[Physics] Aether theory discussion
Arend Lammertink
lamare at gmail.com
Mon Dec 19 15:47:02 CET 2016
Hi all,
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 7:07 PM, <mike at mlawrence.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Although Arend and I are in a sort of general agreement about the aether
> level, we disagree in that I say that what he describes as a fluid-like
> substance is actually composed of only one type of fundamental particle
> overlapping its anti-particle.
But then you define the problem of what "+" and "-" IS in physical reality,
away!
And, for that matter (pun intended), what IS even a particle?
I guess what I mean to say is: you're not going to increase your
understanding by essentially a "renaming" or a "restructuring of the logic"
exercise only. What you do, is to make essentially the same thinking error
as what ended up in Maxwell's equations, which would be the LAST thing you
would want to do:
You introduce a self-referencing recursive loop at the LOGIC level.
In other words: You introduce the exact same problem to your model, as what
I called the "recursive problem" in my background article:
https://steemit.com/science/@lamare/on-space-time-and-the-fabric-of-nature
For your theory, let's start here:
> I say that what he describes as a fluid-like
> substance is actually composed of only one type of fundamental particle
> overlapping its anti-particle.
> When the pair overlap completely, there is
> nothing observable - effectively nothing there. But when partially
> overlapped, there are mass and charge fields that exist.
So, you end up defining "fields", a very useful mathematical tool, about
which Paul Stowe made the statement:
http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/StoweFoundationUnificationPhysics
--::--
Many of apparent inconsistencies that exist in our current understanding of
physics have results from a basic lack of understanding of what are called
fields. These fields, electric, magnetic, gravitational...etc, have been
the nemesis of physicists since the birth of modern science, and continues
unresolved by quantum mechanics. [...] These field problems result in
class of entities called virtual, existing only to balance and explain
interactions. These entities can (and do) violate accepted physical laws.
--::--
Now when we describe a "field" using of vector theory in continuum fluid
dynamics approximation, we fundamentally describe what used to be called a
"Physical field of force". A "field" which is described using mathematics
in such a way that the causes and effects of the "force" are fully
accounted for because they are described in terms of (parameters of) a
physical fluid-like medium.
However, mathematically, a "field" *can* also be defined, without also
defining how the cause and effects of the force are actually transmitted or
propagated trough a medium with defined properties.
As an example, we can consider Quantum Field Theory, which is based on
"gauge" theory or "gauge freedom"::
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
-:-
Gauge freedom
A gauge theory is a theory that admits a symmetry with a local parameter.
For example, in every quantum theory, the global phase of the wave function
is *arbitrary* and *does not represent something physical*.
[...]
In quantum electrodynamics, this *gauge field is the electromagnetic field*.
The *change of local gauge of variables is* termed *gauge transformation*."
[...]
The degrees of freedom in quantum field theory are local *fluctuations of
the fields*.
[...]
In general, the gauge transformations of a theory consist of several
different *transformations*, which may not be commutative. These
transformations are combine into the framework of a gauge group;
infinitesimal gauge transformations are the gauge group generators.
[...]
All the known fundamental interactions in nature are described by *gauge
theories*. These are:
*) Quantum chromodynamics, whose gauge group is SU(3). The gauge bosons
are eight gluons.
*) The electroweak theory, whose gauge group is U(1) × SU(2), (a direct
product of U(1) and SU(2)). The gauge bosons are the photon and the massive
W± and Z⁰ bosons.
*) Gravity, whose classical theory is general relativity, relies on the
equivalence principle, which is essentially a form of gauge symmetry. Its
action may also be written as a *gauge theory of the Lorentz group on
tangent space.*
-:-
So, WP confirms that with *"gauge theory"* it is perfectly possible to
define "fields" which *"do not represent something physical*" and are
defined in terms of "*fluctuations of the fields*".
In other words: with gauge theory, one can define an arbitrarily number of
*non-physica*l fields, which are defined in terms of *fluctuations* of
already defined physical or non-physical fields.
However, a process called "renormalization" needs to be applied in order to
make such a theory even usable, most notable regarding the *electron*'s "
*mass*" and "*charge*":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory#Renormalization
-:-
Early in the history of quantum field theory, as detailed above, it was
found that many *seemingly innocuous calculations*, such as the
perturbative shift in the energy of an electron due to the presence of the
electromagnetic field, *yield infinite results*. The reason is that the
perturbation theory for the shift in an energy involves a sum over all
other energy levels, and there are infinitely many levels at short
distances, so that each gives a finite contribution which results in a
divergent series.
Many of these problems are related to *failures in classical
electrodynamics* that were *identified but unsolved in the 19th century*,
and they basically stem from the fact that *many of the supposedly
"intrinsic" properties of an electron are tied to the electromagnetic field
that it carries around with it*. The energy carried by a single
electron—its self-energy—is not simply the bare value, but also includes
the energy contained in its electromagnetic field, its attendant cloud of
photons. *The energy in a field of a spherical source diverges in both
classical and quantum mechanics*, but as discovered by Weisskopf with help
from Furry, in quantum mechanics the divergence is much milder, going only
as the logarithm of the radius of the sphere.
The solution to the problem, presciently suggested by Stueckelberg,
independently by Bethe after the crucial experiment by Lamb, implemented at
one loop by Schwinger, and systematically extended to all loops by Feynman
and Dyson, with converging work by Tomonaga in isolated postwar Japan,
comes from recognizing that all the infinities in the interactions of
photons and electrons can be isolated into* redefining a finite number of
quantities in the equations by replacing them with the observed values*:
specifically the electron's *mass* and *charge*: this is called
renormalization. The technique of renormalization recognizes that *the
problem is *tractable and essentially *purely mathematical*; and that,
physically, extremely short distances are at fault.
[...]
The *only way* high-energy processes can be seen in the *standard model *is
when they *allow otherwise forbidden events*, or else if they reveal
predicted compelling quantitative relations among the coupling constants of
the theories or models.
-:-
Now let's go to the LOGIC level, and analyze your logic:
> I say that what he describes as a fluid-like
> substance is actually composed of only one type of fundamental particle
> overlapping its anti-particle.
> When the pair overlap completely, there is
> nothing observable - effectively nothing there. But when partially
> overlapped, there are mass and charge fields that exist.
>
> So the aether and matter are both composed of the same fundamental
particles
> and anti-particles. Overlapping gives a complete range of strength from
zero
> to a maximum. The size of the loops gives a frequency, which translates
into
> a mass for the loops. Where the loops have more or less tan three pairs,
the
> result is dark matter.
>
> The action of viscosity in the aether is important when considering the
> photon.A photon is an electron loop and a positron loop where the two
loops
> are rotating in te same sense and each particle in one loop is overlapping
> with an anti-particle in the other loop.
>
> The result is that the six pairs
> formed are chasing/being chased across the two loops in exactly the same
way
> as they are chasing around each loop. So the photon is an electron
chasing a
> positron (or vice versa) to a maximum terminal velocity set by the amount
of
> viscosity in its path. This termnal velocity is what we call light speed
and
> the amount of viscosity depends on the amount of mass present at that
point.
>
In your theory, I count 16 concepts, two of which are "fields":
1) a mass field;
2) a charge field;
3) both fields are defined along the overlap of "pairs";
4) no overlap, no field, hence no "IS-NESS". "nothing there";
5) substance composed of "particle" - "anti-particle" pairs;
6) "strength" of fields defined among "overlap" principle;
7) loops, which have:
8) a frequency (f) and;
9) a mass (m);
10) loops can result in "dark matter";
11) electron and positrion are both considered "loops";
12) loops rotate;
13) aether has viscosity, which is important when considering the photon;
14) six pairs formed are chasing/being chased across the two loops;
15) photon is an electron chasing a positron (or vice versa) to a maximum
terminal velocity (c) set by the amount of viscosity in its path;
16) the amount of viscosity depends on the amount of mass present at that
point.
> So I hope you can see that if you start at the lowest level and consider
how
> to produce all the particles and effects we observe, you can do so with
only
> one type of fundamental particle/anti-article, two types of energy and
three
> dimensions of space. I posted my latest paper which explains in much more
> detail, with formulae etc, a few days ago. Happy to take questions.
So, you start out at:
a) one type of fundamental particle/anti-article;
b) two types of energy ("mass" and "charge");
c) three dimensions of space.
Now the two types of energy are described using "fields", but these are NOT
"physical fields of force" as I defined them above, because they are
described in terms of "*fluctuations of other fields*" and not in terms of
fluctuations in a medium.
Your mass and charge fields are defined as fluctuations of (overlapping)
"particle - anti-particle" pairs.
For these pairs, "loops" are defined, which represent *rotation*, whereby
the two particles making up the "pair" chase one another, with a certain
angular rotation velocity., which can be related to a frequency (f) (by
dividing by 2*pi).
Also, a certain mass (m) is associated with such a loop. So, a loop has a
unit of measurement in [kg radians/sec], or in [kg/sec].
And, since a photon is an electron chasing a positron (or vice versa) at
c, a certain charge (Q) is also associated with a (second?) loop. So, this
(second?) loop has a unit of measurement in [Coulomb rad/sec] of [C/s].
So, your "charge" field is defined using a frequency (f), which corresponds
to the same frequency by which you define your "mass" field. In other
words: both of your fields are defined as fluctuations (with a frequency f)
of a "deeper" field, described as consisting of "overlapping particle -
anti-particle pairs", each having a certain mass (m) and a certain
(elemental) charge (e).
In other words:
Your "mass" field defines the "mass density" rho [kg/m3] in the field in
terms of oscillations with a certain frequency (f) of a number of elemental
"pairs" each having a mass m. Essentially, *mass density is defined as the
rotation** with frequency f of the elementary masses* contained in these
"pairs".
Your "charge" field defines the "charge density" epsilon [kg/m3] in the
field in terms of oscillations with a certain frequency (f) of a number of
elemental "pairs" each having a charge e. Essentially,* charge density is
defined as the rotation with frequency f of the elementary charges*
contained in these "pairs".
Hence, the introduction of two self-referencing recursive loops at the
LOGIC level....
In our theory, we have 3 concepts:
1) fundamental elementary "quanta", each with a defined mass (m) and a
velocity [v];
2) a super fluid-like medium called aether, described as consisting of a
whole lot of such fundamental "quanta" "particles", in a differential
continuum approximation whereby the distributed mass is considered as a
continuous "mass density" distributed across the medium;
3) aether level continuum dynamics ideal superfluid vector theory in
continuum approximation.
Now aether level 3 is an ANALOGY of "water", which is why you can use WATER
as an ANALOGY for studying and defining ANY kind of structures you can
observe in between the waters and air all around us and even observe in
events and signals from all over the Universe, the COSMOS.
This means that, using water as an ANALOGY, I can explain "charge" and
"magnetism" by using an ANALOG computer simulation. And since the electron
is considered to be a vortex ring, we can use this analog "simulation":
https://youtu.be/pnbJEg9r1o8
I call this a simulation on an analog computer. :)
Can you say: an electron propagating along the surface of two media with a
distinctly different density?
Notice that the structure propagates perpendicular with respect to the line
going trough both of the black dots?
Well, there we have our 90 degree angle between the vortex ring and it's
propagation direction. And notice that angle can be both + and - 90
degrees, hence we now have understood the difference between + and -
charges.
In other words: I argue that it's not enough to be able to reproduce the
particles and effects in the Standard Model, but that we need to understand
what charge IS before we can make a proper and complete model and that the
consideration of the electron being a vortex ring yields the understanding
we will need.
So, I agree that you (and Ilja) have shown that it is possible to "produce
all the particles and effects we observe" by essentially re-arranging the
field concepts currently described in the standard model and tie them to
two separately postulated elementary concepts: "charge" and "mass", which
are subsequently considered to represent "intrinsic" properties of
"particles" like the electron.
According to the WP, this is exactly the root of problems which causes the
need for "renormalization" in Quantum Field Theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory#Renormalization
"Many of these problems are related to *failures in classical
electrodynamics* that were *identified but unsolved in the 19th century*,
and they basically stem from the fact that *many of the supposedly
"intrinsic" properties of an electron are tied to the electromagnetic field
that it carries around with it*."
To cut a long story short: as long as you remain to consider "charge" and
"mass" to be two distinctly different phenomena, you cannot solve the
mentioned "failures in classical electrodynamics", that what I called
"Maxwell's" hole. Without a fundamental consideration of an (aetheric)
*structure* which could explain what charge IS, you unavoidably introduce
such "self-referencing recursive loops" at the logic level into your model.
As far as I can tell from the WP articles, the latter can only be done
using "gauge" theory. So you end up with a model containing not only
self-referencing recursive logic loops, but also relying on the existence
of a certain amount of "gauge freedom" to be present within the model.
In other words: the only way to prevent such self-referencing recursive
loops to enter your model, is to derive your equations directly from the
*two* fundamental *physical* field of force we can define in continuous
approximation, starting out with the *single* postulate that "quanta" or
"elemental particles" which each have a certain mass (m) and a certain
velocity [v], exist:
a) the vector aether flow velocity field [v] at each point in 3D space [x];
b) the scalar mass density field rho at each point in 3D space [x],
whereby we know these fields have no "gauge freedom", since all energy
within the system is fully accounted for by these two fundamental physical
fields of force.
>
> On Dec 15 2016, Tufail Abbas wrote:
>
> *I would be greatful, if the proposer of the aether theory could answer to
> couple of questions as below*
>
>
> *>>>>>>>>All of space is filled with a fluid-like substance called
aether,*
> *which can, in first approximation, be modeled as an ideal,*
> *frictionless, compressible fluid in continuum fluid
dynamicsapproximation.*
>
> *Are the properties (that has mentioned above) of the proposed aether
> isotropic?*
Well, it depends on the situation one is considering.
As you can see, the mass density field (rho) is defined as one of the
fundamental fields of force in our model. Now obviously, the mass density
of the fluid is considered to vary, for example due to wave or vortex
motions.
However, the definition for the magnetic field [B] forms the incompressible
component of the Helmholtz decomposition, and therefore the aether is
considered to be isotropic (with respect to density) in the magnetic part
of the decomposition.
> *Is matter fundamentally different from the proposed aether, or is it that
> aether and matter just differ in their vector orientation wrt each other
in
> some physical /mathematical sense.*
Well, it is assumed that some kind of "fundamental particles", called
"quanta", exist which each have a mass (m) and a velocity [v]. So,
fundamentally, "mass" is considered to be a property of "quanta" which are
assumed the aether is made of.
However, we work at the aether continuum dynamics level, where we consider
the distribution of the mass of a whole lot of these "quanta" to be
continuously distributed and that we can compute a "mass density" at every
point [x] in 3D space as well as a "flow velocity" [v] at every point [x]
in 3D space.
In other words: in our water analogy, we consider the water as a
"continuous" fluid and not as a whole lot of individual H2O atoms.
Particles and thus "matter" are then considered to consist of rotating and
oscillating *structures*. An example could be (Platonic solid) crystals and
electrons.
The electron is considered to be a single toroidal vortex ring. The "mas"s
of such a structure would then equal the mass of the rotating aether which
is contained and bounded within the ring vortex structure.
In other words, we have 3 distinct layers. Let's say that one m^3 of
"aether" contains N "quanta":
1) "elemental mass" m - a hypothetical "elementary particle" which has a
mass (m) [kg] and a velocity [v];
2) "aether mass density" rho - N * m per unit of volume [kg/m^3]
3) "particles" - have a mass (M) equal to the integral of the rho over the
enclosed volume of the
"particle" structure.
Best regards,
Arend.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161219/3c4a8751/attachment.html>
More information about the Physics
mailing list