Aether

[jajrussel]

I am not happy with current explanations of the Universe. We either have to accept unreasonable events, or unreasonable explanations. A Big Bang is reasonable, but not without explanation. The universe as we no it, is not lumpy. So, we explain it away, i.e. Inflation. The thing is I am not unhappy with the thought of inflation, but with the thought that sudden inflation is needed.

We don’t know what existed before the Big Bang, but current black hole models say that matter as we accept it does not allow for a Big Bang. However, the Law of Energy Conservation says matter existed. If matter existed, gravity existed.

Something caused preexisting matter to mass. There is no reasonable reason to think it was not gravity, nor is there a reasonable reason to think that preexisting matter wouldn’t still exist. Otherwise, what went bang? So, to me the only reasonable explanation is that preexisting matter is very small in mass, small enough that gravity would cause it to mass but not reach a point related to a black hole, so it could go bang in a big way. Thus producing matter that is much heavier, one of which we call Hydrogen.

For Years the possibility of Aether was thought to exist. Ways of measuring or simply observing Aether were tried to no effect. It is my opinion that Einstein felt the need for Aether to exist in order for his own thoughts to make any sense, yet neither he nor anyone else could prove the possibility.

Today we look at the universe and we still say nothing makes any sense. Galaxies should fly apart. The universe should not be expanding with apparent over eagerness, so we propose things called Dark Matter, and Dark Energy, which lend just enough gravity to hold galaxies together, and allow the universe to expand.

I don’t know if the figure was careless, but one person said that this Dark Matter exist as seventy five percent of all known matter. This is a very large percentage, and I am not certain that the figure isn’t too small. However, when compared to the distances of space matter in any form is a very small percentage, and there in lays the problem of Aether. The thought was that space was made up of Aether. It isn’t, Aether simply occupies space like any other matter, only we now call it by the more foreboding name of Dark Matter/Energy.

Now we can try the earlier experiments and expect the same results. No disappointments exist. In those experiments its density is too low for observation. However, when we look at distant galaxies the effect is apparent, because we are comparing a very small portion of occupied space to the Universe.

[elas]

You omitted the continuations that (A) the universe occupies a small part of infinity and (B) that QT is an aether theory in that it predicts a minimum energy level in space (not an absolute vacuum): Einstein considered mass and energy to be the same i.e. different ways of measuring the same entity.

 

Also recall that the Big Bang is produced by mathematical extrapolation (of a physically reversed [or inward] action), there is no proof that the mathematical extrapolation should not end sooner than currently predicted; that is to say that perhaps there is something akin to a cosmological Planck constant.

Edited June 22, 2010 by elas

[Elnyp]

An interesting discussion but when you read Leonard Suskin's "Blackhole War" and take on the idea of reality being a hologram projected from the edge of the Universe then why should we even assume matter has any real existence! I feel there is good reason to compare what we know of reality with that which would be experienced by a mind living in a virtual world but unaware of the fact! I'm inclined to have faith in the model of reality proposed by Hermes Trimagistus and the idea of matter being a product of mind. It certainly makes things really interesting!

[jajrussel]

One of the purist definitions of space that I can think of is that space is not matter, but even this definition is lacking because matter occupies space. This occupation lends a qualifying definition to matter. So, am I defining space or am I defining matter. Another use of the word space is to describe the distance between to objects. We often substitute the word space for distance, but in this sense we are not describing space we are describing distance. In nearly every sense that I can think of at the moment, definitions meant to define space usually work better as qualifying definitions for something other than space. The only definition that I can think of for space that to me seems pure is that space is any area that is not occupied. To me this would make it a vacuum. It is fairly amazing to me that this area is so often refused to be seen to exist. The universe is made up of only two things, space and matter. Everything else defines one or the other. The scale of definitions seems a little unbalanced toward matter, but is it? We tend to think of space as infinite, and matter doesn’t even come close to that unknown. Matter is easier to count, easier to define, but we can’t seem to agree on one simple definition of what space is, because it is very hard to find a definition that doesn’t work better as a qualifying definition for something else. On a scale, one good definition of space would be worth all the definitions of matter, so maybe the QT”s are right, in a way.

Quantum Theorist seem to like their water muddy. Space isn’t just occupied with matter it is occupied with other material universes. A vacuum is not wanted. They paint a picture of interwoven universes. When I think of this picture I still see places that are void. But, if the universes exist similar to a light spectrum the void places pretty much go away. Each universe has a frequency. Everything in phase with that frequency exists in that universe. If a particle gains or looses enough energy it pops into another universe just long enough to give up the energy it has gained, or acquire the energy it has lost, it then pops back into it’s original universe. There is even the possibility that the particle could move across multiple universes exchanging energies as it goes. If we could observe this happening we would only see it happening in our universe. It would appear almost magical, and somewhat random, but it would be happening all around us, at every instant, throughout the universes. It would puzzle us greatly until one of us figured out what was happening, why it was happening and how it was happening. Then they would have to figure out how to explain it. This is where rhetorical mathematics comes in handy for those who understand the language. There seems to be plenty of those people around, but like one good definition of space, the rest of us are willing to listen to one single person gifted rhetorically in our native tongue. Sorry, I couldn’t resist inserting my own sense of humor. I will completely understand if a few mathematicians feel the need to throw a few negatives at me, but back to the QT train of thought. It seems to me that, that thought brings us back to a very similar if not the original concept of Aether. On one hand we have space existing as space occupied by Aether. With space being well, space, and Aether being matter. On the other hand Space is Aether and our universe is simply one of the many plains of Aether’s existence. At this point I am a little confused, maybe I need another hand.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You are right. I am speculating, pretty much all of it. I got the idea while watching a show on the science channel. Not a single scientist questioned about what dark matter/energy knew what the stuff was, and some of them actually made fun of their own ignorance. I use the word ignorance here meaning lack of knowledge, and am in no way meaning it as a detriment to their character, or their intelligence. I wouldn’t do that.

So, I started thinking about it, just what is dark matter? The only things I know about it is the reasons why they say it must exist, and my mind has been going from there. It is really difficult for me to stay focused. My thoughts tend to go where they go, and speculation is a big part of my thinking process. Add in the subject, Aether, and speculation is pretty much a given. I tend to be a purest at heart. I like things to be in black and white, but I don’t insist on it. There is a difference between science fiction and science, but they do seem to keep moving the line. I don’t believe in multiple universes, probably never will, but I will entertain the thought. Why? Because it is fun.

Edited June 26, 2010 by jajrussel
Consecutive posts merged.

[swansont]

I got the idea while watching a show on the science channel. Not a single scientist questioned about what dark matter/energy knew what the stuff was, and some of them actually made fun of their own ignorance. I use the word ignorance here meaning lack of knowledge, and am in no way meaning it as a detriment to their character, or their intelligence. I wouldn’t do that.

So, I started thinking about it, just what is dark matter? The only things I know about it is the reasons why they say it must exist, and my mind has been going from there. It is really difficult for me to stay focused. My thoughts tend to go where they go, and speculation is a big part of my thinking process. Add in the subject, Aether, and speculation is pretty much a given. I tend to be a purest at heart. I like things to be in black and white, but I don’t insist on it. There is a difference between science fiction and science, but they do seem to keep moving the line. I don’t believe in multiple universes, probably never will, but I will entertain the thought. Why? Because it is fun.

 

Yeah, that's true — we don't know what it is. That's why it's being studied/investigated. It's what scientists do. I'm not sure where the notion that scientists claim to know everything comes from — that's not meant as a knock, but you seem surprised that scientists admit to not knowing, and you're not alone.

 

The thing is, we can eliminate certain properties by what we study. Knowing what it isn't helps fashion experiments to determine what it is.

[elas]

As this forum has been moved to speculation I can repeat a previously suggested speculative solution. Note that strong force and electromagnetic force are observed in positive and negative quantities, but gravity it observed only as a positive quantity (neutral or non-magnetic force). This opens up the possibility that when we measure gravity we are measuring the interaction of force and anti-force which is only a small fraction of the actual force; the unobserved quantity being ‘dark matter’.

 

Gravitons are considered to be ‘0’ charge particles that is to say particles that are their own anti-particle which would explain why (in elementary boson particles only) we observed only the interaction of force and anti-force.

 

Quarks and leptons are considered to be either positive or negative and therefore we observe a single force, +or -.

 

(I do not agree with this explanation of + and – forces, but for this forum it is probably best to stick with current teaching as my views are expressed elsewhere).

[swansont]

As this forum has been moved to speculation I can repeat a previously suggested speculative solution.

 

No, you are not supposed to bring up alternate explanations as solutions, even in Speculations; that falls under the category of hijacking. They are supposed to be kept to their own thread

[jajrussel]

Actually I think that a scientist is more likely to admit to not knowing than say an idealist with a pet theory. Some idealist would actually be scientist if they would admit, at least to themselves that they may be wrong. At the same time I am not saying that they should completely abandon their thought, as an example, when a thought is complimented by something, seemingly, pushing, and nothing seems to be pushing. Then one should at the minimum entertain the thought that something might be being pulled, or an allusion of pull, is being created by it’s following a path of least resistance.

One of the things wrong with the concept of Aether is that it was often a subject of metaphysics. The cause in cause and effect abandoned to a spiritual realm. This isn’t physics. The Quantum Theorist seldom helps their cause by saying that in the Quantum world things don’t behave the way they should. For every effect there is always a cause. What is being seen to happen is happening for a reason. If there is a response to a cause, even thousands of miles away, then there is a reason. The question is what is the reason? Are things throughout the universe materially linked, or is the observed effect the result if space changing shape? Can both questions be part of the answer? Am I asking the right questions? Am I willing to ask the right questions? Is there anything new I need to learn before I can ask the right questions? Is there anything new I need to learn before I can figure out the answer, or do I need to unlearn what made sense until I asked this question? Do things actually not behave the way they should in the Quantum world?

[elas]

jajrussel has got it the wrong way around, for example: In the 13th century mathematicians started with a circle of matter (Aether) and ended with a hexagon to prove that the world would last for 90 thousand years (the original diagram is still on the floor of Westminster Abbey). Today the latest rage is a mathematician (Lisi) who starts with a hexagon (Penrose spin has replaced the Aether) and ends with a number of circles to prove that we have discovered all except about twenty of the elementary particles. Neither of these theories has any experimental foundation or explanation of cause. The mathematics is first class, but there is no science without cause. The stifling of science by mathematicians is explained in detail in chapters 15 – 20 of ‘The Trouble with Physics’ by Lee Smolin; note also that Quantum theory is classified as a non-causal theory.

 

Sadly I cannot use my own work to show the flaw in Lisi’s work, but try repeating the rotation to su3 and compare the result (in graph form) with the illustration in Lisi’s paper.

 

The point is that scientist who use mathematics as a tool, are aware that they could be wrong, but pure mathematicians are far more reluctant to admit that something that is mathematically correct can be scientifically wrong; that is because they (the pure mathematicians) are content to develop theories without cause.

Edited June 29, 2010 by elas

[jajrussel]

If the view is that I do not like mathematicians then the view is wrong. I am thinking of a particle so small that math would be the only way to explore the possibility. I am thinking that if we can rationalize a singularity then it should be okay to rationalize a mass particle of similar size if not smaller without the black hole. My first thought was that the particle would have to be bigger because we tend to view a singularity as being infinitely small, but I am not comfortable with the thought of infinity unless it is accepted that the word is only being used to describe an unknown number to the extreme left or right.

In the sense of Aether, I wanted to stick with the thought of Aether and space as separate entities. I was thinking that there had to be some mass to space ratio needed. Violate the ratio and a black hole is formed. I haven’t thrown the thought out, but the thought has entered that the mass particle needs no more space than the area it occupies. This doesn’t necessarily violate the thought, but it does change it. In this sense all space does is define where two fields end. I am thinking that not even a singularity can change this.

Edited July 18, 2010 by jajrussel

[vuquta]

I am not happy with current explanations of the Universe. We either have to accept unreasonable events, or unreasonable explanations. A Big Bang is reasonable, but not without explanation. The universe as we no it, is not lumpy. So, we explain it away, i.e. Inflation. The thing is I am not unhappy with the thought of inflation, but with the thought that sudden inflation is needed.

 

We don’t know what existed before the Big Bang, but current black hole models say that matter as we accept it does not allow for a Big Bang. However, the Law of Energy Conservation says matter existed. If matter existed, gravity existed.

 

Something caused preexisting matter to mass. There is no reasonable reason to think it was not gravity, nor is there a reasonable reason to think that preexisting matter wouldn’t still exist. Otherwise, what went bang? So, to me the only reasonable explanation is that preexisting matter is very small in mass, small enough that gravity would cause it to mass but not reach a point related to a black hole, so it could go bang in a big way. Thus producing matter that is much heavier, one of which we call Hydrogen.

 

For Years the possibility of Aether was thought to exist. Ways of measuring or simply observing Aether were tried to no effect. It is my opinion that Einstein felt the need for Aether to exist in order for his own thoughts to make any sense, yet neither he nor anyone else could prove the possibility.

 

Today we look at the universe and we still say nothing makes any sense. Galaxies should fly apart. The universe should not be expanding with apparent over eagerness, so we propose things called Dark Matter, and Dark Energy, which lend just enough gravity to hold galaxies together, and allow the universe to expand.

 

I don’t know if the figure was careless, but one person said that this Dark Matter exist as seventy five percent of all known matter. This is a very large percentage, and I am not certain that the figure isn’t too small. However, when compared to the distances of space matter in any form is a very small percentage, and there in lays the problem of Aether. The thought was that space was made up of Aether. It isn’t, Aether simply occupies space like any other matter, only we now call it by the more foreboding name of Dark Matter/Energy.

 

Now we can try the earlier experiments and expect the same results. No disappointments exist. In those experiments its density is too low for observation. However, when we look at distant galaxies the effect is apparent, because we are comparing a very small portion of occupied space to the Universe.

 

Aether simply occupies space like any other matter, only we now call it by the more foreboding name of Dark Matter/Energy

 

What kind of math do you have for this?

[jajrussel]

As matter (Aether) would be subject to gravity.

I am thinking of starting with the Universal Law of Gravitation. At the moment I am thinking of Fg as representing the relationship between two mass bodies as curved space and not as a force. I am thinking that as curved space and not an energy there is no speed limit, because curved space is simply a path that will be followed, but that any energy lent to the two bodies is subject to the speed limit. That the measured mass of any body is the sum of its rest mass plus any lent energy, and that this lent energy effects the curvature to some degree. I hope to eventually say that the smallest of small particles (Aether) to all appearances would (seemingly) be moving in a straight line because it’s size would be the least effected by the curve that it is a part of, and this same thought would also imply that it’s mass would be least effected.

I have tried to choose my words carefully here. I am trying to answer your question as it relates to my thoughts for the moment, and I don’t want to be detracted by using the wrong words. I suspect that others have already done most of my thinking for me, and that all I have to do is figure out how to put the thoughts together. I want everything to tie together and the Universal Law of Gravitation seems a good place to start.

 

Further explaining – basically Fg represents the relationship between two masses as a curve, the smaller m1, or m2 the smaller the curve. In mass the collective effect would show up in a distant galaxy. It would appear that there is more gravity at work than there ought to be.

[vuquta]

As matter (Aether) would be subject to gravity.

I am thinking of starting with the Universal Law of Gravitation. At the moment I am thinking of Fg as representing the relationship between two mass bodies as curved space and not as a force. I am thinking that as curved space and not an energy there is no speed limit, because curved space is simply a path that will be followed, but that any energy lent to the two bodies is subject to the speed limit. That the measured mass of any body is the sum of its rest mass plus any lent energy, and that this lent energy effects the curvature to some degree. I hope to eventually say that the smallest of small particles (Aether) to all appearances would (seemingly) be moving in a straight line because it’s size would be the least effected by the curve that it is a part of, and this same thought would also imply that it’s mass would be least effected.

I have tried to choose my words carefully here. I am trying to answer your question as it relates to my thoughts for the moment, and I don’t want to be detracted by using the wrong words. I suspect that others have already done most of my thinking for me, and that all I have to do is figure out how to put the thoughts together. I want everything to tie together and the Universal Law of Gravitation seems a good place to start.

 

Further explaining – basically Fg represents the relationship between two masses as a curve, the smaller m1, or m2 the smaller the curve. In mass the collective effect would show up in a distant galaxy. It would appear that there is more gravity at work than there ought to be.

 

OK, well, if you can offer any math to support your position, let me know. I say that a alot around here.

[jajrussel]

It seems, I am trying to describe nothing, and I am trying to describe it as a particle. It gets more confusing because I am trying to give this nothing particle gravity. (I can blame this part of the thought on Einstein.) So, in a sense I am also trying to describe this nothing particle as a field. It seems that the only quality that I can relate to this nothing particle is gravity.

I could simply say that space is just one big gravity field. Then loosely keeping within that thought the nothing particle, becomes a gravity particle. Then all I would have to say is that the greater the density the greater the gravity.

This thought pretty much kills the Aether thought unless one wants to say that Aether is a gravity particle. I am not sure I see a lot of sense in that, since we already have something called Gravity, and any other thinking in that direction would relate specifically to gravity.

[vuquta]

It seems, I am trying to describe nothing, and I am trying to describe it as a particle. It gets more confusing because I am trying to give this nothing particle gravity. (I can blame this part of the thought on Einstein.) So, in a sense I am also trying to describe this nothing particle as a field. It seems that the only quality that I can relate to this nothing particle is gravity.

I could simply say that space is just one big gravity field. Then loosely keeping within that thought the nothing particle, becomes a gravity particle. Then all I would have to say is that the greater the density the greater the gravity.

This thought pretty much kills the Aether thought unless one wants to say that Aether is a gravity particle. I am not sure I see a lot of sense in that, since we already have something called Gravity, and any other thinking in that direction would relate specifically to gravity.

 

OK, if you are able to construct some rules for your system, such that it predicts the current experimental evidence and it is simpler than what is available, then it will fly.

[michel123456]

OK, if you are able to construct some rules for your system, such that it predicts the current experimental evidence and it is simpler than what is available, then it will fly.

 

Where is time in all this?

A system without time will crash unavoidably.

[jajrussel]

Time is exactly where and when it is supposed to be. If your question actually is; do I think time started with the Big Bang? My answer would be; no. In my opinion the sense that the Big Bang was the beginning of everything, well it is just too spiritual. It is the Genesis imprint moved from God to science.

As to rules; the only rules or laws that I want to apply are the laws of physics. The particle does have other qualities that are implied, such as size and density. Then there is the fact that in keeping with the original beginning of this thought, this particle is supposed to be the seed particle from which all heavier particles and elements come from. So, there is that quality also.

In keeping with the thought of Aether I can not call this particle of Aether a gravity particle. Space as Aether would still have the effect of space being one big gravitational field. I am thinking that Aether is the fundamental source of all energy, and that if gravity were actually given that title the curvature of space would suffer for it. And, if you are wondering why I keep using the word space without the word time it is because when the two words are put together it makes some people have crazy thoughts. It just occurred to me that maybe that is the reason for the question; where is time at in all this.

When you use the term space/time it tends to signify a special relationship between time and space. In my opinion time is relevant to everything, but in a universe where space is made up of Aether, or even a gravity particle for that matter, any special time relationship would have to be with distance, not space, and I am fairly certain that any change in distance is not going to warp time and that any apparent change in time between two systems would be mechanically related; meaning that the mechanics of a system is gravity related, and yes time would still be relative. It just wouldn’t be weird.

But, I could be wrong.

[michel123456]

(...)If your question actually is; do I think time started with the Big Bang? (...)

No, that was not what i ment.

.

(...)It just occurred to me that maybe that is the reason for the question; where is time at in all this.

You got it.

 

 

About Aether, I suppose you figure the aether like a volume of something, a 3d entity, made of 3d things.

In my view, if you try to figure something like that, you must incorporate time at the right beginning. For some peculiar reason, space cannot be seperated from time: there are the one and same "thing". So that the aether, if existing, must be a 4d entity.

As you said :"when the two words are put together it makes some people have crazy thoughts." I like that (your comment & the crazy thoughts)

 

But, I could be wrong.

So do I. Edited July 25, 2010 by michel123456

[jajrussel]

How would you describe space dimensionally? Is it a single Time dimension? Is it 3d plus 1 time dimension making it 4d? Is it an infinite number of dimensions plus 1 Time dimension? Is it a nearly infinite number of dimensions plus 1 Time dimension? Is it a single space/time dimension?

How does something without substance compare to something with substance dimensionally? If space/time has substance, what is it? If space/time does not have substance how can we segment it? What is it that we are adding up? What is it we are dividing? How do you divide 0 into segments and then add 0’s up to find 1 second of time?

We don’t, everything is based on substance. We then use the concept to define distance, distance in time and distance in space. Only things of substance can travel the same spatial distance with different time intervals. How can we so easily accept General Relativity if space has no volume, no substance? That substance may not be Aether. It might be one big gravity field, but it would seem to me that what ever it is it would have to be something substantial.

Aether is just a thought that I found to be interesting. I thought then, and still do, ‘Wouldn’t it be something if the thing that tied everything together was a single, very tiny piece of matter, an answer that was thrown away in the past because of the view in which it was presented.’ Truthfully I can’t do the thought justice, but still it has been fun.

With Aether, there is a sense of continuity. I don’t feel that time had to start with the Big Bang. The Universe as we know it might have needed that jump start, but there is no reason to believe that a different type of universe wasn’t already around before the Big Bing, and I would think that, that universe would need time just as much as the universe we have now needs time. There is no reason to believe that the Big Bang would have completely destroyed the previous universe, so there is no reason to believe that the universe we have now isn’t made up of both universes. Then there is the fact that Aether would explain the energy whose source we can not account for. So, I am not ready to give up on the Aether thought just yet, but the name Dark Matter sounds so cool that, that thought is really hard to resist. Who knows, if they had called Aether, Dark Matter instead of Aether we might be looking at the Universe a little differently now.

 

I should have worded this phrase differently; “There is no reason to believe that the Big Bang would have completely destroyed the previous universe, so there is no reason to believe that the universe we have now isn’t made up of both universes.”

The law of energy conservation does not allow that any portion of energy be destroyed, so it would have been better had I worded it this way; “There is no reason to believe that the Big Bang would have destroyed the previous universe, so there is no reason to believe that the universe we have now isn’t the same universe somewhat but not completely changed.”

Edited July 27, 2010 by jajrussel

[jajrussel]

I am thinking that I may be wrong in an earlier part of this thread. I said that I thought of Aether as the fundamental source of all energy and not gravity. In essence Aether would be the fundamental source of energy because of its volume. In essence in keeping with the thought all matter would be made up of Aether, but the effect is curved space, also known as gravity, so it would seem that the two are linked, and it would be wrong to name Aether alone as the fundamental source of energy.

Having had this thought I have begun to wonder what would happen if elas’s thoughts on gravity were applied to an Aether particle? Perhaps the sum would be better explained. So, I would invite elas to consider the thought, and know of no one better to explain the application as it would apply to Aether since the elas thoughts on gravity belong to elas. If you feel that there is a remote possibility that your thoughts on gravity could be applied to the speculative thought of Aether I invite you to present those thoughts as they would apply.

Of course you could just simply dismiss the thought as not possible, and I would be disappointed, but I would not want you to think that your contribution to this thread is limited. I would point out again that this thread is speculation and anyone and everyone should be allowed to speculate without their sincerity to science being questioned.

[michel123456]

I am thinking that (...)

 

I don't think the aether is the answer.

What I think is that we (all of us) got it wrong from the right beginning.

The aether consists of saying that "something" fills everything. that something is sooo tiny that we can't measure or feel it. And I suppose that there is nothing in-between those sooo tiny "aether-particles", otherwise, what is this "nothing" in-between? space? again?

And ultimately, what is the aether-particle made of?

IMO it makes no sense, or maybe it makes sense in the same way that we are asking what is the lectron made of, or what is the quark made of. It is a never-ending procedure, something must be fundamentaly wrong.

My problem is that I haven't find a correct answer yet.

[jajrussel]

I don’t know that Aether is the answer. I am not ready to say that it isn’t. If Aether exist in this thought it has to have properties that define its existence, and how it fits in the existing universe. I do not see for the moment in the model universe I am thinking of any room for space. There is always a point of center mass between two objects that shows a gravitational link connecting the two objects. So, where is the space? We can take the view that if we don’t see something in a given area that, that area exists as empty space, but should we? Is there a point in any area of the universe that we can point to and say that that point does not exist as a point of center mass? Yes, we can say that a certain point doesn’t exist as a point of center mass for two specific objects, but there are more than two specific objects in the universe. So, where is this space between spaces? Where is there a point that does not exist as a point of center mass? Where is there room for space?

[elas]

jajrussel

 

My apologies, for not realising that this forum is in 'Speculations' I will make a reply at length as soon as possible.

Edited August 10, 2010 by elas