and jump on board with McQueen.
Title: Re: Re: Aether Fields
Post by: David Cooper on 26/04/2017 17:46:19
Science is evidence based so physbang is making a valid request. The aether has never been detected and so is equivalent to nothing.

Intelligent computer software is incapable of telling whether the computer it runs on exists other than by hypothesising its existence - it cannot detect the computer in any way. In the same way, our inability to detect the aether of any aether theory (including Spacetime) doesn't render them all equal to nothing - one of them must be something.
Title: Re: Aether Fields
Post by: jeffreyH on 26/04/2017 18:10:16
We are incapable of telling whether the world we live in is real or just a very sophisticated simulation on a computer we will never be able to detect. However, unless the simulation suddenly starts to behave very strangely it will never matter. So if the aether ever begins to behave strangely then I might change my point of view.
Title: Re: Re: Aether Fields
Post by: David Cooper on 26/04/2017 19:18:01
If the universe is a simulation, there is still something that it runs on which is not nothing. It is not rational to describe something that must exist in some form as nothing when it's required to support the things that can be detected. Theories with Spacetime are just complex-aether theories, regardless of how strongly their followers deny that.

[Edited to add hyphen.]
Title: Re: Re: Aether Fields
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/04/2017 22:15:59

1.   It was tasteless
2.   It was odourless.
3.   It had a rigidity more than several million times that of steel.
4.   It was flexible enough  that the planets could move through it without causing any disturbance whatsoever.
5.   It could pass through matter as if it didn't exist and vice versa.

 
Those are the sort of properties that the ether needed to have in order to "do the job" of carrying light.
And,  yes, you are right it's an absurd list.

The trouble is tat the list hasn't changed.
Any "luminiferous ether " still has to meet those impossible criteria.
That's part of the reason why nobody believes it exists.
The other reason is that we looked for it, and didn't find it.
Title: Re: Aether Fields
Post by: GoC on 27/04/2017 11:50:37
If you pay attention to cosmologists, you will find that the status of a supposed first event "big bang" is dubious. But the "Big Bang Theory" is not, because that theory is not really about the first instant.


Maybe not in your mind but 13.6 billion years is a basis because of our inability to observe further. The BH's prove the universe was here much longer. And if it has been here longer the event for the first atom to distance of the viewable universe does not coincide.

.
Quote
Please don't because you aren't adding anything to the conversation. You are just idiotically trying to defend a poster who has cherry-picked quotations from scientists and misrepresented their works. That poster is now refusing to provide a citation for something that they claim is fundamental and you are defending the refusal to provide evidence

I do not agree with his views and I totally agree with relativity but that is no reason to treat someone the way you treated him. He is very intelligent as both you and Jeff. I was defending him against your degrading abuse. New theories have no citation because they are new.
Quote
Who cares if we are scientists or not or how old we are? That doesn't change that McQueen has tried to deceive other people here and that they refuse to provide verifiable evidence to support their claims. You may like evidence-free claims, but that doesn't seem like science to me.

I do not believe his desire is to deceive anyone. He truly believes what he is saying. You only believe it is a deception because it goes against what you believe. And that is where the age remark came into play. Its your inability to manage your emotional baggage that gives away your age.
Title: Re: Re: Aether Fields
Post by: guest39538 on 09/05/2017 12:37:33
Quote
geordief: Particles are described as "excitations in the Field".  How many kinds of Field  are there(or can there be)  and is there only one kind of a Field to which this particle description applies?


This is a very pertinent description. It is almost a tacit admission of the existence of an aether like entity. There were at one time according to Feynman more than 400 different fields each with its associated particle. Quite crazy and Dirac had to advise physicists to stop looking for new particles and their associated fields. 

Every particle has a corresponding field that permeates all of space in the same way the Higgs has a field that is supposed to do.

The spin up electron. The spin down electron. The spin up positron. The spin down positron.

The up quarks (all three colors and both spins).The down quark (all three colors and both spins).Same for the charm, strange, top and bottom. And double that because all those quarks each have an antiparticle with the corresponding anticolor and opposite electric charge just like the electron had its antiparticle, the positron.

Then there two more leptons like the electron the muon and the tau lepton (each has two spins and an antiparticle with opposite electric charge).

That's all the fermions that have electric charge. Then there are the eight gluons and they would have three spins each but since they are massless they have two helicity states instead, and they are their own antiparticles)

The gluons are also bosons like the photon, there are only two photon fields, one for each helicity (there would be three spins but the photon is also massless)

There are yet more bosons, the W+,W+, W−,W−, and ZZ each of them have three spins. And the neutrinos are the charge-less fermions and the charge-less leptons. There is one for each of the charged leptons (one for the electron, one for the positron, one for the tao and one for its antiparticle, one for the muon and one for its antiparticle).


But hold on there is room for hope. All of the above particles ( few in number admittedly compared to the 400 that are supposed to exist)  most of which exist in the nucleus are virtual particles  which fits in beautifully with the Gestalt Aether Theory concept of a virtual photon universal aether that permeates the universe.

We live in a gauge Universe governed and controlled by gauge theories, Gestalt Aether Theory fits in very well with this concept.


McQueeen , can I please use your title of this thread?  Also because of your title if you wish to discuss the Aether field? , I can not only ''see'' the field, but I understand it and can explain several pieces of science using the ''aether'' field.
I just noticed your title hiding of the page , you have got the title I need for my thread.