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.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# The Aether Reality

page: 1
7
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:33 PM
I thought I would make my recent post from the thread "Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin" - www.abovetopsecret.com... into a new thread in the hope of more discussion.

Originally posted by primalfractal

Originally posted by beebs

We model the quantum world with waves, and choose to interpret certain experiments as exhibiting 'particle behaviour' instead of trying to understand perhaps why a real physically existing wave could produce the phenomenon that appears like discrete particle behaviour.

This theory I have that folks around here have kindly helped with could show the wave is more than purely mathematical. Which I think would be proof of the Aether?

No one seems to want to discuss it on physforum, we had more luck on physicsforum, but at least no one tried to debunk the idea.

Curving Light Wave Theory

What happens to a photon wave packet when emitted from a moving source?

For a stationary source the distribution pattern of photons might be something like a bell curve. For a source in motion, normalize the location of the photons to the direction of the source, adjusting for the speed of light. Will the bell curve get wider due only to experimental error? Or will the source motion have a widening effect on the distribution of photons?

If so, the result could be curving vector potential, virtual particles and fractional spin.

A potential method to do the experiment would be to spin a fluorescent molecule with lasers.

Motion in the direction of the photon travel would be expected to cause red shift or blue shift, but that's not what I’m interested in since that is well known. The direction of motion I’m interested in is other than that, a "sideways" or perhaps "radial" motion, and I’d be interested in experiments in either.
www.physforum.com...

The best analogy for the theory I have come up with so far is - imagine your finger growing to a meter in length while moving your arm. As it grows the finger will get longer but it will also move sideways and possibly radially with the arm movement. So the finger is the wave packet and the device the arm. The sideways movement of the arm/device and finger/wave together is the curving vector potential I am talking about.

This is where the discussion with the experts ( their science adviser and a “gold”member…hmmm) on physicsforum got to – they definitely don’t know what would happen and can offer no better explanation than mine, which is the only logical one.

Oct14-12, 09:08 PM Re: What happens to a photon wave packet when half out of a moving device?
#8

AlephZero

Recognitions:
If something is traveling at a high velocity in a direction perpendicular to your line of sight and emits light, what would happen to the light? Anyone know?
The behaviour of the system is independent of the reference frame you use to observe it. So consider the situation in a frame where the light source is stationary and you are moving, then transform the result to whatever frame you want.

AlephZero
View Public Profile

Oct14-12, 09:15 PM Re: What happens to a photon wave packet when half out of a moving device?
#9

Drakkith

Recognitions:
Gold Member
Quote by AlephZero
The behaviour of the system is independent of the reference frame you use to observe it. So consider the situation in a frame where the light source is stationary and you are moving, then transform the result to whatever frame you want.
Yes, that is what I am asking as I do not know what would happen in that case.

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:49 PM
We know that time and length is discreet (Plank length). We also know that length and time is distorted via the effects of relative motion.

Would this not indicate that based on different frames of reference, the Plank length be different for observer and traveler?

Would this not also indicate that light moving from one frame of reference to another reference would have to be converted at the boundary of these reference frames indicating a form of curvature necessary to bring it back into normalized space time?

Let's say hypothetically, that you are traveling at a speed which compresses the length by a 5 to one ratio. At this speed, you appear elongated to the observer, while the traveler appears compressed to you. Just focusing on the length aspect of velocity for now - for simplicity let us say that light travels 10 clicks per tick.

To the traveler, light appears to travel 10 clicks in their frame of reference, but to the outside observer it appears to only travel 2. When the traveler stops and returns to normal space, both the observer and the traveler see that 10 clicks were traveled, but there still appears to be a time differential. What happened to the other 8 clicks?

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 11:13 PM
I think of a surfer on a wave.

The time it takes for the wave to reach the shore is relatively short, in both time and distance.

The surfer extends the distance and the time available by surfing across the wave, parallel to the direction the wave is moving.

There seems a lack of recognition that what appears to be stationary on the surface of the planet Earth is actually moving extremely fast in several directions at the same time. At the same time the rate and the acceleration at which the surface moves is constantly changing.

Could we be riding an immense wave that we are incapable of perceiving.

edit on 10-1-2013 by poet1b because: Typo

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 11:36 PM

Originally posted by kamebard

Would this not also indicate that light moving from one frame of reference to another reference would have to be converted at the boundary of these reference frames indicating a form of curvature necessary to bring it back into normalized space time?

Cool idea kamebard.
On this thread www.abovetopsecret.com... tgidkp describes some similar effects in relation to this theory.

Originally posted by tgidkp

i have prepared a sequence of images with which i wish to illustrate some of the peculiarities of one of our favorite topics around here, quantum mechanics. it is actually pretty easy to understand if you are given a proper explanation. some people would have you believe that (feynman's quote?) "no one understands quantum physics". these people either do not understand it themselves, or secretly are ashamed of what appears to be "mystical" properties which cannot be explained by their "expertise". in particular, i would like to offer clarity on the measurement problem and observer effect, spin states, fractional spin states, coherent and collective states, linear vs. nonlinear, waveform summation, and so forth.

each image represents a measurement of the phase space at an increasing resolution. in the first image, at a resolution of 50 in 200 (or .25 per-seconds), we have a simple wavefunction and its 2D spin matrix (scroll to right for spin states). and also a plot of the sum of its energy potential across one dimension.

if we take a little closer look, we can begin to see the splitting of the spin states into fractional and integer spins. it is easy to see here what is meant by "boson" (1) and "fermion" (1/2).

at this resolution, an uneven division of 200 by 30, we can see that the measurement at this interval is having a strange effect on the symmetry.... a "dissonance". along with this dissonance comes some spins with ODD values. because these spins are odd, they are also non-abelian (abelian means "this or that"...."one or the other"). this, specifically, is what is meant by a "fractional" spin state. according to physics, these types of particles dont "officially" exist (exotic).

here, we can start to see a coherent state forming in the field and a very nice symmetry in the energy trace which is typical of a coherent system.

this level of the phase space seems to be dominated by negative charges...i wonder why? there is a definite real particle (and some minor virtual particles) starting to take shape. do you see how successive measurement on the space creates the particle?

in this last measurement, we have sampled the potential at every position in the space. you can see what is known as "braiding" of anyons (quasiparticles) as the phase propagates. it is most important to note that each of these spin states (1,1/2,1/4, etc.) represent particles (electrons, protons, etc) which will only be located at a very specific positions (energy value) over the field....their position is enforced by the state function.

but what is the very MOST important thing to get out of this presentation is that the quantum system is a nonlinear STATE function. to put it another way, if you were to take each of these colored spins one by one, row by row, you would get a linear sequence. but a quantum system is NOT LINEAR. the state of the system is defined on a level "higher than" the linear sequence. this is why quantum measurement is called an "observer". an observer is able to view the state of the system, and is necessarily OUTSIDE or ABOVE the system. observation from within the system results in entanglement (which is an intermediate of actual observation....think shrodinger's live/dead cat).

entanglement and coherence are easily understood as the uncanny effect of the concerted symmetry. one could ask the question, "how does the potential located at position A know what particle B is doing on the other side of the space?" this is a legitimate question, because the patterns that develop over a STATE function are impossible to explain with a purely linear, sequential, interpretation.

i really, really want you to understand what is meant by "state". all of those pretty little patterns of lines and circles represent the "spooky" and time-bending properties so often associated with the quantum theory. it is also why a generalized quantum theory (physicists hate the thought!) is an excellent candidate for a science of consciousness.

are those particles, individually, aware of the state function in which they are a part? no. thus, the coherent system appears to have a type of "self-awareness" which scares the hell out of physicists....but excites the rest of us!

edit on 10-1-2013 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 11:45 PM

I think it is quite possible we are riding an aethric wave designated by an ever changing plank length. The ocean is a great teacher of wave theories

edit on 10-1-2013 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 11:50 PM
There is no "aether". No one's had any use for it since the early 1900's. No one's ever found any. It's an idea whose time has gone, quite some time back.

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 12:00 AM

Originally posted by Bedlam
There is no "aether". No one's had any use for it since the early 1900's. No one's ever found any. It's an idea whose time has gone, quite some time back.

I think I just might have, I hope, so, no disrespect, if you can disprove my theory presented in the op and present a better idea, you could prove your point.

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 12:08 AM
Any chance for a concise summary of your problem, and why it requires "aether" to resolve?

Oh, also, since ATS'ers seem to have a lot of non-traditional views of what "aether" is, maybe a few words on that, too, we got into a comm breakdown the other day on another thread wherein a lot of people didn't even know why "aether" was postulated to begin with.
edit on 11-1-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 12:42 AM
It becomes a lot more complicated when you start to consider all the other discrete packets in this reality (energy, spin states, wave functions).

Here is an interesting thought experiment. We know that h is smallest unit of length in this universe. Given any two points A and B, they can be no closer together than h. What is keeping them from getting closer? What is in between the A and B (in the Aether as it were)? What if we took two tachyons and brought them together? Could we squeeze them closer together than h?

Taking this a bit further, let us assume we have a wave function defined in two regions A and B. What happens at the boundary. Let's assume I shrink down smaller than h and can observe what is happening. I turn to my left and I see the wave function on side A. I turn to my right and see the wave function on side B. What do I see in between those points?

Other implications of the discreetness of space-time

Imagine a vacuum space going on to infinity in all directions (but constrained to our physical laws). You have two laser beams running parallel to each other. Go stand out anywhere along those lines and they will always be the same distance apart (because we are in a vacuum we don't have to worry about gravity or other E/M distortions). Bring the two beams so that they are parallel, but are separated by the distance h (assuming these beams are one plank length wide). Again, go out to infinity and they will be still 1h apart.

1) Cross the beams such that when you move 1h away from the origin (crossing point) the beams are 1h apart from each other.
2) Is there any configuration of the beams which would allow you to be greater than 1h away from the origin and still have the beams only 1h apart? If you could, would this mean that the beams were no longer straight but jagged?
3) Go out along the line to a point where the beams are separated by a distance of the width of the sun. Put a star there and return to the origin. What would you see? Would you be able to see the sun, or because of a (angle of incidence) resolution issue would the sun not be visible?
4) What does this mean when thinking about the formula for brightness and intensity? Because we know that light has a finite energy and finite wavelength (now discreet) could there come a point that this light becomes no longer resolvable at a greater distance?
5) Does this not cap the wavelength of light at 1/h as a maximal? If we somehow were able to force a longer wavelength of light, what would this do to the frequency?

We know that we can get space time dilation due to a change in velocity. Could we also get a space time dilation due to time and distance independently? Could the Hubble effect be explained by this dilation?

I can only resolve things so big. The further away from me you are, the smaller to me you appear. At some point you get so far away that your h becomes apparently compressed in my field of view. However, because in reality h can not be compressed, I experience this "squishiness" of you as a velocity of you moving away from me even though you and I are stationary WRT each other. How would we test this? Get two known light sources with know frequencies. Move them sufficiently apart from each other but renaming stationary to a neutral background space. The receptor on each end would test for a shift in frequency. I imagine that this would not be too hard to set up even on earth.

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 01:20 AM

Originally posted by Bedlam

Any chance for a concise summary of your problem, and why it requires "aether" to resolve?

Oh, also, since ATS'ers seem to have a lot of non-traditional views of what "aether" is, maybe a few words on that, too, we got into a comm breakdown the other day on another thread wherein a lot of people didn't even know why "aether" was postulated to begin with.
edit on 11-1-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

Ok, this is my solution that needs aether to resolve. The theory is about light wave packets curving through space in response to the device emitting them.

Modern mainstream science says that the wave portion of a photon wave packet duality is purely a mathematical abstraction with no real physical existence.

Aether theories, including my own, say the wave portion of the wave packet polar duality is real and exists in another dimension physically underlying our own, the same place where the electrons disappear to.

With my theory there is no reason for a "mathematical" wave to move sideways or radially through space or respond to the movement of the device, only a wave that existed physically would exhibit such qualities and show such effects.

So, if I can do the experiment and prove the theory I can show the Aether is real.

The experiment I have designed to show it involves spinning a fluorescent molecule with lasers at over 6 billion revolutions per second.

Below is the most basic summary of the idea, which no physicist on the planet has, so far

- thought of before.

- been able to refute.

- provided a better, logical explanation for what happens in the situation I describe.

This is just the simple truth.

Originally posted by primalfractal

Originally posted by beebs

We model the quantum world with waves, and choose to interpret certain experiments as exhibiting 'particle behavior' instead of trying to understand perhaps why a real physically existing wave could produce the phenomenon that appears like discrete particle behavior.

This theory I have that folks around here have kindly helped with could show the wave is more than purely mathematical. Which I think would be proof of the Aether?

No one seems to want to discuss it on physforum, we had more luck on physicsforum, but at least no one tried to debunk the idea.

Curving Light Wave Theory

What happens to a photon wave packet when emitted from a moving source?

For a stationary source the distribution pattern of photons might be something like a bell curve. For a source in motion, normalize the location of the photons to the direction of the source, adjusting for the speed of light. Will the bell curve get wider due only to experimental error? Or will the source motion have a widening effect on the distribution of photons?

If so, the result could be curving vector potential, virtual particles and fractional spin.

A potential method to do the experiment would be to spin a fluorescent molecule with lasers.

Motion in the direction of the photon travel would be expected to cause red shift or blue shift, but that's not what I’m interested in since that is well known. The direction of motion I’m interested in is other than that, a "sideways" or perhaps "radial" motion, and I’d be interested in experiments in either.
www.physforum.com...

edit on 11-1-2013 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-1-2013 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 01:38 AM

Originally posted by primalfractal
Ok, this is my solution that needs aether to resolve. The theory is about light wave packets curving through space in response to the device emitting them.

Modern mainstream science says that the wave portion of a photon wave packet duality is purely a mathematical abstraction with no real physical existence.

Aether theories, including my own, say the wave portion of the wave packet polar duality is real and exists in another dimension physically underlying our own, the same place where the electrons disappear to.

I guess I don't understand your light wave packets curving through space. Can you enlarge on that a bit?

As far as the other, I tend to use whatever view seems best in the circumstance. For example, if I'm working on radio, I don't generally use particle type viewpoints. Hell, I don't for light, either, unless there's some reason to do it as particles. I see it as a preference - sort of like solving problems in frequency or time domain. Some things solve better one way, some the other.

And what's with disappearing electrons? Haven't seen that one.

With my theory there is no reason for a "mathematical" wave to move sideways or radially through space or respond to the movement of the device, only a wave that existed physically would exhibit such qualities and show such effects.

I think it's obvious I don't understand your thought experiment here.

Move sideways?

So, if I can do the experiment and prove the theory I can show the Aether is real.

The experiment I have designed to show it involves spinning a fluorescent molecule with lasers at over 6 billion revolutions per second.

How do you see this as proving 'aether'? Do you have math that shows what the "aether=true" results should be, vs "aether=false"? Is the thing falsifiable at all?

I've read your OP a few times, still not clearly seeing your issue that requires aether. Not being contrary, just don't see it.

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 02:38 AM

Only from mainstream physics, in error.

From the book Shape Power, a treatise by Dan A. Davidson, publisher unstated, dated May 1997, Chapter One "Aetheric Physics of Shape Power":

My research over 35 years proves the existence of aether as a reality. Modern physics has focused on the first experiments which Michelson and Morley did in the early part of this century showing no ether drift; however, the experiments were flawed in design and later experiments implied the validity of aether theory. Later experiments by Trouton and Noble, Sagnac, Michaelson and Gale, Thirring and Lenze, and Fizeau, all imply that aether exists.

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 02:44 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Only from mainstream physics, in error.

The LCD on your desktop is an indictment to luminiferous aether, I fear.

And mainstream physics has done a lot of stuff that worked, really well. Have your aether believers done anything that worked?

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 02:50 AM

There is more than one description of aether. I believe Rodin called it a pulse.

Your second question is ridiculous. Duh!
Until the aether gets recognized and the implications are supported instead of brutally suppressed, nothing will come of it.

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 03:02 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose

There is more than one description of aether. I believe Rodin called it a pulse.

Only that doesn't mean anything. I call it "illusion".

Your second question is ridiculous. Duh!
Until the aether gets recognized and the implications are supported instead of brutally suppressed, nothing will come of it.

Not at all. If it were real, you could propose an experiment that would unequivocally distinguish it from fiction. They have not. QED.

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 03:07 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 03:28 AM

Thats what I am doing, unlike your theory, I think the difference is obvious. Please adress the op, if you understand it.

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 03:32 AM
Here is some more descriptions of aether, also from "Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin" www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by primalfractal
Ancient esoteric knowledge says the female, negative polarity aethric element underlies this 3D one and that it is based on the flower of life/tree of life. It is the energy or prana/chi that mystics throughout the ages report seeing, the paisley of the 60’s, Celtic knot work, sacred geometry etc.

www.world-mysteries.com...

Matter is manifested from the aether.

Metranon's cube, the fruit of the flower of life is composed of the platonic solids.

www.world-mysteries.com...

These platonics are known to science as Lie group geometrical representation level (strings) which confirm this idea beyond reasonable doubt by arranging themselves into the flower of life pattern (mainstream science would say this pattern appeared by chance, yea, it’s those damn monkeys crapping Shakespeare again).

abzu2.wordpress.com...

These aethric geometric platonics are cymatically/harmonically meshed to form matter as in Harmonic Core Theory.

www.grandunification.com...

The two elemental polarities form a third shape torus/vortex/oroborous/3d Mobius strip. This is the zero point, the trinity.

www.empowernetwork.com... ideas/blog/the-flower-of-life-and-the-pattern-of-all-creation/

edit on 10-1-2013 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-1-2013 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-1-2013 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 03:41 AM

Ancient esoteric knowledge says the female, negative polarity aethric element underlies this 3D one and that it is based on the flower of life/tree of life. It is the energy or prana/chi that mystics throughout the ages report seeing, the paisley of the 60’s, Celtic knot work, sacred geometry etc.

Umm, yeah.

Ok.

Well, that convinced ME.

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 04:05 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

7