A New Speculation on the Composition and Functionality of a "Luminiferous Aether"

[Sunsphere]

ajb (Physics Expert)

(quote) By theory we mean a mathematical model of (a part of) nature. You still seem to be unwilling to give us anything of your theory.

 

Is my definition of physics theory incorrect?

 

“Theoretical physics” is a branch of physics which employs mathematical models and abstractions of physics in an attempt to explain natural phenomena. Its central core is mathematical physics, though other conceptual techniques are also used. The goal is to rationalize, explain and predict physical phenomena.

 

"Abstraction” is the process or result of generalization by reducing the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon, typically to retain only information which is relevant for a particular purpose.

 

My theory requires no new mathematical model because there are already proven mathematical models to verify the quantized effects of EM wave interference which is the basis of my theoretical hypothesis on the composition of the ether. To label this as a new theory is appropriate because there is no evidence that this approach to this theoretical concept has ever been persued. Mathematical models aside, this theory fulfills the abstractions of physics definition in an attempt to explain natural phenomena.

 

ajb (Physics Expert)

(quotes) …certainly falls short of what one would require today. … So, what is your aether? …please give us something to think about.

 

My previous post, New ether composition theory; are you saying this is nothing to think about?

 

“Can we agree that as the result of the propagated quanta of all the photon emitting sources in the universe, every “point” in the universe is interlaced with photon energy arriving at that point from virtually every spherically directional coordinate? That energy is there and it will adhere to the principle of EM wave interference. The EM energy wavefronts will be algebraically and vectorally summated through the principle of EM wave interference, to establish an all pervading residual “EM energy field” as a highly complex “Infinite Spherical Matrix of Electromagnetic Radiation,” that has no propagational velocity of its own. This does not contend with or take the place of the microwave energy in the universal CMBR, which can be measured because it has propagational velocity.”

 

“As a function of EM wave interference, the full atomic spectrum of photonic EM energy reflects within itself creating an "infinite spherical matrix of multiplexed interdependent standing wave node/antinode dyads and various defined configurations of standing wave segments," at all atomic frequencies with harmonic overtones, having amplitudes, polarities and phases as resultant of the algebraic and vectoral summation of all input photon quanta.”

 

For now… I respect your feedback, but if you say this is nothing to think about, I will continue accepting the fact that many more learned than me will find vague unacceptable literature. I will attempt to offer my abstraction of physics with the goal to rationalize and predict yet unexplained physical phenomena. In this manner at least the concept will be open for review and when eventually it may be fully investigated, it may or may not be validated but I will at least have done all I can do. Thank you.

[Sayonara]

Sunsphere, nobody would deny that you are providing 'something to think about'. But when you use the terminology "I have a theory..." to scientists you are telling them that you have an intellectual preparation, if you will, which will be presented in a very specific way according to a very methodical framework. So that's naturally what they expect you to provide.

 

You will not be able to take a conjecture, postulate, or speculation and squeeze a theory out of it by looking up definitions. You need to learn about the nature and requirements of a theory as it pertains to the scientific method, so that you can structure your thinking around the processes that the method encompasses.

 

Of course there is nothing stopping you discussing your idea further in this thread without using the scientific method... it's just that while some people might run with it, others will lose interest.

 

When proposing a new hypothesis in any science, a good general rule of thumb is that the new hypothesis should provide better explanatory power than the one it is replacing. This might include providing a simpler, more powerful, or less problematic explanation of some observable mechanism, and it should of course be an explanation which observable reality does not contradict. Occam's Razor is always a good principle to apply.

There is a primer on Wikipedia for understanding the structure and purpose of scientific theories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[ajb]

ajb (Physics Expert)

(quote) By theory we mean a mathematical model of (a part of) nature. You still seem to be unwilling to give us anything of your theory.

 

Is my definition of physics theory incorrect?

 

“Theoretical physics” is a branch of physics which employs mathematical models and abstractions of physics in an attempt to explain natural phenomena. Its central core is mathematical physics, though other conceptual techniques are also used. The goal is to rationalize, explain and predict physical phenomena.

 

"Abstraction” is the process or result of generalization by reducing the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon, typically to retain only information which is relevant for a particular purpose.

 

 

I don't know, but you can for sure use Wikipedia.

 

So, really theoretical physics is all about mathematical models. It is really a mathematical pursuit in this sense.

 

My theory requires no new mathematical model because there are already proven mathematical models to verify the quantized effects of EM wave interference which is the basis of my theoretical hypothesis on the composition of the ether. To label this as a new theory is appropriate because there is no evidence that this approach to this theoretical concept has ever been persued. Mathematical models aside, this theory fulfills the abstractions of physics definition in an attempt to explain natural phenomena.

 

Ok, so treat us as "stupid" and present some of this for us. Without it no-one can really use your model or offer any real advice.

 

You would have to relate this to QED as this theory has been so well tested.

 

ajb (Physics Expert)

(quotes) …certainly falls short of what one would require today. … So, what is your aether? …please give us something to think about.

 

My previous post, New ether composition theory; are you saying this is nothing to think about?

 

I have no idea what your aether is. I have no idea how to preform calculations within your theory.

 

I cannot find a very clear definition in the literature of the aether.

 

 

 

For now… I respect your feedback, but if you say this is nothing to think about, I will continue accepting the fact that many more learned than me will find vague unacceptable literature. I will attempt to offer my abstraction of physics with the goal to rationalize and predict yet unexplained physical phenomena. In this manner at least the concept will be open for review and when eventually it may be fully investigated, it may or may not be validated but I will at least have done all I can do. Thank you.

 

Unless you present your ideas in a way that we can understand and use i.e. that means mathematically no-one will take your ideas on.

 

Theoretical physics is not a "war of words" it is "poetry with mathematics".

[swansont]

A theory needs to be falsifiable, and if it is wrong, it needs to be verifiably wrong. In order to fulfill these requirements, it needs to make specific predictions, and in order to do that, it needs a mathematical foundation.

[Sunsphere]

Sayonara³ (Doomy doom ♫)

(Quote) When proposing a new hypothesis in any science, a good general rule of thumb is that the new hypothesis should provide better explanatory power than the one it is replacing. This might include providing a simpler, more powerful, or less problematic explanation of some observable mechanism, and it should of course be an explanation which observable reality does not contradict. Occam's Razor is always a good principle to apply.

 

This is exactly what I am attempting to do.

 

ajb (Physics Expert)

(Quotes) Ok, so treat us as "stupid" and present some of this for us. …Theoretical physics is not a "war of words"…

 

I’m not suggesting that anyone is stupid, unless it’s me, and I’m not intentionally engaging in a war of words. In reference to those innuendos I am only hoping to engage open minds in thoughtful contemplation for a particular end purpose.

 

ajb (Physics Expert)

(Quote) Unless you present your ideas in a way that we can understand and use, i.e. that means mathematically, no-one will take your ideas on.

 

If what you’re saying is true, that in order for a theory about anything to be acceptable for review it requires a mathematical model whereby it can be mathematically verifiable, then many theories which have been proposed to explain natural phenomena that have been reviewed would never have been reviewed.

 

Why can’t a hypothesis incorporate mathematical models of already proven observations to apply the principles of those observations in a new theory of predicted expectancy? The already substantiated principles of wave interference and coherence which have been mathematically verified are at the core of the predicted expectancy in my theory of what the ether (which I have renamed as an “Ismer” to more accurately define it) is composed of. Why should I have to write those mathematical models all over again? If that’s what you need I could do that, but why can’t we proceed on the basis that my theory is proposed to rationalize, explain and predict physical phenomena as relevant for a particular purpose, which is to provide a simpler, more powerful, and less problematic explanation of some observable behaviors which are not yet fully answered with substantiated discovery?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Why can’t a hypothesis incorporate mathematical models of already proven observations to apply the principles of those observations in a new theory of predicted expectancy? The already substantiated principles of wave interference and coherence which have been mathematically verified are at the core of the predicted expectancy in my theory of what the ether (which I have renamed as an “Ismer” to more accurately define it) is composed of. Why should I have to write those mathematical models all over again? If that’s what you need I could do that, but why can’t we proceed on the basis that my theory is proposed to rationalize, explain and predict physical phenomena as relevant for a particular purpose, which is to provide a simpler, more powerful, and less problematic explanation of some observable behaviors which are not yet fully answered with substantiated discovery?

 

If your hypothesis uses pre-existing mathematical models, what differentiates it from previous theories? What predictions does your model make that others don't?

 

If a model makes identical predictions to another model, there's no reason to choose one over the other.

[ajb]

Let me be quite clear on this Sunsphere...

 

Do you have

 

1) A genuine new theory? That is a mathematical model.

 

2) A new calculation within an existing theory?

 

3) A new interpretation of an existing theory or calculation within an existing theory?

 

I am a bit confused.

 

If you claim to be doing something new then it is up to you to show us that you have done the work.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If a model makes identical predictions to another model, there's no reason to choose one over the other.

 

There could be mathematical reasons, such as ease of computation or mathematical elegance. Then, these can be a matter of personal preference.

[swansont]

If what you’re saying is true, that in order for a theory about anything to be acceptable for review it requires a mathematical model whereby it can be mathematically verifiable, then many theories which have been proposed to explain natural phenomena that have been reviewed would never have been reviewed.

 

Name two.

[Sunsphere]

Thank you. I really appreciate the guidance. Apparently I had incorrectly interpreted the current definition of a theory. I thought a theory was only as defined in Webster’s dictionary: a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena; abstract reasoning, speculation. From that deductive reasoning develops postulates followed by factors to pursue a course of investigation for the purpose of proving or disproving the base notion. The statement of the theory itself did not contain a mathematical model. Three examples:

 

Lorentz aether theory. Between 1892 and 1904, Hendrik Lorentz created an electron/aether theory, in which he introduced a strict separation between matter (electrons) and aether.

 

In chemistry and physics, atomic theory is a theory of the nature of matter, which states that matter is composed of discrete units called atoms, as opposed to the obsolete notion that matter could be divided into any arbitrarily small quantity.

 

Kinetic theory (or the kinetic or kinetic-molecular theory of gases) is the theory that gases are made up of a large number of small particles (atoms or molecules), all of which are in constant, random motion.

 

From those theories, mathematical models of the concepts involved were applied to prove or disprove the base premise. This is all I thought the theory was, which allows for a broad based participation by many of varying degrees of expertise in the scientific community.

 

As stated, my theory on the composition and functionality of the luminiferous aether is in this form but I had not been very careful in the manner in which my logical thoughts were stated. So I will attempt to state my theory in a more scientific manner.

 

James Vian’s theory on the composition and functionality of the luminiferous aether and quantum gravitation is that the aether (ether, in my terms, Ismer) is composed of the algebraic and vectoral summation of all photon quanta from all photon emitting sources in the universe arriving at every point in the universe, including within material bodies, from every spherically directional coordinate, in accordance with the known models of EM wave interference, and is consistent with all experiments testing the phenomena of special relativity, general relativity, and relativistic quantum mechanics, including gravity, as opposed to a notion that the ether is only a medium for the propagation of EM radiation having no real substance for its composition.

 

As for the substantiated mathematical models available, in application to the composition of the Ismer, existing models have not been used to find evidence of an ether with correctly postulated properties. Since the hypothetical ether was assumed to be an all pervading, infinitely elastic, massless, and universally at rest with a static energy level, of no defined substance, inapplicable models have been applied in search of the wrong stuff. It’s like using the formula for water when looking for oil when you should be using the formula for oil.

 

As may be defined using applicable models, the Ismer is non-elastic, all pervading and massless, having a variable energy level not detectable using current instrumentation, and not universally at rest. So current models in the concepts of quantum wave function and quantum interference as applicable only have to be incorporated and expanded in the correct manner to arrive at the correct answer.

 

Is this allowable? Please remember that I have never presented myself as a master physicist and have made no claim that my idea is without flaw. I fully recognize that my logic may not be complete. So all I have asked for is an open minded review of the hypothetical suggestions. Please help. Thank you.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Sunsphere

[ajb]

Lorentz aether theory. Between 1892 and 1904, Hendrik Lorentz created an electron/aether theory, in which he introduced a strict separation between matter (electrons) and aether.

 

Papers by Lorentz use mathematics. You can look them up yourself.

 

In chemistry and physics, atomic theory is a theory of the nature of matter, which states that matter is composed of discrete units called atoms, as opposed to the obsolete notion that matter could be divided into any arbitrarily small quantity.

 

Dalton's work on atomic theory is more like a "catalogue" with empirical rules than a modern theory.

 

These ideas lead to first the Bohr model and then quantum mechanics both of which are theories in the modern sense.

 

Kinetic theory (or the kinetic or kinetic-molecular theory of gases) is the theory that gases are made up of a large number of small particles (atoms or molecules), all of which are in constant, random motion.

 

Look up thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, ideal gases... all stated using mathematics.

 

From those theories, mathematical models of the concepts involved were applied to prove or disprove the base premise. This is all I thought the theory was, which allows for a broad based participation by many of varying degrees of expertise in the scientific community.

 

I think of a loop,

 

physical concept -> mathematical expression -> interpretation -> physical concept ...

 

One will start with a physical concept and then to use this in any meaningful way one has to express this mathematically. Then using mathematics one may get a different way of thinking about the initial physical concept. This is the interpretation which may then get put back in the loop. And so on...

 

As stated, my theory on the composition and functionality of the luminiferous aether is in this form but I had not been very careful in the manner in which my logical thoughts were stated. So I will attempt to state my theory in a more scientific manner.

 

That would be great.

 

James Vian’s theory on the composition and functionality of the luminiferous aether and quantum gravitation is that the aether (ether, in my terms, Ismer) is composed of the algebraic and vectoral summation of all photon quanta from all photon emitting sources in the universe arriving at every point in the universe, including within material bodies, from every spherically directional coordinate, in accordance with the known models of EM wave interference, and is consistent with all experiments testing the phenomena of special relativity, general relativity, and relativistic quantum mechanics, including gravity, as opposed to a notion that the ether is only a medium for the propagation of EM radiation having no real substance for its composition.

 

Can you provide a reference?

 

As may be defined using applicable models, the Ismer is non-elastic, all pervading and massless, having a variable energy level not detectable using current instrumentation, and not universally at rest.

 

Like a massless, non-elastic fluid or something? (Classically anyway)

 

So current models in the concepts of quantum wave function and quantum interference as applicable only have to be incorporated and expanded in the correct manner to arrive at the correct answer.

 

Ok, so now we want to quantise your aether. If we were to know the details of the aether, such as a description as a field, or in terms of a mechanical Lagrangian or something similar then we could give indications (very quickly) if one expects the standard methods of quantisation to work.

 

Of course this may not rule out quantisation in a less standard sense.

 

Is this allowable? Please remember that I have never presented myself as a master physicist and have made no claim that my idea is without flaw. I fully recognize that my logic may not be complete. So all I have asked for is an open minded review of the hypothetical suggestions. Please help. Thank you.

 

I don't know. Anyway, best of luck with it all.

[Sunsphere]

ajb (Physics Expert)

(Quote) Can you provide a reference?

 

From Wikipedia :

1. In the late 19th century, "luminiferous aether" (or "ether"), meaning light-bearing aether, was the term used to describe a medium for the propagation of light.

2. Lorentz and Fitzgerald offered within the framework of Lorentz ether theory a more elegant solution to how the motion of an absolute aether could be undetectable (length contraction), but if their equations were correct, the new special theory of relativity (1905) could generate the same mathematics without referring to an aether at all. Aether fell to Occam's Razor.

3. In the early 1920s, in a lecture which he was invited to give at Lorentz's university in Leiden, Einstein sought to reconcile the theory of relativity with his mentor's cherished concept of the aether. In this lecture Einstein stressed that, in general relativity, space is "endowed with physical quantities" He pointed out that the aether had been relativized, and thereby lost the last mechanical property that Lorentz had left it, namely, its state of motion. Thus he held that general relativity attributed physical properties to space, including some kind of medium for light, although not a material one.

4. Today the idea of aether, what Albert Michelson called "one of the grandest generalizations of modern science", is regarded as a superseded scientific theory.

 

There are so many references as to what an aether was hypothesized to be and what its properties were assumed to be, that it would take a whole paper to assemble them all. Several theories were written with mathematical models for analytical investigation, but none ever investigated the existence of a separate substance of which the aether was assumed to be composed of, the aether itself was assumed to be the substance being sought. Then came the earth shaking successes of the new special theory of relativity, which generated the same mathematics without referring to an aether at all! Since it was thereby “proven” that there was no need for an aether, further investigation has been all but abandoned and has become regarded as a superseded scientific theory. To my way of thinking, this is a case where scientific investigation was so locked into the required models that there was no room for investigating “outside the box.”

 

ajb (Physics Expert)

(Quote) Like a massless, non-elastic fluid or something? (Classically anyway)

 

In my theory the aether theory is revitalized because it is finally suggested that it is composed of the material substance of residual background light quanta in the form of an Ismer (infinite spherical matrix of electromagnetic radiation). With this out of the box approach, once we tentatively agree that by applying the models of quantum wave function and quantum interference we may analytically investigate the composition of the aether successfully, then we can proceed to fully investigate its herein suggested properties and functionality, which are consistent with all experiments testing the phenomena of special relativity, general relativity, and relativistic quantum mechanics, including gravity.

[ajb]

ajb (Physics Expert)

(Quote) Can you provide a reference?

 

From Wikipedia :

1. In the late 19th century, "luminiferous aether" (or "ether"), meaning light-bearing aether, was the term used to describe a medium for the propagation of light.

2. Lorentz and Fitzgerald offered within the framework of Lorentz ether theory a more elegant solution to how the motion of an absolute aether could be undetectable (length contraction), but if their equations were correct, the new special theory of relativity (1905) could generate the same mathematics without referring to an aether at all. Aether fell to Occam's Razor.

3. In the early 1920s, in a lecture which he was invited to give at Lorentz's university in Leiden, Einstein sought to reconcile the theory of relativity with his mentor's cherished concept of the aether. In this lecture Einstein stressed that, in general relativity, space is "endowed with physical quantities" He pointed out that the aether had been relativized, and thereby lost the last mechanical property that Lorentz had left it, namely, its state of motion. Thus he held that general relativity attributed physical properties to space, including some kind of medium for light, although not a material one.

4. Today the idea of aether, what Albert Michelson called "one of the grandest generalizations of modern science", is regarded as a superseded scientific theory.

 

 

Sorry, I meant a published paper, or maybe a preprint of the James Vian’s theory.

 

There are so many references as to what an aether was hypothesized to be and what its properties were assumed to be, that it would take a whole paper to assemble them all. Several theories were written with mathematical models for analytical investigation, but none ever investigated the existence of a separate substance of which the aether was assumed to be composed of, the aether itself was assumed to be the substance being sought. Then came the earth shaking successes of the new special theory of relativity, which generated the same mathematics without referring to an aether at all! Since it was thereby “proven” that there was no need for an aether, further investigation has been all but abandoned and has become regarded as a superseded scientific theory. To my way of thinking, this is a case where scientific investigation was so locked into the required models that there was no room for investigating “outside the box.”

 

I don't think anyone can argue with the simplicity and elegance of special and general relativity. Nor can one argue with the amount of experimental evidence, both direct and indirect supporting relativity.

 

This includes the success of classical and quantum electrodynamics which are Lorentz invariant theories. There seems little motivation to try to reinvent the Luminiferous Aether by "thinking out side the box".

 

There is also a modern usage of the term "aether" as a preferred reference frame. This is interesting phenomenologically as quantum effects could possibly violate local Lorentz invariance. For example there is Einstein Aether theory which is general relativity plus a unit timelike vector field called the aether. Other theories can be constructed in a similar vain.

 

 

ajb (Physics Expert)

(Quote) Like a massless, non-elastic fluid or something? (Classically anyway)

 

In my theory the aether theory is revitalized because it is finally suggested that it is composed of the material substance of residual background light quanta in the form of an Ismer (infinite spherical matrix of electromagnetic radiation).

 

The aether is composed of photons? Is that what you are saying?

 

With this out of the box approach, once we tentatively agree that by applying the models of quantum wave function and quantum interference we may analytically investigate the composition of the aether successfully, then we can proceed to fully investigate its herein suggested properties and functionality, which are consistent with all experiments testing the phenomena of special relativity, general relativity, and relativistic quantum mechanics, including gravity.

 

Maybe.

 

But what I don't understand is your motivation for wanting to reinvent the aether? I mean QED works very well on flat space-time and you can formulate it on curved space-times (with some technical assumptions).

[Sunsphere]

ajb (Physics Expert)

(Quote) The aether is composed of photons? Is that what you are saying?

 

Thanks again. I say this respectfully, I hope I’m not just wasting your time. This opening exchange is extremely important because I want to make sure this foundational premise, defining the composition of the aether by suggesting the prime ingredient is photon quanta being emitted by all photon emitting sources in the universe, including those within material bodies, is stated in a scientifically accurate manner, totally comprehensible to the viewing audience.

 

No, I didn’t just say photons. I said photon quanta, which by definition is the EM radiation of matter that renders it detectable. So yes, from that perspective, the composition of the aether (Ismer) is the resultant wave interference summation of all EM radiation (of which photon quanta is the natural source) arriving at every point in the universe, including within material bodies, being emitted by all matter in the universe from every spherically directional coordinate. So no, I don’t think it’s just to simply say “photons,” because it’s actually the radiated or propagated EM energy of all photons constantly being emitted by all matter in the universe.

 

In an earlier post I suggested that the result would be an all pervading residual “EM energy field” as a highly complex “Infinite Spherical Matrix of Electromagnetic Radiation,” “that has no propagational velocity of its own.” (ISMER) As a function of EM wave interference, the full atomic spectrum of photonic EM energy reflects within itself creating a “highly complex matrix of multiplexed interdependent standing wave node/antinode dyads and various defined configurations of standing wave segments,” at all atomic frequencies with harmonic overtones, having amplitudes, polarities and phases as resultant of the algebraic and vectoral summation of all input photon quanta. This does not contend with or take the place of the microwave energy in the universal CMBR, which can be detected because it has propagational velocity.

 

There may be more accurate jargon to compose this statement, but all I’m attempting to do is express the extreme complexity that I am suggesting will be the composite pattern of all the interacting wavefronts as summated in accordance with the models of quantum wave function and quantum interference. It has yet to be mathematically defined and I not having a master’s degree in mathematics am not capable of that. This is why, even though I do understand the structure of models, I have not personally composed a definitive stand alone model, relying on the existing models I suggest are applicable.

 

So please help and let me know if there is a more accurate manner to say this. If necessary, and you can see some possible validity in what I’m proposing, I would be more than willing to work with you to enroll your expertise with you receiving any resultant joint recognition for what may become an earth shaking discovery if all of what I am proposing is found to be true, which would be the quantum mechanics of gravity being an actual force like other forces, without opposing any of the experiments testing the phenomena of special relativity, general relativity, or relativistic quantum mechanics. I also have a proposed design for a test platform to test the validity of my proposal. This is why I want to reinvent the aether by accurately defining its composition. Thank you.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Sunsphere

[ajb]

Photons are the quanta associated with the electromagnetic field. I don't see how one can use this to define an aether.

 

Loosely, you can think of the electromagnetic field as the "aether".

 

The energy the electromagnetic field, or more precisely the energy flux is described by the Poynting vector.

 

Anyway, I am correct in thinking your motivation is quantum gravity? If so, Lorentz violating theories are examined.

[swansont]

No, I didn’t just say photons. I said photon quanta, which by definition is the EM radiation of matter that renders it detectable. So yes, from that perspective, the composition of the aether (Ismer) is the resultant wave interference summation of all EM radiation (of which photon quanta is the natural source) arriving at every point in the universe, including within material bodies, being emitted by all matter in the universe from every spherically directional coordinate. So no, I don’t think it’s just to simply say “photons,” because it’s actually the radiated or propagated EM energy of all photons constantly being emitted by all matter in the universe.

 

I'll echo what ajb has said: photons are the quanta of EM radiation. "Photon quanta" is redundant. Photons are not the source of EM radiation, as you imply here.

[Sunsphere]

ajb (Physics Expert)

(Quote) Photons are the quanta associated with the electromagnetic field. I don't see how one can use this to define an aether.

 

I’m learning, or at least I hope I am. Again, I have been a little careless in my descriptive terminology. Hopefully, to say it more accurately, I’m not defining the aether (Ismer) with photons, but with the radiated/propagated EM energy associated with photon emission.

 

ajb (Physics Expert)

(Quote) Loosely, you can think of the electromagnetic field as the "aether".

 

I suppose you could say it that way. Again, in an earlier post I suggested that the result would be an all pervading residual “EM energy field” as a highly complex “Infinite Spherical Matrix of Electromagnetic Radiation,” “that has no propagational velocity of its own.”

 

ajb (Physics Expert)

(Quote with inserted note) Anyway, I am (not picking on words, but to just make sure, I think you meant to say “Am I” vice “I am”) correct in thinking your motivation is quantum gravity? If so, Lorentz violating theories are examined.

 

To answer the question, my motivation is not “quantum gravity” per se; it’s what I am suggesting as the “quantum mechanics of gravitational force.” Maybe again, my terminology is loose. Maybe I shouldn’t have termed it as “quantum” mechanics. What I’m suggesting is that with the aether accurately defined as being composed of a highly complex matrix of interacting EM radiation waveforms, my motivation is to suggest that gravity is actually a force, driven by the “electromagnetic mechanics of gravity,” which I will define later. As defined, it will also be suggested that the aether does have a “state of motion” as at one time suggested by Lorentz, and Lorentz’s EM force principles are actually germane.

 

(From Wikipedia) In the early 1920s, in a lecture which he was invited to give at Lorentz's university in Leiden, Einstein sought to reconcile the theory of relativity with his mentor's cherished concept of the aether. In this lecture Einstein stressed that, in general relativity, space is "endowed with physical quantities" He pointed out that the aether had been relativized, and thereby lost the last mechanical property that Lorentz had left it, namely, its state of motion. Thus he held that general relativity attributed physical properties to space, including some kind of medium for light, although not a material one.

 

(From Wikipedia) Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity, in which gravitation is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime which governs the motion of inertial objects. In general relativity, the effects of gravitation are ascribed to spacetime curvature instead of a force.

 

The only problem with any of these suggestions is there is no explanation as to how any mass is accelerated from an at rest status to follow an inertial free fall trajectory.

 

In an attempt to clear up some questionable descriptive terminology, I have edited two of my earlier posts. There may still be better more definitive terminology.

 

1. James Vian’s theory on the composition and functionality of the luminiferous aether and quantum gravitation is that the aether (ether, in my terms, Ismer) is composed of the algebraic and vectoral summation of all propagated EM radiation from all photon emitting sources in the universe arriving at every point in the universe, including within material bodies, from every spherically directional coordinate, in accordance with the known principles of EM wave interference, and is consistent with all experiments testing the phenomena of special relativity, general relativity, and relativistic quantum mechanics, including gravity, as opposed to the suggestion that the aether is a medium for the propagation of EM radiation having no material substance for its composition as suggested by Einstein.

 

2. In an earlier post I suggested that the result would be an all pervading residual “EM energy field” as a highly complex “Infinite Spherical Matrix of Electromagnetic Radiation,” “that has no propagational velocity of its own.” (Ismer) As a function of EM wave interference, the full atomic spectrum of EM energy reflects within itself creating a “highly complex matrix of multiplexed interdependent standing wave node/antinode dyads and various defined configurations of standing wave segments,” at all atomic frequencies with harmonic overtones, having amplitudes, polarities and phases as resultant of the algebraic and vectoral summation of all input EM energy waveforms. This does not contend with or take the place of the microwave energy in the universal CMBR, which can be detected because it has propagational velocity.

 

Thank you again. And again I respectfully say that I hope I’m not wasting your time. Once we get through this extremely important descriptive analysis of what the Ismer (aether) is composed of, we can go on to suggest how an accurately defined Ismer functions to enable the propagation of light, the observed principles of relativity, and the electromagnetic mechanics of gravity. We will then conclude with a suggested design for a test platform to investigate the postulated functional properties of the Ismer (aether) as defined.

 

I say the following only for the record. I have published a paper, Copyright© March 23, 2009, registered with the Library of Congress, in which all these suggestions are delineated. With great respect I say, I’m sure there may be many in the scientific community with higher degrees of learning that could better articulate the suggested functionality, but the concepts are clear. And yes, if this turns out to be what I analytically believe to be true, I do want to receive recognition for its inception.

 

I still need all the help I can get, so again, I am willing to share the recognition. Thank you.

[ajb]

ajb (Physics Expert)

(Quote) Photons are the quanta associated with the electromagnetic field. I don't see how one can use this to define an aether.

 

I’m learning, or at least I hope I am. Again, I have been a little careless in my descriptive terminology. Hopefully, to say it more accurately, I’m not defining the aether (Ismer) with photons, but with the radiated/propagated EM energy associated with photon emission.

 

So, even classically the electromagnetic field carries energy. Energy is a property of "stuff" and so cannot exist on its own. I am at a loss in what "radiated/propagated EM energy associated with photon emission" means.

[Sunsphere]

ajb (Physics Expert)

(Quote) ...I am at a loss in what "radiated/propagated EM energy associated with photon emission" means.

 

Please help me AJB. I really respect your feedback. Do not emitted photons from various sources establish propagated EM energy wavefronts as a function of their quanta of emitted electromagnetic energy? If so, it is that radiated/propagated EM energy I am referring to. If not, please inform me of your take on the proper descriptive terminology as to what establishes propagated light energy from source radiators. Thank you.

[ajb]

So, as I have said the electromagnetic field carries energy and moreover it has wave solutions: electromagnetic waves. Quantising these "ripples" in the EM field gives rise to the notion of photons.

 

It sounds a bit like you are thinking of photons in a classical background of the electromagnetic field. I think you can do this, in essence only quantize certain wavelengths of the EM field.

 

Really I am a bit lost.

[Sunsphere]

ajb (Physics Expert)

(Quote) It sounds a bit like you are thinking of photons in a classical background of the electromagnetic field. I think you can do this, in essence only quantize certain wavelengths of the EM field. Really I am a bit lost.

 

I really appreciate your highly educated replies, you’re really make me think and expand my research. Most of this information was already in my thinking, but not necessarily in these exact terms. Here’s an overview.

 

(From Wikipedia)

(Electromagnetic radiation) has particle-like properties as discrete packets of energy, or quanta, called photons. Depending on the circumstances, electromagnetic radiation may behave as a wave or as particles. As a wave, it is characterized by a velocity (the speed of light), wavelength, and frequency. When considered as particles, they are known as photons, and each has an energy related to the frequency of the wave given by Planck's relation E = hν, where E is the energy of the photon, h = 6.626 × 10−34 J•s is Planck's constant, and ν is the frequency of the wave. (Light) EM radiation with a wavelength between approximately 400 nm and 700 nm is detected by the human eye and perceived as visible light. Other wavelengths, especially nearby infrared (longer than 700 nm) and ultraviolet (shorter than 400 nm) are also sometimes referred to as light, especially when visibility to humans is not relevant. At most wavelengths, however, the information carried by electromagnetic radiation is not directly detected by human senses. Natural sources produce EM radiation across the spectrum, and our technology can also manipulate a broad range of wavelengths. (Wave interference) In physics, interference is the addition (superposition) of two or more waves that results in a new wave pattern. Interference usually refers to the interaction of waves that are correlated or coherent with each other, either because they come from the same source or because they have the same or nearly the same frequency. The principle of superposition of waves states that the resultant displacement at a point is equal to the vector sum of the displacements of different waves at that point.

 

It is this descriptive terminology that I have attempted to use to define the radiated/propagated EM energy waveforms permeating the entire universe as radiated by all light emitting sources, that superposition in accordance with the wave interference function to form an extremely complex matrix of interwoven EM radiation wave patterns. I’m sure there are many ways this descriptive terminology could be stated, and I may have omitted or added terms unnecessarily, but it is this base concept that I have attempted to depict in my suggestion on the composition of the aether (Ismer).

 

I know this has never been stated in these exact terms before because this is a totally new approach in attempting to define the composition of the hypothetical aether. Does this help? Can you put it in better words? I think we’re getting close. Thank you.

[ajb]

Being a bit brutal here, you need to find better references than Wikipedia. It can be ok as a starting place, I myself have looked up terms etc but it is not reliable enough in general to be used as a place to conduct serious research from.

 

Quoting Wikipedia will not be enough.

[swansont]

It is this descriptive terminology that I have attempted to use to define the radiated/propagated EM energy waveforms permeating the entire universe as radiated by all light emitting sources, that superposition in accordance with the wave interference function to form an extremely complex matrix of interwoven EM radiation wave patterns. I’m sure there are many ways this descriptive terminology could be stated, and I may have omitted or added terms unnecessarily, but it is this base concept that I have attempted to depict in my suggestion on the composition of the aether (Ismer).

 

If this is the aether, and it describes any physical properties and effects, than these effects must vary with the strength of the EM field. Any evidence that this is true?

[Sunsphere]

ajb (Physics Expert)

(Quote) Quoting Wikipedia will not be enough.

 

I guess this only proves what a dummy I am. Even though I myself had already formed most of what had become my speculation/theory based upon my years of working with height finding radar in the U.S. Navy, I was taking the word of tightly screened contributors to Wikipedia as reference to put my thoughts in more up to date scientific terminology. I will agree that even though many of its entries are contributed by individuals who hold doctorate degrees in their fields of expertise, Wikipedia makes no claim that the entries are without need of continued updating. So if you see where the references I quoted are incorrect, why don’t you become a contributor so you can set the record straight? That may be helpful to those of us who believe that reference is in many cases valid.

 

My question; But did those references, at least as written, even though you say they “will not be enough,” pretty much clarify what I claim as descriptive of my suggested “residual universal all pervading EM energy field” which I have named an Ismer in opposition to an (Wikipedia quote) “idea of aether, that Albert Michelson called "one of the grandest generalizations of modern science", and is now regarded as a superseded scientific theory?

 

I believe that based upon those references my descriptive analysis of an Ismer as defined is now pretty well clarified. So let’s go on.

 

swansont (Shaken, not Stirred)

(Quote) If this is the aether, and it describes any physical properties and effects, than these effects must vary with the strength of the EM field. Any evidence that this is true?

 

In my recently posted clarified descriptive terminology on the composition of the Ismer, I stated “As a function of EM wave interference, the full atomic spectrum of EM energy reflects within itself creating a highly complex matrix of multiplexed interdependent standing wave node/antinode dyads and various defined configurations of standing wave segments, at all atomic frequencies with harmonic overtones, having amplitudes, polarities and phases as resultant of the algebraic and vectoral summation of all input EM energy waveforms, that has no propagational velocity of its own.”

 

For future use to be pithy, I will refer to the composition of the Ismer as an all pervading “electromagnetic standing wave matrix (ESWM).” Having no propagational velocity of its own, the energy level of the ESWM in the Ismer cannot be detected by present day sensors, but the light energy that forms the ESWM has to be there or we could never observe any evidence of universal light energy phenomena. Logically this has to be true whether we can directly measure the strength of the ESWM energy in the Ismer with our present day sensors or not. The only prime evidence we may observe will come as a result of applying the functional properties of the Ismer as defined in the design of a test platform I will later suggest to test its validity.

 

As will be seen, all the behaviors of: paths of light observed as being bent by a gravitational field; the red shift in an observed light spectrum as it traverses outward in the gravitational field of its source; the red shift in distant galaxies light spectrum assumed to be primarily due to the Doppler Effect caused by receding galaxies in a rapidly expanding universe; geodesic paths of gravitational motion attributed to a curved space-time geometry; dark energy; dark matter; and the relativity of time and energy; can be explained with application of the functional properties of the Ismer as defined, consistent with all experiments testing the phenomena of special relativity, general relativity, and relativistic quantum mechanics, including gravity.

 

To begin, the universal all pervading standing wave configuration of the Ismer is of prime consequence. Once established, standing waves are not subject to propagated speed of light velocity, because the time for propagation of the EM energy that created them has already elapsed. Therefore, as the phase of the electromagnetic standing wave matrix (ESWM) in the Ismer changes at one point, its universal phase will change simultaneously. The Ismer thereby functions as a non-elastic intergalactic fabric, not limited by the speed of light for interaction.

 

As configured through the wave interference function, the mass, relative trajectories and velocities of all source radiators in the universe are what establish the amplitude, polarity and phase of the ESWM of the Ismer. The resultant energy composite of the ESWM of the Ismer establishes an “apparent prime source of radiation” as “seen” by any atomic component or mass in its field, which does not necessarily directly coincide with any specific EM energy emitting source. However, the proximity of a prime source of radiated EM energy, such as a sun or planetary body, would contribute to the composition of the Ismer to such an extent as to establish the coordinates of that body as the dominant prime source of radiation in its domain.

 

In close proximity to the earth since most of the energy in the Ismer is being emitted by the earth, the ESWM of the Ismer will be agitated by the earth’s motion and that agitation will proportionally affect the velocity and trajectory of the Ismer in the earth’s domain. Therefore as herein defined, the earth is not “moving through” the Ismer, the Ismer is being “dragged” with the motion of the earth. Without accurate “aether” analysis, any previously proposed “aether-dragging” theories could not be definitively investigated.

 

In light of the now proven principles of EM radiation, which as suggested determine the composition and functional properties of the Ismer, these dynamics actually agree with the MMX findings, because the speed of light in that experiment would only have been relative to that portion of the Ismer where the experiment was performed, which as defined was in motion with the measurement instrumentation.

 

So in answer to your query yes, all these effects will vary with the strength of the EM field of the Ismer because all hypotheses considered, this analogy reveals that the Ismer is not “infinitely elastic,” is not “at rest,” and does not have a “static energy level” throughout the universe.

[swansont]

My question had two parts. What is your evidence?

[Sunsphere]

swansont (Shaken, not Stirred)

(quote) My question had two parts. What is your evidence?

 

Maybe I didn't understand your question. There is no direct research tested evidence available because this approach has never been investigated before. As I stated in para 2 of my post, "Having no propagational velocity of its own, the energy level of the ESWM in the Ismer cannot be detected by present day sensors, but the light energy that forms the ESWM has to be there or we could never observe any evidence of universal light energy phenomena. Logically this has to be true whether we can directly measure the strength of the ESWM energy in the Ismer with our present day sensors or not. The only prime evidence we may observe will come as a result of applying the functional properties of the Ismer as defined in the design of a test platform I will later suggest to test its validity."

Edited May 19, 2010 by Sunsphere