A Return to Absolute and Realist Physics

The YouTube video above is an improved version of a talk I recently gave at Brookhaven National Lab (BNL) concerning a return to absolutism and realism in physics. It begins with a historical overview of how modern physics took hold. Then it goes into some of the problems facing physics today, and suggests a neo-classical approach to solving those problems. A brief look at four absolute and realist efforts is presented. The video closes with a discussion of where absolute and realist physics stands today.

References are listed at the end of the video, but for easier access they are also given here:

On InfoGalactic:
Absolute Theory
The ABC Preon Model
The Aether
Absolute Quantum Mechanics

On ATS:
Absolute Theory
The ABC Preon Model
The Aether
Absolute Quantum Mechanics

The community of scientists here at ATS has been very helpful in finding improvements to the above works. Thank you. The physicists and engineers at BNL were very helpful as well, and I thank them. The help often comes in the way of challenges. Sometimes it is an experimental result or a theoretical work I was unaware of, other times it is pointing out the misuse of a term, or still other times it is identification of lacking, incomplete, or less than clear explanations. All such challenges are extremely welcome, as it is only through awareness of weaknesses that the effort can be made stronger.

I look forward to any and all comments.

a reply to: delbertlarson

Thank you delbertLarson.

Your work is astounding.

This is mind boggling stuff.

I hope you can get through the status quo. They seem to be a bit stuck in their ways.

The way they teach sounds backwards to me. Like making a cake. They may eat it. But not allowed to see what ingredients make it. Mad.

Are we to possibly see a new era subphotonic level physics?

a reply to: blackcrowe

They seem to be a bit stuck in their ways.

Because those ways have been tested and work.

Every time there's some wackjob claiming to flip physics on its head the first thing they go after is relativity.

Then they bring up long debunked garbage like the aether. But go on believing that the physics that brought you the world and comforts you enjoy somehow need to be improved by a guy who has no idea what he's talking about.

a reply to: delbertlarson

Try considering a finite universe that is stretching instead of an infinite universe that is expanding. With relativity this explains redshift and blueshift much better doesn't require contrived particles like dark matter and helps us understand the cyclical nature of reality.

Jaden

a reply to: projectvxn

The Aether is real, you don't need to contrive an Aether when you already have space time. When they either was contrived it was before relativity was well-known they didn't know of space-time as a singular entity so the concept behind either a medium on which particles travel is real it's just space time.

Jaden

a reply to: projectvxn

Although i appreciate your reply.

It does disturb me a little.

The main reason is. I would like to know more.

Unfortunately. When i watch real science. Shall we say.

For example. Steven Hawking saying we should go to the stars. In 100 years. Sorry. I wonder what the hell he's on about.

Surely. He knows the speed of light. That alone means we're going no further than our own back yard. The solar system.

I here him say 'because of ELE'. Well. 4.5 billion years. And, many ELE's. A 10 trillion ton rock hit us 65 million years ago. And. Good thing really. It wiped out those useless big things. And. Here we are.

On the best protected place in our solar system. Perhaps even the universe. Move to somewhere else. Guess what. It doesn't reduce the chance of asteroid strikes. It increases it.

So it seems i'm also being bullsnipped by status quo science too,

But. There's money selling that lie.

I hope that clears how your reply came across.

But.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Wrong.

Aether is a particular concept to explain the wave propagation of light in a vacuum.

No Aether was ever discovered and the hypothesis was debunked in the 1920s.

They also tried to use aether theory to explain gravity.

Aether isn't real because no such medium has been discovered. Spacetime and aether are not interchangeable concepts.

a reply to: blackcrowe

So it seems i'm also being bullsnipped by status quo science too,

I would suggest actually reading what Hawking and others have written in regards to your questions.

Not understanding a concept as explained doesn't mean science is lying to you.

What an asinine way of thinking.

a reply to: projectvxn

Maybe i should have started my last reply to you by saying. This is not a personal attack. And in no way reflects my opinion of you whatsoever.

But. The attitude of your reply wasn't good.

I used Hawking merely as an example. I do know of his other works too. And. Again. I meant no disrespect personally. But. Slinging the ELE around as if it's really a problem. Isn't scientific.

That was my point.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: blackcrowe
Because those ways have been tested and work.

Every time there's some wackjob claiming to flip physics on its head the first thing they go after is relativity.

Then they bring up long debunked garbage like the aether. But go on believing that the physics that brought you the world and comforts you enjoy somehow need to be improved by a guy who has no idea what he's talking about.

That's a bit harsh. I haven't watched the video yet but I plan to. Yes there are a lot of cranks who attack relativity who don't know what they are talking about. In Delbert Larson's case, he does seem to understand mainstream theory, and many of his comments about the Lorentz aether theory are actually quite accurate, although don't take this as an endorsement of Delbert Larson's aether theory which is different and I've only glanced at it.

I think you are wrong in saying aether was debunked, which is not a completely accurate description. It's more accurate to say that the Lorentz aether theory made essentially the same predictions as general relativity, but had a hidden variable (the absolute rest frame of the aether). The reason aether was dropped was along the lines of Occam's razor, to not make the theory more complicated than it needs to be by having an hidden variable that Einstein's relativity made completely unnecessary. This is not the same as being "debunked", it was just tossing an extra unnecessary hidden variable aside in the process of adopting a simpler explanation without the hidden variable.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: projectvxn

For example. Steven Hawking saying we should go to the stars. In 100 years. Sorry. I wonder what the hell he's on about.

Surely. He knows the speed of light. That alone means we're going no further than our own back yard. The solar system.

Interstellar travel seems unlikely with current technology, though I wouldn't say impossible in 100 years. Project Orion was a potential interstellar technology which we more or less already have but there are a lot of other barriers that would need to be solved. The super orion concept was an 8 million ton craft, 400 meters in diameter, which was envisioned like a city that could travel to another star at about 10% the speed of light, so it could reach Alpha Centauri in 45 years.

Terraforming Mars might be a lot more practical, but that's no easy feat either.

You're right that extinction level events can happen on multiple planets, but if they are a few hundred million years apart, they are unlikely to happen on both planets at the same time, so at least humans would survive on one planet. It's a preservation of the species concept. Dinosaurs had no chance to use technology to prevent their own extinction because they weren't smart enough, but we humans have that chance if we are smart enough.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks Arbitrageur.

Maybe i was harsh too. I love hawking. And science.

But. science can also seem not quite right.

I am also not defending dL either.

And don't want to get involved on a personal level.

a reply to: projectvxn

You're obviously incapable of understanding. The aether is not necessary to allow wave propagation. Space time works as the medium. That's the whole point.

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

You're obviously incapable of understanding.

I understand just fine.

I understand that you think spacetime and aether are the same thing.

The aether is not necessary to allow wave propagation. Space time works as the medium.

Yes I understand that the aether isn't necessary. It's being sold as solid science here. It isn't.

Aether theory was abandoned in the 1920s for a reason.

Spacetime is not equivalent to or synonymous with aether.

originally posted by: delbertlarson

The YouTube video above is an improved version of a talk I recently gave at Brookhaven National Lab (BNL) concerning a return to absolutism and realism in physics. It begins with a historical overview of how modern physics took hold. Then it goes into some of the problems facing physics today, and suggests a neo-classical approach to solving those problems. A brief look at four absolute and realist efforts is presented. The video closes with a discussion of where absolute and realist physics stands today.

References are listed at the end of the video, but for easier access they are also given here:

On InfoGalactic:
Absolute Theory
The ABC Preon Model
The Aether
Absolute Quantum Mechanics

On ATS:
Absolute Theory
The ABC Preon Model
The Aether
Absolute Quantum Mechanics

The community of scientists here at ATS has been very helpful in finding improvements to the above works. Thank you. The physicists and engineers at BNL were very helpful as well, and I thank them. The help often comes in the way of challenges. Sometimes it is an experimental result or a theoretical work I was unaware of, other times it is pointing out the misuse of a term, or still other times it is identification of lacking, incomplete, or less than clear explanations. All such challenges are extremely welcome, as it is only through awareness of weaknesses that the effort can be made stronger.

I look forward to any and all comments.

Symbolism and conceptual communication are the keys for you to change your field of study forever...to correct its course......it is the verbage that is hindering you.I suggest you try to recruit some elite level Intuitive Empaths who are auto-didacts to help you out....they are rare but can decipher your groupspeak into one single template....you have the unfortunate circumstance of being in the sciences at a time when they are no longer sciences but battlegrounds for status quo power and influence....science is the action of seeking to replicate nature...nothing more.....and we use language which uses numbers as representative placeholders for natural tangible things and events....we overcomplicate things....and in the process create gaps between our individual interpretations of our current reality.....we parse evidence differently even if we all agree to endorse it via status quo acceptance....soooooo..... the further away from the drivers behind this connendrum we get the better...by proxy...soooo.....losing is winning in our case....we lose MOST of the verbage/mass/volume/content/static/detritus and in doing so we streamline our processes...hence we lose most of the separation and gapping between our individual perspectives hence we become closer and more focused as a group...hence more equitable expedited progress.

So I say take ten of your best people in their fields apply them all to your top 10 problems....then bring in a Ringer to put it all together for you....you need someone to be your CATALYST to coalesce your groupspeak around...and rewrite it into one single clear message /solution/focus/idea.

a reply to: blackcrowe

Thanks for the kind words.

originally posted by: projectvxn
Every time there's some wackjob claiming to flip physics on its head the first thing they go after is relativity.

Yes, that is often the case. Perhaps over 90% of the time critics of relativity don't know what they are talking about. But there are some good scientists who question relativity as well - a stubborn and persistent minority. Unfortunately, the preponderance of crank works makes serious discussion of these issues difficult.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I look forward to your comments once you have a chance to watch the video. I certainly respect your opinions, and I hope to learn what you think.

a reply to: delbertlarson

a reply to: blackcrowe

Thanks for the kind words.

Thanks delbertlarson.

You're welcome. As long as you're being truthful.

After i calmed down a bit. It occurred to me that you may have an agenda.

Well. I looked at your paper the other day. I certainly don't have the knowledge to understand it. As i'm ignorant. It makes me hallucinate and see a mirage.

I asked you a stupid question on that on the other thread. Which you answered. And, i took your explanation as is.

If you have got an agenda. Then you're even cleverer than i thought. As. You'd have to add that into you're paper too.

When i saw your paper. It was a little like looking at a pyramid. I thought. WTF. Man can do stuff like this.

But. As i don't know how your pyramid is built. I admire that you worked so hard to build it. Weather it's the GP remains to be seen. Or. Just turns out to be a pile of rocks.

Nobody please take the pyramid reference as anything other than it is intended. As although i admire the sheer work that went into building pyramids. I don't actually see them as special.

I came to ATS to try to learn and to find truth.

Unfortunately. It feels like our pockets are emptied as we pass through the gift shop of status quo science. Buying meaningless sci fi tat along the way. Just to leave by the back door. Via the hall of mirrors.

But. I want to learn.

It's ok for us ignorant people to come and ask stupid questions. But. That's not really happening either.

But. It does need to be looked at properly by people who do know how to read it.

Until someone does show why it doesn't work. Then i'm happy to see how it goes.

It's a shame i can't really see it to judge for myself.

Is it a pyramid. Or a pile of rocks. I'm sure we'll find out.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: delbertlarson

a reply to: blackcrowe

Thanks for the kind words.

Thanks delbertlarson.

You're welcome. As long as you're being truthful.

After i calmed down a bit. It occurred to me that you may have an agenda.

I endeavor always to be honest. I also endeavor to be kind (the golden rule). Sometimes those two inclinations are in conflict. When there is conflict I try to be as honest and kind as possible.

My agenda is to attempt to share what I believe are significant scientific breakthroughs with the world.

FYI, I came to believe the status quo was wrong when I was about 31 years old. I already had a Ph.D. in accelerator physics, and had designed and built a 3 MeV electron beam accelerator for my thesis. At that energy, the beam is "relativistic" and I used a fully relativistic Hamiltonian approach in its design. But I knew all along that both Lorentz and Einstein got to the same equations that I was using. And the whole "Copenhagen interpretation" bothered the heck out of me, as did the fact that no one could ever tell me what the Dirac spinors were from a physical standpoint. And then there are the infinities associated with point-like particles that are dealt with via renormalization and running couplings, and I had come to the conclusion it was all just some big con-job. It was not a dishonest con-job; it was worse: the promoters believed it and were even conning themselves! (This has gotten even worse as the years went by.)

I had always had a good idea of what physics was about through most of my education except for relativity and its off-shoots such as point-like particles. Even quantum mechanics made sense to me if the wave function was real. And then I had that great and yet terrible realization at age 31 that relativity was wrong - relativity alone was why things didn't make sense. It was relativity that mandated those point-like particles. Still, I could use the equations of relativity just as good or better than most, and so I went on to design "relativistic" accelerators at the University of Central Florida (free electron lasers), the Superconducting Super Collider (where I did longitudinal dynamics) and Fermilab (where I designed a 10 MeV He-3 system).

The equations I used in my accelerator designs were the Lorentz force equation and the Lorentz transformation equations. While also derivable from relativity, those equations were known and first proposed by Lorentz before Einstein's relativity was even published. So I hope you can see that special relativity really has contributed nothing practical to our world - the Lorentz equations we use existed before relativity came along, and it is the equations that we use, not the philosophy, to obtain practical benefits.

Once relativity is set aside, we can make sense of quantum mechanics as well as elementary particle physics. But setting relativity aside will be hard to do. While there are some who are open-minded, many who have learned relativity hold on to it with a blind religious fervor. And indeed I will admit that relativity is a very beautiful theory, so it is hard to give it up. Relativity is also for the most part correct experimentally. However it confronts quantum mechanics in a most fundamental way. And to repeat, it is relativity that leads us to the infinities associated with points. It is for those reasons (quantum mechanics and the infinities of points) that it should be set aside.

As mentioned near the end of the video, ironically, we can return to the realism championed by Einstein if we set Einstein's relativity aside.

a reply to: delbertlarson

Thanks delbertlarson.

I'm sorry. That last reply should've ended. 'So. You're welcome'. Which was a part of the reason for using it in the first place.

I wasn't calling you out.

I also have no right to judge either.

But. we must apply the scientific method to everything. So. Had to consider it.

I don't however believe it. And don't see how you would've made it this far.

I wasn't trying to make you show your cred either. But. Maybe that might help if you get other interest.

My only issue is. I can't understand your paper.

What alternatives are there?

This is interesting.www.abovetopsecret.com... Dark matter, Read the link in the thread.

I imagine those machines they keep replacing with better machines cost a lot of money.

Maybe they'll detect it one day.

So. I'll stay watching this with interest.

If it turns out to be a pile of rocks. I can walk away.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: delbertlarson

This is interesting.www.abovetopsecret.com... Dark matter, Read the link in the thread.

Yes, I saw the thread and planned to get into it. ErosA433 is one of the high quality scientists here.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: blackcrowe

They seem to be a bit stuck in their ways.

Because those ways have been tested and work.

Every time there's some wackjob claiming to flip physics on its head the first thing they go after is relativity.

Then they bring up long debunked garbage like the aether. But go on believing that the physics that brought you the world and comforts you enjoy somehow need to be improved by a guy who has no idea what he's talking about.

WOW. Triggered much? I haven't yet checked out the video in the OP, but your response just jarred me enough to make me respond as a point of principle. Your comments astound me! Nothing more than a venomous, defensive, aggressive ad hominem.

As someone who has a reasonable capacity to comprehend the concepts & principles involved in all manner of complex scientific discourse, I find objections with a number of 'modern physics' gold standard 'line in the sand' concepts. Redshift for example - expansion increasing in velocity to infinity at an exponential rate at the furthest reaches of the cosmos. It's absurd. The numbers are being fudged into an explanation which is adopted purely so that physical science won't need to backtrack to adopt an aetheric model in its basic cosmological paradigm. Too many ubermenschen scientists who would have their life's work made worthless - and of course that simply wouldn't do. So they fudge the data into absurdities such as that described, rather than respond in humility & go back to the drawing board. There is no humility or honour in upper level academia or published scientific study. The fact is, if we took a wrong turn, it can only be solved by retracing our route & getting back onto the path which leads to the Truth. Ben Rich, of Lockheed SkunkWorks fame, alluded to this once upon a time, saying there was an error in the equations (by which I think he was referring to Maxwell, in the context, of electromagnetism, for thrust & gravity control purposes) - they backtracked, adjusted the equations, and hey presto, half of the UFOs hitting impossible speeds & pulling impossible G's in our skies today are now courtesy of the US Air Force, among others.

Having studied several alternative sub-quantum paradigms, there is one which stands out to me as being extremely credible, and backed up by consistently excellent experimental testing. For example, how about the 'faster than light' action of 'longitudinal waves in the medium', instantly highlighting the fact that although general relativity works in a classical sense, there is another layer to reality in which it does not apply! Much like the shift from classical Newtonian physics to quantum physics. The actual state of things at that next layer, the next evolution from 'classical subquantum' to 'revised subquantum' is best described by adopting adherence to a belief in a sub-sub-stratum canvas we can safely call the 'aether'..? Dr P LaViolette has written extensively on his own theory of subquantum kinetics, and by the circumstances of his works, career history & website activity, he appears to be the designated gatekeeper, in a passive sense, to this next layer of understanding & practical application of 'revised subquantum physics' (IE 'they' watch traffic to his site, and when they land some kid who's a whizz with numbers & cosmic-by-nature conceptual analyses, hey presto, they pay him a visit, give him a bursary, sign a non-disclosure, and away he goes to Groom Lake, or wherever, as soon as he's finished his initial degree). And Dr LaViolette may, or may not, be in on the scheme. Thomas Townsend-Brown was probably used in a similar manner in the analogue ages of the 1950's, when national security secrecy came crashing down around those companies actively investigating antigravity technologies. He was left out in the cold - but his work signposted others into that secret world we know & love as the military-industrial complex.

I know full well how you will respond, but you may as well not bother because what should be said, has been said. The alternative voice is often the sane man in the asylum (referring to the physicists, not myself). If the theory doesn't describe the whole thing, and that can be proven (see Dr P LaViolette for the proof of faster-than-light motion/action in the cosmos - which is NOT connected to spooky action at a distance) or clearly signpost the absolute boundaries of our capacity to understand, in ways which are practical as well as aesthetically pleasing on paper, then it's worth jack #. If I ask you to explain how a car works, so I can get it going - and all you can tell me is how the air conditioning functions, then that's a waste of everybody's time & energy. We aren't there yet, so people need to be willing to backtrack & find the proper path. Exploring the alternatives in a rigorous manner is absolutely & fundamentally necessary - to shun the possibilities is to close the mind, to deny the truth, and to damage the scientific backbone & practical progress of our race. And of course, we know that corporate agendas can sometimes play into this scenario - so we must be wise as serpents, yet pure in our adherence to theoretical truth.