vacuodynamic

Dear Martin, It is about the impact which occurred follow from Einstein’s returning to the concept of the old aether! I have tried to read them, but it seems too difficult for me which I am not a professional. For me (who believe in the physically existing of something like the aether) I think may be it is no need to prove its existence by such a complicate and difficult means instead may be we could use a simple and obvious way for finding the answer as an example below. Let’s consider an experiment using two nearly identical solenoids, the smaller diameter one was inserted in the bigger one. When both solenoids are feed with the same amount (and same polarity) of direct currents, then the sum of the generated magnetic field is double. But when the feeding currents are opposite, then the sum of the generated magnetic field is zero! Someone may say that it is what it should be, yes it is, but where is the generated energy gone (in the second case)? It is not possible to be something like that, because we still feed the same amount of energy into both solenoids. Is this means that we can violate the law of conservation of energy? Of course not, we can not do something like that! The only one sensible explanation is that there is a cancellation of the opposite phase of internal rotational stress in the physical medium (of something) in empty space. So this indirect experiment could be used to prove the existing of something in vacuum space, isn’t it? For my opinion, I thing that after the invention of his theory of relativity which had ignored the aether, and after his second thought he seem that it is absurd (as in his words) so he come back to fulfill his theory! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com

Dear Martin, Thanks for your kindly respond as a professional physics expert, so I have to be cautiously in discussion! Actually I am not an ether expert, what I could get from them is only a naïve but crucial point that the ether is something which is physically existed in empty space! Your idea is quite interesting, but it seems too complicate for me starting from the simple question – what the time is! For me, it is very important; it will make sense for special and general relativity which was criticized by anti – Einstein. All of them may be too complicate for me to catch up and follow! I agree with you that it is not a contradiction! Instead it will improve them so anyone could understand how the theories work physically, such as for an example why and how a moving object could increase its mass, or how and why empty space could be curved! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com

Dear agb, Thank you for your information, and I am glad to hear the idea from you – a professional. I absolutely agree with you, that why I like him! Actually it is Frank Wilczek’s opinion (not mine), and I seem to agree with him. I acknowledge! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Dear insane alien, I do not believe in quantum mechanics either! As Einstein said “quantum mechanics is not a complete theory”, and I agree with him. So I have tried to improve it in my paper “Completed quantum mechanical theory”. I agree with you! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com

Dear friends, In 1920, Einstein had made a quotation as; According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standard of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. This is according to Frank Wilczek (a Nobel Prize winner in physics 2004) recent book - “The Lightness of Being (Mass, Ether, and the Unification of forces)”, in which he has talked about Einstein’s aether as – “Einstein’s relationship with the aether was complex and changed over time “! Now, is this a good news or bad news? It may be a bad news for mainstream physicists especially for positivisms (which seem to treat Einstein like God?), while it would be a good news for dissident physicists (who seem to thought Einstein is Satan?). For me, it is the most interesting news. I like Einstein and love his genius, but I am not so happy with (conventional) theory of relativity! And what that annoying me is about its philosophic problem, i.e. the increasing mass, length contraction and time dilation in STR, and empty space-time could be curved in GTR, how could it be? And what I have done is to improve STR to be “Completed Einstein special theory of relativity” and GTR to be “Completed Einstein general theory of relativity” by using what I called it as “vacuum medium” which is something like (but not the same as) the old ether! So the mentioned news makes me happy with Einstein and his (completed) theory of relativity, and this may be used to support that he is still a nice genius human being! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com

Dear J.C.MacSwell, I seem to agree with you, and I would like to propose that “something is space” is what I will call it as “vacuum medium”. It is not something as the old aether that filled vacuum space; instead it is the fabric structure of vacuum space itself! But what is the vacuum medium? It is the primordial substance which is the geometrical structural gravitational potential energy; the energy that each of its infinitesimal part holds each other together by its internal gravitational force and forming to be the physical fabric structure of our space. For its mechanical property, vacuum medium is a continuous isotopic homogenous medium which have a peculiar mechanical property. It is very thin in mass density so it is permeable by all matters almost without any observed resistance. But it has very large elastic coefficient and sensitive to shear force (rotational force) while not to compressive or longitudinal force. Now, the question is could we prove the existence of the vacuum medium? The answer is yes, we could do it via a simple scientific experiment prove. By using two nearly identical solenoids, the smaller diameter one was inserted in the bigger one. When both solenoids are feed with the same amount (and same polarity) of direct currents, then the sum of the generated magnetic field is double. But when the feeding currents are opposite, then the sum of the generated magnetic field is zero! Someone may say that it is what it should be, yes it is, but where is the generated energy gone (in the second case)? It is not possible to be something like that, because we still feed the same amount of energy into both solenoids. Is this means that we can violate the law of conservation of energy? Of course not, we can not do something like that! The only one sensible explanation is that there is a cancellation of the opposite phase of internal rotational stress in the vacuum medium. So this means that vacuum medium is existed, isn’t it? Sincerely, Nimit .................... http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com

Dear Martin, In 1920, Einstein had made a quotation as; According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standard of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. This is according to Frank Wilczek (a Nobel Prize winner in physics 2004) recent book - “The Lightness of Being (Mass, Ether, and the Unification of forces)”, in which he has talked about Einstein’s aether as – “Einstein’s relationship with the aether was complex and changed over time “! Do you have any additional comment? Sincerely, Nimit

Dear Martin and friends, Thank you for trying to explain the question. What I have in mind is that I am not understood why some physicists have so much trouble about “why” in science? For me it is quite straight forward. Of course it is not my own idea, what I asking is the same thing as Newton was asked about his theory of gravity and he had answered, as was told by Richard P. Feynman in his book “The Characteristic of Physical Law” page 37 as follow; “… Newton was originally asked about his theory ….. He said, ‘….I have told you how it moves, not why.’ But people often are unsatisfied without a mechanism, ….”. So what you have said that “what underlies GR and how matter affects geometry of space-time” is about the “mechanism” of gravity which will be the answer for the question “why masses attract each other” isn’t it? Sincerely

Dear Klaynos and friends, Let’s discuss one fundamental problem in gravity, to see whether they could understand it; why masses attract each other? Sincerely

Dear Snail and friends, Is it so? Anyway, he is still one of my friends! For me, a mathematical model seems only “telling”, not “explaining” which will give us “understanding” how it works! Sincerely Dear ajb, pioneer and friends, It is interesting to note that mainstream physicists try to find the theory of everything while they don’t try to asking “how and why” about modern physics theories involved! How could they achieved it without “understanding” their work? Sincerely

Dear Klaynos and friends, What about these explanations? Why do planets orbit star? Because gravity and centrifugal balancing. How do planets orbit star? They do according to Newton gravitation law. Of course not! A good theory should have philosophical idea which explains how it works, together with mathematical formula which was used as the predicting tool. Of course, the main goal of the theory is to make a prediction, but if we understand its mechanism it will give us more confidence in the theory, otherwise it may lead us to something crazy! Yes, we all know that, but it would be better if we know why the classical mechanics work as it does. Also, understanding why SR which is more general working. Are we confident that SR is a really complete one, while we do not know the reason behind? What we do know is only because it is due to the Lorentz transformations, but what is it physical meaning? Indeed it is, but it would be better if we know how it links together,isn't it? Sincerely

Dear Klaynos and friends, “The question is not answer in QM.” Is it because it is philosophers’ duty so there is no need for scientists to know, or it is necessary for scientists to understand, but can not done yet? Is the reason that we not asking for because it is not science and it is useless or because we (scientists or philosophers) can not understand it? Sorry, I am not so good in English; would you please explain it again? I am not so clear about the meaning of “adding”. Anyway, let’s see for an example about SR and classical mechanics. We know that SR is more general and accurate than classical mechanics, so could we say that classical mechanics was replaced by SR? Sincerely

Dear Klaynos and friends, For these theories, how “why” implied for them? As I know, nowadays gravity still cannot unified to the others, can it? What is the unification theory mentioned? Is it means that” why masses attract each other?” have a reason a purpose and it is not science? Then what is the reason a purpose? That is the greatest problem for science which trying to finding TOE but still not success! Please explain more specifically about “you don’t seem to grasp the current theories include or what a TOE would contain.” But all of them are not yet success, are they? Sincerely

Would you please give some examples? Yes, it is, but how to unify them together? Like, what is the mechanism of gravity, how and why masses attract each other? The same question for electromagnetism, weak force and strong force! Yes it does, but how to combine general relativity with quantum mechanics to be quantum gravity, while both of them are inconsistence to each other? Also both the theories are lacking of its black ground philosophical idea (mechanism) which explain how they work! I dare not to think that I am smarter, but only try to understand! Sincerely

Dear Klaynos and friends, Is science a magic? I don’t think so. Everyone knows that “understanding” is the progression of science! Actually, it seems that physicists want to understand all of the natural phenomena, unless they could not do that but too be ashamed to accept it. This may be the greatest problem of modern physics theories today! It is interesting to note that nowadays modern theoretical physicists want to find ‘the theory of everything”, while they don’t try to understand the fundamental physics first. For example, they try to combine general relativity with quantum mechanics. How could they success, while they do not understand both theories completely? Sincerely

Dear Reaper and friends, According to general theory, space-time was curved in the present of the near by mass, it is alright, but there are two remaining questions involved! The first one is “how space-time is curved while it is an empty space-time”? The second question is “why mass causing space-time to be curved”? At first sight, it seems that Einstein could explain the “mechanism” of gravity, while Newton could not. Actually both of their theories have the same position about gravity, the only difference is that Newton explanation is a simple and approximate one, while Einstein explanation is elegant and more accurate, but also more complicate! Sincerely

Dear Pete and friends, According to F. Rohrlich, in his book “Classical charged particles”, he said that Poincare stress (cohesive force) appear to be of mysterious origin, and obtained by ad hog assumption. Now, we will try to solve the problem by using the concept that electron as a tiny black hole. Conventionally we can calculate electrostatic field energy create by an electron in terms of its charge and radius. And we can calculate momentum of a moving electron in term of in terms of its charge and radius too. Both of the two calculations were done by Richard P. Feynman (in his book “Lecture on Physics vol.2”) in order to find electron mass and energy. Unfortunately, the calculated mass and energy of an electron does not correspond to mass-energy relation, i.e. electron energy is not equal to mass time square of light speed! Now, if we treat electron as a tiny black hole which immerged in the surrounding vacuum medium, then it will attract and create internal stress in the near by vacuum medium, in which it was manifested as electrostatic field. So we could get the “stress energy” which is the same thing as electrostatic field energy from the calculation above. But remember that the “stress energy” was created by black hole (electron), so electron “self energy” is also equal to the created energy (energy created from a source = energy of the source). Then the total energy of an electron is twice of its electrostatic field energy! Next, based on the concept that an electron moving in vacuum medium, we could apply the concept “Hydrodynamics” for a moving sphere of mass in a fluid. In this case, the kinetic energy of the fluid acting on the sphere is equivalent to one fourth of mass of the fluid displaced by the sphere. Analogously, the additional mass of the moving electron is one fourth of its mass! Finally, by comparing the new calculated mass and energy of electron, we would found that it corresponds to mass-energy relation, i.e. electron energy is equal to its mass time square of light speed! Then we could say that is a tiny black hole, couldn’t we?

Dear Friends, Let us see an unpopular idea of “Einstein’s electron theory” in W. Pauli’s book “Theory of relativity”. His idea is to assume that the “material particles are “held together” solely by gravitational force”! And he had derived the formula starting from the assumption of a material energy-momentum tensor. Of course, Einstein’s electron theory was ignored by almost all of scientists. The reason is that “Coulomb force” of matter is much greater than its gravitational force! Now, to visualize the mechanism which holds electron together, first we have to understand what is electron composed of? According to standard big bang (with inflation scenario) theory, steady-state theory or quisi- steady-state theory, the universe starts with what was called “scalar field”. Anyway, it seems that there is not quite clear about it. Next, let us imagine that before the universe is existed, there is nothing, not even empty space! And after the universe was created, in the sense that its fabric structure was built out from some primordial substance which we will called it as “vacuum medium”. So vacuum space is not just an empty space filled with something like the aether, but it is vacuum space itself! But what is “vacuum medium”? Vacuum medium is the uniform geometrical structural gravitational potential energy; the energy that each of its infinitesimal part holds each other together by its internal gravitational force. Also vacuum medium is the minimum energy which is minimal enough to form the “physical fabric structure of our space”. And if we interpret the existing vacuum (medium) space as “positive energy” whiles its internal gravitation force as “negative energy”, no space no energy, then the principle of conservation energy is conserved! Finally, it is reasonable to think that electron (or other elementary particles) is just the “condensed of vacuum medium energy” which forming to be all of the matters in our universe. Otherwise we can not solve the endless hierarchy of elementary particles, i.e. what is the ultimate composition of the material particles! By the way, it is interesting to see that how high energy physicists who are now building a bigger accelerator, could find out the “ultimate particle” of matter?

Dear Friends, Now, let us talk more about “something” in vacuum space, which act as the “mechanism” for gravity, and we will call it as “vacuum medium space”. First of all, “vacuum medium space” is not the same concept as the aether which filled the “empty” vacuum space, but it is vacuum space itself! It is the uniform geometrical structural gravitational potential energy; the energy that each of its infinitesimal part holds each other together by its internal gravitational force, and forming to be the “physical fabric structure of our space”! A simple scientific experiment proves is easy to be done. Two nearly identical solenoids (with equal number of turns but one of them is slightly small enough to insert in the bigger one) were feed with the same amount of direct currents. Now if the feeding currents have the same polarity, then the sum of the generated magnetic field is double. Now, if the feeding currents are different polarity, then the sum of the generated magnetic field is “zero”. But according to the “law of conservation of energy”, the generated magnetic field energy cannot be destroyed! Then where is the generated energy gone? The only one sensible explanation is that there is a cancellation of the opposite phase of internal rotational stress in the vacuum medium. So this would mean that vacuum medium is existed, won’t it?

Dear DonJstevens, Thanks for your information, it is new for me. By the way, we could learn some good idea from great scientists especially in the old time. For example, one unpopular idea of “Einstein’s electron theory” in W. Pauli’s book “Theory of relativity”. His idea is to assume that the “material particles are held together solely by gravitational force”! And he had derived the formula starting from the assumption of a material energy-momentum tensor. Of course, Einstein’s electron theory was ignored by almost all of scientists. The reason is that “Coulomb force” of matter is much greater than its gravitational force! Anyway, the problem could be eliminated if matter is just the condensed of “something” which act as the primordial substance that forming to be all of matter. Also the “something” mentioned is the same one that acting as the mechanism of gravity talked early. In this way we could view matter is just the condensed of “something” which is immerged in the same “something” that formed to be the fabric structure of vacuum space!

Dear friends, Let us talk about some general property of electron beside its technical detail, and then it may guide us for solving some of its unsolved problems. For example, why electron does not suck other near by electron, but instead it repels each other! Before answering the question, we have to understand how black hole suck the near by object. Someone may say that this is easy, it work via a strong gravitational field! And field concept seems to offer a good solution, but the followed problem is how it works? Actually, field concept is just an ad hog solution for replacing the “transmitting medium” needs to convey gravitational force! First, let us assumed that there is “something” (mass or energy) in vacuum space (which indeed we can prove its existence), so we have a medium for handling gravitation force. Now the medium of “something” will act as the “mechanism” for gravity an also for antigravity (repelling)! Actually, two near by electrons should always suck each other via the medium of “something” in between. At the same time, they also suck the surrounding medium, which appeared as electrostatic field around. But the compressing force occur in the medium (between both electrons) is less than the tensile force of the medium, so the resultant force is a repelling one! Indeed, someone who familiar with Richard P. Feynman’s “Lecture on physics vol. 2), would found that he was wondered about the “strange” interaction between two near by protons. We know that two near by protons will repel each other (same thing as electron do). But if we increase the separation distance between them, we will found that “at a certain distance” their interaction will change from “repellence” to “attraction”! Why it is being so? Similar to the concept of “electron is a tiny black hole” if we treated proton as tiny black hole too, but as a bigger one! Then, now we could solve the proton’s problem mentioned in the same way as we explained for electron!

Thanks for suggestion. Anyways, what my really intention for asking the problem is to open further discussion about Hawking radiation. As you know (may be from Wigkipedia) that up to now there is still some theoretical dispute over whether Hawking radiation actually exists. Further more the existence of Hawking radiation has never been observed. By the way, if the primordial black holes did not evaporate but existed as electrons, this idea should be a good alternative, isn’t it?

Would you please explain in detail how "evaporate" work? What "physics" behind the evaporation?

It is interesting; I think we could not distinguish the difference. Instead may be electron is a tiny black hole which was created from “something” that act as the primary substance; the substance which form to be ordinary “matters”! Nimit