[Physics] Aether theory discussion

[Tufail Abbas]

Mike,

I have still to find time to read your paper, have to do it for sure to try
and understand your statement regarding dark matter, which is a complete
mystery.

However I could find some interesting statements in you below emails which
is matching with my conclusions made under Big Bathroom Model of the
Universe. This model is based upon observation of the nature and deriving
interpretation thereof, based upon the principle that micro and macro
phenomenon is governed by same basic laws of physics, and we do not need
different physics(namely quantam, relativistic and classical) to explain
different phenomenon.

My comments on those interesting statements are as follows:

>>>>>Fundamental charge is the same size and strength as fundamental mass,
but is of opposite energy type

>>>>>>>I think of the meons as perfect spheres whose density is the
greatest possible, being 1 on the Planck scale.

As far as maximum density is concerned, I agree that there is one.

However,  I differ a bit with you on the statement that meon is a *perfect
sphere* . п being an *irrational* number, perfect sphere do not exists in
3-dimensional space(they are basically four dimensional objects) and
perfect circle do not exist in 2-dimensional space (they are 3 dimensional
objects). What we call as circle in 2 dimension is *basically an ellipse*
with eccentricity of *limit tending to zero*.

Let the average radius of this ellipse is *r* and eccentricity e. In three
dimension, this ellipse can be thought as a cylinder of radius *r* and
height *2er*

So the volume of this 3-D ellipse is *п(2er)r^2. *This volume that you have
got is *proportional *to minimum length(er), minimum time(er/c), minimum
mass(2пer), minimum energy*(2пerc^2). *What I propose that r should be
replaced with c and be correlated with physical parameters.

*Equation of velocity*

cv={cos(sin inverse e) +ie)

c.cos(sin inverse e) is the velocity in time

ce is the velocity in space

*Lorentz Transformation*

ɣ=sec(sin inverse e)


Just by varying the eccentricity, I propose that all laws of physics should
be derived, with an special emphasis on the physical significance of euler
identity, euler formula and maximum value of N.


>>>>>>At the most basic level  I distinguish between the fundamental mass
of the meons (the particle/anti-particles from which all loops (fermions)
are made) and what we call the mass of the particles (the loops whose
frequencies defines what we observe their mass to be)

Yes, I agree that fundamental mass is proportional to minimum eccentricity

Observed mass is proportional to additional phase displacement or
eccentricity greater than minimum eccentricity.


>>>>>>This means that all the composites we are made of, and black holes,
can never exceed the meon densities, so physics does not break down
anywhere.

Similar to the case that we have a minimum eccentricity e, maximum
eccentricity would be 1/e and maximum density should be proportional to
maximum eccentricity.

*Comment on nature of aether*

Aether is the 3rd third dimension of ellipse and 4th dimension of sphere.

All are requested to provide their feedback on above,

Regards,

Tufail Abbas


On 21 December 2016 at 21:05, <mike at mlawrencep.co.uk <mike at mlawrence.co.uk>>
wrote:

> Arend,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your detailed examination of my response to  Tufail. As I said
> to him, he should look at the published paper which I attached to my
> response. Your points raised are covered in that paper. At the most basic
> level  I distinguish between the fundamental mass of the meons (the
> particle/anti-particles from which all loops (fermions) are made) and what
> we call the mass of the particles (the loops whose frequencies defines what
> we observe their mass to be). The loops deflect space dependent on their
> size, therefore their mass. There is no mass field due directly to that
> ‘mass’, only a deflection which can be said to appear to be a gravitational
> field, but is not.  For the fundamental mass, the deflection is the same
> for all positive meons, and the exact opposite for all negative meons,  the
> result being that the two fundamental mass deflections try to cancel each
> other (attract) whilst trying to maintain separation (chase). They could be
> described (as I often do) as being the product of field interactions, but
> really are the result of deflections in space.
>
> Charge is a different property, where both fundamental charge and loop
> charge may or may not be the same property, but anyway have the same
> effects. Fundamental charge is the same size and strength as fundamental
> mass, but is of opposite energy type. So all meons have total energy of
> zero. You can think of charge as deflecting space, like mass, although only
> the space which reacts to charge. It is underlying all the explanations
> that only similar energies interact, so masses interact with masses but not
> charges and vice versa.
>
> For the generation of electronic charge,  I propose it is produced by the
> spinning of meons as they separate out of their overlapping pairs. The same
> energy is required to separate all such pairs and that gives us the
> standard size of one-sixth electron charge, and each pair has both a
> positive and a negative such charge  when separated.
>
> I think of the meons as perfect spheres whose density is the greatest
> possible, being 1 on the Planck scale. So no composite particle (the loops)
> can ever be more dense than one meon. This means that all the composites we
> are made of, and black holes, can never exceed the meon densities, so
> physics does not break down anywhere. The framework produces both
> continuous values of ‘fields’ (for brevity) within the background (aether,
> as you prefer to call it) and discrete values for loops in terms of masses,
> spins and charges.
>
> Once more my explanation here is a shadow of how I describe the framework
> in my paper. I would hope that all your questions would be answered to your
> satisfaction if you looked through the paper. But am happy to try to
> provide more detail as required.
>
> Cheers
>
> Mike
>
>
> On Dec 19 2016, Arend Lammertink wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 7:07 PM, 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 Z⠰ 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161222/def29141/attachment.html>