It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# The Two-Component Aether

page: 2
15
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 12:33 AM

I find a lot of the multi-dimensional math is greatly simplified by the use of quaternions/Clifford Algebras and the use of differential forms. There is no universally agreed best embedding but Hestenes's Geometric Algebra has got some traction among physicists.

You can for example render Maxwells equations as a single differential equation in Geometric Algebra.

www2.montgomerycollege.edu...

posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 08:00 AM

originally posted by: SevenThunders

I find a lot of the multi-dimensional math is greatly simplified by the use of quaternions/Clifford Algebras and the use of differential forms. There is no universally agreed best embedding but Hestenes's Geometric Algebra has got some traction among physicists.

You can for example render Maxwells equations as a single differential equation in Geometric Algebra.

www2.montgomerycollege.edu...

Thank you. That looks to be an extremely interesting book, and I have saved a copy of the PDF to my desktop. I then went straight to page 173 to see the manipulation of Maxwell's equations into a single simple equation. It does appear to be some powerful math.

However I believe that approach takes us further from what I consider to be the physics. To me, physics should start with the modeling of nature in terms of tangible things that we can describe in words that people can readily understand. Then we should apply the most straight-forward math possible to describe those tangible things. Then we should use that math to make predictions for tests to see if our modeling represents nature. If it passes the test, then our physics is good; if not, we should adjust our models. My work uses precisely this approach to arrive at Maxwell's Equations.

By rolling all of Maxwell's equations into the single equation del F = J (or nabla F = J), what has been done is to take the four equations and roll their contents into notations (F and J) that are themselves internally complicated. This takes us further from our underlying understanding of our models, since the internal complexity is now merely hidden within simple notation. Hence, I believe the old school ways of straight vector calculus are superior for revealing the thought process involving tangible things, at least in this instance.

However, I do readily admit to the power of the approach you bring to my attention, since once one knows the rules for manipulation of the new simple notation one can arrive at further results more simply and be less prone to error. So there is certainly good in both approaches, and I again thank you for the link to what looks to be a very valuable resource for my future study!

posted on May, 27 2018 @ 04:04 AM

I really enjoyed that thanks.

Does this theory solve inflation?

I have a problem with randomness in your theory. For me. That could/would lead to problems in itself.Example. Over or under inflation of the universe.

I would prefer to see a ratio related reason. It happened in the early universe when matter outnumbered anti matter by a billion in one to a billion.

For me. This would keep things in order.

If it is random. Would we be able to see these fluctuations (exampled above) in inflation? Do we see any fluctuation?

Which would then be another problem. As. It would mean there had to be a rogue photon which either speeds up or slows down and drops out. Decaying further at now a sub photonic level to pair off as positive and neg aether.

Sorry if i've created an issue here. I hope you see my problem with this.

Under any circumstance above. When inflation reaches the point where everything is so far apart that you wouldn't see stars for example. Would inflation slow down?

Now you've established that a photon isn't the end state. And, can decay further. Can the aether also decay further? Changing to something else.

Good luck with this theory. You've put a lot of work into it for sure.

posted on May, 28 2018 @ 07:31 AM

Thanks for commenting, however I believe there is a bit of a disconnect, at least from the OP. The two component aether model does not itself involve inflation nor randomness, and photons per se do not enter in. Instead, the two component aether model is a physical model that leads to a rigorous derivation of Maxwell's Equations, and Maxwell predated both quantum mechanics and inflationary theories. As such, the two component aether model is a classical model.

On the other hand, I have given some thought to quantum mechanics and intergalactic issues. In my view, it is within quantum mechanics that randomness arises. When entities exchange momentum dp in a collision, their wave functions collapse to a size dx = hbar/2dp, with the probability of where the collapse occurs being given by the square of the wave function prior to the collapse. This results in randomness. One can superimpose an envelope onto otherwise infinite individual waves to get a wave packet. The envelope obeys quantum mechanics; the individual waves, each of which have a single frequency, obey Maxwell's equations.

As for intergalactic issues, my view is that we really don't know enough about what goes on at enormous spatial scales. An analogy is that we are stuck in the middle of a glacier. At small scales, all around us the ice looks like a solid. Yet at larger scales the ice is flowing very slowly to the sea, and at even larger scales there is an end to it, and it can also undergo a state transition to water (or vapor, or plasma) when enough heat is put in to it. Analogously, at the scale of our labs here on earth the aether appears to be a solid. Maxwell's equations appear to hold quite well within our solar system, as we can communicate with probes sent toward the outer planets, so the solid approximation holds well at that scale as well. But does the solid remain unchanged forever over intergalactic scales and beyond? I don't know.

posted on May, 28 2018 @ 08:53 AM

Thanks.

The disconnect. Unfortunately is me.

You say your model does not itself involve inflation nor randomness, and photons per se do not enter in.

Correct. Photons themselves don't enter in. But. By as you do say. It is photon collision that causes the decay of the photon. The decayed photon. Now pos and neg aether. Do enter in. And from your model. That's what i saw as inflation. Which. If it was not random. But ordered. At a ratio scale. For me. Would explain inflation. But. the collision is a random act. And so. Maybe i jumped the gun. But suggested a rogue/suicidal photon to/as a possible alternative. Which would have made it ordered. But, that itself opened up more problems. I hope that makes sense.

I would have questioned the photon collision too. But, if it's really a solid. That's cool and explains it.

I was just concerned that the random aspect could cause issues.

posted on May, 28 2018 @ 02:26 PM

In my model, the main aether exists as two solid blocks that are attached to each other, while charge is a small quantity of aether that gets freed from that main aether state. (Charge is unattached aether, which I often call "free" aether.)

In my aether model, photons can exist as wave packets, which are packets of oscillating attached aether. And if two such photons collide, the energy of the collision can be transferred to bits of positive and negative aether, freeing those bits from the attached solid blocks. But I would not call this a photon decay, rather I would call it an annihilation collision that destroys the two photons while transferring the energy of that destruction into the creation of charge (free positive aether) and anti-charge (free negative aether).

Note that the process can also occur in reverse. If charge meets anti-charge those bits of free aether can then return to the attached solid state. Energy will be released if this happens, since the bound aether has a lower energy than the free aether. The energy released in the process can produce two new photons.

Hence, I don't see these processes contributing to cosmic inflation.

posted on May, 28 2018 @ 03:11 PM

Thanks for taking the time to answer. When you could be solving cosmic inflation instead.

Good luck delbertlarson.

new topics

top topics

15