The Quantum Luminiferous Aether Version Two. No Black Holes.

Last year I wrote a post concerning version one of The Quantum Luminiferous Aether. Version two is now online. Just search for "Quantum Luminiferous Aether" in Google and look for the larsonism result, as it has lately been appearing as one of the top results via such a search. Then, download the 2023 version. (Note that you may need to replace https by http if you click on my link in the footer.)

There are several problems with present-day physics: the incompatibility of relativity and quantum mechanics; infinities associated with point-like particles leading to renormalization; the singularity of black holes; and a cosmological constant that differs from expectations by about 80 orders of magnitude. All of these issues stem from a single philosophical underpinning. The root problem is relativity.

All of the present-day problems will disappear if we simply set relativity aside and return to an absolute theory and an aether. (Please note that the Michelson Morley experiment did not disprove an aether, it merely requires an additional proposal, such as a length contraction, to explain the results. This was known in 1904.) And beyond resolving the problems, version one of my work also presented derivations of Maxwell's equations, the Lorentz Force Equation, Newtonian Gravity, and the equations used as the classic tests of general relativity. Please see the post concerning version one of The Quantum Luminiferous Aether for the details concerning those topics.

Version one showed that gravitation comes from the aether being displaced due to mass (or energy). Those displacements are described by a field, and there are energies associated with that field that have a mass equivalent. There are two such masses: one is a positive-field-mass, which is identified as dark matter; and the second is a negative-field-mass which is shown to lead to the "anomalous" perihelion advance.

I was very happy to get a serious review of version one, and one objection of that review concerned my discussion of intergalactic forces. Version one had shown that for a situation where one mass is dominant, and where we choose our coordinate origin at the center of that dominant mass, the dark mass inside a sphere of radius r is proportional to r. This leads to constant velocities for stars distant from their galactic centers. However, if there are two very large masses (two supermassive cores of neighboring galaxies) the aetherial displacement will be zero at some point between those two dominant masses, and therefore the dark matter at such a point will be zero. Hence, dark matter is predicted to exist within galaxies, but also to fade away between them. This analysis has good agreement with observations, but version one did not include the discussion of what happens when there are two large masses. The improved discussion now appears in section D.12.

Version one left neutron stars and black holes out of the scope of discussion. My sole reviewer (so far) mentioned that any modern theory must treat neutron stars and black holes. In version two, I looked into dense objects in a more detailed fashion, and that analysis now appears in the new Appendix J.

Appendix J begins with a particles-in-a-box model for white dwarfs, placing a large number of electrons into a cubic box and calculating the quantum energies assuming that all the lowest available quantum states are filled. White dwarfs are then assumed to be made up of a large number of such boxes. So rather than using one large electron degenerate system ala Chandrasekhar, I used many, small, quantum boxes. This allowed me to write a quite simple program to numerically evaluate the hydrostatic equilibrium. The results of the program are in good agreement with the results of Chandrasekhar. From there I included the effects of negative-field-mass and found it to be small for the case of white dwarfs. (The purpose of this effort was to find a model that could easily handle the negative-field-mass. The negative-field-mass is the same field-mass shown in version one to be the cause of the advance of the perihelions; no additional hypothesis or parameter was needed.)

Appendix J then uses the numerical calculation to look at neutron stars. For neutron stars the negative-field-mass has a substantial effect, and the hydrostatic equilibrium code determines the radius and mass of the neutron stars. Here, the modeling departs significantly from the status quo, but from my understanding it is not ruled out observationally. (Observations do rule out some possible models, however.)

The Quantum Luminiferous Aether does not have singularities known as "black holes". Instead, objects at galactic centers (such as Sgr A* in the center of our Milky Way) are simply extremely massive objects of very high density. Within such objects, conditions are so extreme that new physics may exist. I look at two possibilities for that new physics in Appendix J. One possibility is that neutrons are crushed into a new type of exotic hadronic matter. The other possibility is that extreme conditions affect the tension and quantum constants. In both cases the negative-field-mass within these objects nearly cancels the hadronic mass in much of the body, so what we see as their mass is really only a very small portion of their actual hadronic mass. It is shown that the exotic particle hypothesis has difficulty explaining the results of recent measurements of a ring surrounding Sgr A*, and so the exotic particle model was then set aside.

As a very simple alteration of the quantum and tension constants, I propose that the displacement of the aether due to gravitational effects merely saturates. The result of that very simple additional hypothesis then leads to an ability to calculate radii and masses for all supermassive objects discovered to date. In this modeling, what are now called "black holes" are instead just neutron stars of enormous mass. Within the surface of those neutron stars the negative-field-mass nearly cancels the large positive mass. Since the aetherial displacement field is continuous, just outside the surface there will be a large negative mass, but no positive mass to cancel it. As a result, what we see as a mass of 4.2 million solar masses for Sgr A* is only a very small fraction of its actual mass. The model shows that the actual hadronic mass may be 10^8 times greater than what is presently believed. Furthermore, since the aetherial displacement is saturated, light (which is an aetherial oscillation) would be unlikely to form near the surface of Sgr A*. Calculations show that the expected radius of Sgr A* is within and comparable to the presently theorized event horizon; therefore the new model leads to observational expectations similar to that from a black hole. (Both models anticipate a lack of light from volumes of similar size.)

Of course, 10^8 is a large number. If Sgr A* has a mass 10^8 times larger than its observed mass, then the Milky Way is predicted to have about 200 times more hadronic mass than is presently believed, and Sgr A* will contain about 99.6% of the galaxy's mass. Rather than having 3x10^-6 the galaxy's mass, Sgr A* will be the dominant object, with all the other stars, planets, moons, rocks, dust and gas forming a diffuse halo by comparison. Such a large departure from status quo thinking should of course be viewed with suspicion, but it is what the saturation model predicts. Other models of altered quantum and tension constants are certainly possible within the aetherial theory. Perhaps a model can be found without such a large difference from the status quo. On the other hand, large changes in our understanding of the universe are not uncommon, and, as mentioned, the present results are consistent with observation.

Negative-field-mass may also be relevant to quasars and supernovas. During a collapse of matter to a denser state, the aetherial displacement increases, leading to an increase in the amount of negative-field-mass, possibly freeing a considerable amount of energy.

I have sent a copy of my work to several physicists I know including the sole reviewer of version one. I also plan to attempt to find a place to publish it. To do so, a shorter version will likely be needed, and I also hope to prepare video presentations. But the most important effort is likely now done (provided no flaws are found), as version two covers all relevant topics and all derivations are fully rigorous with no steps missing in the analysis. (Which is one reason it is so long. A shorter version will skip a lot of the math. People often make the assumption that the author can do the math, but for something this different from the status quo I feel the first version had to show the full details so that others can verify the math if they wish.)

It is very hard to find people who will slog through nearly 300 pages of a work of this sort. The vast majority of physicists will assume it is the work of a crackpot and not give it a moment's thought. That is understandable. There are many crank works out there, why waste your time? However my request for serious scientists is to do what I did during my decades of being a reviewer: give it a chance! Read until you find at least three significant errors, quit reading at that point, and report those errors back to the author. Often I would find three significant errors within 20 minutes. Sometimes the errors were easy to fix and the author would come back for another review. Often my findings completely destroyed the author's thesis. I believe my case is the rare one where you will go through the whole thing and yet not find three serious errors. But if anyone can find any error I'd appreciate knowing about it.

I believe this is a work of rather significant importance. I hope some will begin to study it. I look forward to any and all comments.

I appreciate what you do, Intuitively I'm thinking you're on the right track but from what I remeber in the last thread it's way above my head, and I wouldn't be able to contribute in any other way than some philosophical rambling, probably born from a misunderstanding...

I tried checking out your website, but got a security error and found an Apache server test page.

The Quantum Luminiferous Aether assumes an aether exists that has two components: one positive and one negative. Each component is a solid quantized fermion field under tension. Quantum pressure pushes out, and tension pulls in, resulting in an equilibrium size for each quantum. It is assumed that the positive-aether density must equal the negative-aether density. The solid nature means that each quantum is attached to neighboring quanta in the nominal state.

I do view the photon as a waveform that passes through the medium of electrons. Your description kinda fits that, a bit more elaborate.

As for the rest of your work, gets a bit too deep for me. Sounds interesting, tough to prove either way with so much of this stuff so far away.

originally posted by: kwakakev
I tried checking out your website, but got a security error and found an Apache server test page.

I tried to update my ATS footer link to use http instead of https, since that is the issue, but when I do so ATS sets it back to https. If you do the google search you can find the link that works, or, hand edit the link and remove the s from https. I got flagged by an ATS mod when I simply linked to my site, as I guess that violates the rules so I don't do that anymore. I built my server from scratch and didn't get around to adding https support, so sorry about that.

I find discussions like this fascinating, but its all so far over my head, my only contribution is to just drool a little.

originally posted by: delbertlarson
I built my server from scratch and didn't get around to adding https support, so sorry about that.

You likely already know, but it's easy to do, just set up LetsEncrypt and its associated autorenew script to keep it updated...

If you don't know how, I'd be happy to assist...

a reply to: delbertlarson

I'll have to use my special to see your site, Mr Larson. I typically wear a Mister Fix-it hate on, per se, when I read posts such as yours. But, I don't have official credentials on the matter, just polyhedral dice, public information access, and a visualization talent.

As you have eloquently stated:

E. Overview of The Presently Prevailing Dogma. If you wish to learn more about the quantum luminiferous aether, please don't be intimidated by what is presently called theoretical physics, especially if you feel you just don't understand it. You are probably trying to understand it as a physical theory. It isn't a physical theory. Einstein, with his Riemannian algebra of covariant and contra-variant four-vectors, and the Standard Model, with its 150+ terms and 90 or so free parameters, are primarily mathematical theories. Additional parameters and algebraic expressions were added whenever something new came along. You can think of it as a giant curve-fitting enterprise with Nobel prizes awarded as it grows. It is never said that this is what it is, because to do so would lessen its aura and mystique, but that is essentially all that it really is.

The proposal is that there is a physical substance occupying all of space, that when understood, yields the equations for electricity, magnetism and gravity. If the proposal of a physical substance is correct, we may be able to isolate it and control things that we have not yet controlled.

I am a "paranormal" "investigator", so please do not restrain your response for my question, which I pose to you in order to focus on what help I may provide when reading the documents you invite us to scrutinize.
What "control" are you initially seeking in this quest?

originally posted by: BeNotAfraid

What "control" are you initially seeking in this quest?

I have a thread on aetherial speculations that I wrote years ago. I wanted to make sure the science was in place before posting that one. Bottom line is that if we can control the aether there are many benefits that become theoretically possible. Relativity has a speed of light speed limit, an aetherial model does not, so faster than light travel is possible in an aether. Moving through the aether causes time dilation, which is in essence traveling to the future. If we move the aether past us, it is possible we could control time dilation, which has many potential uses. The upcoming thread, perhaps next week, will explain all of this in some detail. But for this thread I wish to start with the physics.

a reply to: delbertlarson

hand edit the link and remove the s from https

Thanks for that, again. I can be a bit slow at times.

Question 1.

On the video, 'the history of the standard model' you claim the weak force has no direction. I assume you mean the weak nuclear force, the force that holds molecules together? By how molecules arrange into fixed shapes, this means the weak force does have a direction. Things can flop around and fall in at times as the molecule gets bigger, some give in how the atoms align as they connect to each other and other forces push it around.

Or is this some other kind of weak force associated to quantum physics? If there is a true associations with these forces between the quantum and atomic scale then they should work the same.

Question 2.

On video "Modeling Leptons in the ABC Preon Model" at 5:30. I don't know much about neutrinos, as for light going through glass, diamonds, water or whatever else it can, I see this due to the shape of the crystalline structure that is formed that can tunnel the photonic energy through the medium. Different materials have different refraction qualities or can focus on specific ranges in the photonic spectrum. This goes back to how the atoms align, their direction from the weak nuclear force.

So far it sounds like neutrinos move through matter because they have no charge that is aligned with the material. If you had a sheet of muon would that be different and stop it?

Question 3

On video "Quarks, Neutrinos and Weak Interactions" at 2:30, your statement that the photon is the force carrier that binds the atoms together is kinda right. as a measure of energy density if fits well. I see the waveform of the photon is expressed by the constant movement of each electron with is neighbors. This how we can see back billions of years in the night sky as massive waves of energy created enough of a ripple for some of it make it this far. As the sun comes up in the morning, these faint ripples quickly gets washed away from this much stronger source of light.

The strong nuclear force runs our nuclear reactors and bombs. The weak nuclear force runs our cars and guns. In losing the weak nuclear force at the end of this video, it looks like you have placed to much focus on the photon in what does hold these atoms together?

Enough light can make a mess of things as all those electrons really start bouncing around. A magnifying glass does make a quick job of those ants. The photon is also a force that extends outside the atom and does appear to travel a long way in a vacuum. The more intense the light, the further it can go.

I did find most of your work good, some hard to keep up with.

a reply to: kwakakev

1) The weak force is not molecular, it is the force involved in the decay of muons to electrons and in the decay of neutrons into protons, among many other examples.
2) I do not believe a sheet of muons would stop the neutrinos. My thinking is that as photons or neutrinos pass matter they will interact as a function of their energy. My analogy with photons passing through glass is that some photons (those with certain energies) pass easily through matter. So it should not be surprising that neutrinos pass through matter. Whether they interact or not depends on their cross section for such an event.
3) I think you may be confusing a weak molecular force (perhaps van der Waals) with the weak nuclear force that I am discussing.

Also I should note that your questions are on the ABC Preon Model, and this thread is on the Quantum Luminiferous Aether, which is an entirely different topic. Thanks though for the comment.

a reply to: delbertlarson

Awesome! I will read your documents with that "eye".
And, I look forward to your next thread on the matter.

Describe a black hole without calling it a black hole 101. Good job!

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Describe a black hole without calling it a black hole 101. Good job!

Yes, it is a problem. Super massive objects such as Sgr A* are now called "black holes", as are other objects being found. Basically, if an object is found with a mass that Einstein says must be a black hole, then it is called a black hole. But the entire concept of a black hole is that of a singularity. It has no volume at all, yet it contains enormous mass. Einstein's theory leads to an infinite density along with an infinite force. And we are also to believe that it warps space and time to some very wierd state. When I learned about this 40 years ago I thought it was nuts. At that time I could accept special relativity as a possibility. But the sigularity stuff of the general theory I found repugnant.

What my theory leads to is something entirely different from a black hole. The objects have finite size, finite densities and finite forces within them. For one set of parameters Sgr A* is a neutron star with a radius of about 3 million km. So it's not in any way a black hole, and it should not be called a black hole.

However, with the entire physics world now calling these things "black holes" it will be very difficult to retire that name. Even if an alternative theory is accepted that contains finite sized objects, I suppose the name "black hole" will continue to be attached to them. But they are not black holes!

I am heartened that many in the physics community are now agreeing with my 40 year old belief that a singularity is an untenable solution. Of course, what the community is looking for is some new model that will build upon Einstein, rather than throw Einstein's theory out. (Planck stars, etc.) So that is an enormous hurdle for returning to an aetherial model and a Lorentzian space and time.

a reply to: delbertlarson

this thread is on the Quantum Luminiferous Aether

To me that sounds like what is light about? To get to that what is the photon about? It is all these different vibrations that make the different colors, from all the different directions. So to get back to basics, how do you describe the photon and how it works?

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: delbertlarson

this thread is on the Quantum Luminiferous Aether

To me that sounds like what is light about? To get to that what is the photon about? It is all these different vibrations that make the different colors, from all the different directions. So to get back to basics, how do you describe the photon and how it works?

Yes. In the late 1800's and early 1900's the luminiferous (light-bearing) aether was believed to be the substance that supported light waves. As air supports sound waves, water supports water waves, and strings can have oscillating waves upon them, the luminiferous aether supported waves of light. However it is also appreciated that light waves are one solution of Maxwell's Equations. As of 1904, despite much work by the best physicists of the era, no one had achieved a satisfactory derivation of Maxwell's Equations based on a model of the aether.

I completed an initial derivation of Maxwell's Equations from a physical aether model in the 1990's. At the time I realized that the same physical model should also lead to the Lorentz Force Equation, and in 2017 I returned to that problem. Once that was solved I realized the aether model should also lead to gravity, and so now it is much more than just a theory of a light-bearing medium.

In the Quantum Luminiferous Aether, a photon is a wave packet of light. Light itself is an oscillation of the aether.

a reply to: delbertlarson

strings can have oscillating waves upon them, the luminiferous aether supported waves of light.

This aether sounds like the electron. The way I got taught, a photon is released when an electron drops in orbit. This sends a shock wave through the sea of electrons. The electron is the particle in this sea as it does have mass. The photon is the wave that flows through this sea.

Your language in describing this has been very colorful and Shakespearian. Just trying to help you find a clearer way to describe the core mechanics of what is going on.

originally posted by: kwakakev

This aether sounds like the electron.

The quantum luminiferous aether is not a sea of unattached electrons. For one thing, the aether has two components. One component has negative charge and the other has positive charge. Secondly, each component is internally attached into a solid state.

But beyond identifying the components as solid blocks of charge, their individual quanta are not yet specified. It is possible that the negatively charged component is indeed made of electrons, although such electrons would then be in a state presently unfamiliar to us. And if that is the case it is still only half of the story, as the other component would then naturally be positrons in a solid state. Indeed this is one possibility I earlier found appealing, and in an upcoming thread I will discuss using electron and positron beams in some fun speculations. However the quanta may be something other than electrons and positrons. The theory isn't specific on this point, and it did not need to be in order to obtain the many results.

a reply to: delbertlarson

The quantum luminiferous aether is not a sea of unattached electrons

Electrons are all attached in some way. Being a similar force, they all respond to each other in a similar function.

As for these opposing forces, got the negative election and positive proton in terms of the particles that make this sea.

how the energy of the photon oscillates, is it on this force or is there another polarity that exists among the negative charge of the electron for light to persist?

a reply to: kwakakev

You may have another aether model in mind and you are of course free to develop it. As for the Quantum Luminiferous Aether the assumption is that the negative aether is identical to the positive aether except for a mirroring of certain attributes, and hence it cannot be made of electrons and protons. Electrons and positrons are possible. Protons and antiprotons are possible. Or, it may be an entirely new pair of substances, one with positive charge and one with negative charge.

The energy of the photon does not oscillate. Photons simply have energy. The aether oscillates up and down within the photon. Photons are comprised of waves within the aether, and the aether is a three dimensional solid. There is a tension within the solid, and the analysis shows that the tension provides a restoring force against the displacement, and this leads to the waves. It is similar to waves on a string.