The Quantum Luminiferous Aether Version Two. No Black Holes.

a reply to: delbertlarson

The energy of the photon does not oscillate.

So what is it that is oscillating at 700nm for a red light?

originally posted by: kwakakev

So what is it that is oscillating at 700nm for a red light?

The aether itself. The positive aether moves one way and the negative aether moves the other way. Both components oscillate. Light is merely the aether moving back and forth. Light is waves upon the aether.

a reply to: delbertlarson

So this aether is not based on electrons and protons, but on electrons, positrons, protons and antiprotons?

It does look like a solid foundation that a photon is created as an electron moves from one orbit region to another. It could be wrong, but a lot of numbers adding up around it at this time.

When it comes to what causes these different colors we see, it comes down to the specific molecule that the material is made off. All they dyes and tinters used in paint come down to specific and well know molecular compounds.

How does the shape of this molecule affect the specific oscillation rate?

Another thing to consider in how all these colors are created, specific molecules only defines one specific oscillation rate. To make all these different colors requires blending these different molecular frequencies together.

As a starting point for which molecule does which color, TiO2 does a strong white.

When getting into how we perceive color, The cone rods in our eyes work on the Red, Green or Blue spectrum. It is how these 3 combine that produce the millions / billions of colors we see. This is a big part of the quantum mechanics that makes the digital screens we use these days. There are lots of ways to do it, as for the basic principle that is melding man and machine, it works. The furrier transform, like how mp3 is encoded is behind jpg as well.

Then what is going on with this infra red signal? it is at a lower frequency than visible light, but generally it is a measure of heat, which has been defined as electrons sitting in a higher orbit. With some results of this fusion tech, it sounds like the electrons are getting it orbits a meter away for the proton/neutron center.

Then what is going on with these x-rays as well? they have vibrations through a similar medium / aether, but this stuff is reeving mad.

So with your electron / positron theory, are positrons a part of our natural environment? I don't see much support for it. As nuclear accelerators evolved the positron cam into light, as for making up who/what we are it is looking weak on evidence. IDK? I could be wrong but have not seen much evidence of naturally occurring positron. I would appreciate some clarification on this matter.

Where is Phage?

If you want to take on the quantum meaning of light and how it actually travels. I guess we just have to carry in as best we can. do your homework and stick to the numbers as best you can. When taking that leap of faith...

Some interesting facts about light, the closer you get to light speed, the more energy it takes to reach it. At least with mass, that is where the drag is. With CERN finding good data around the higgs boson, It means mass is not an actual partial, but a drag on space. Another wave so to speak.

With faster than light travel, it adds up if we can negate our mass. In speak with another mathematician, one way to get past infinity is to negate it with another infinity.

As for black holes, I can see gravity getting strong enough at spots to bend and absorb the passage of light in spots.

At this time a black hole looks like a seed, maybe make a solar system or galaxy one day. For now it is just sitting there feeding from what it can. When it comes to the big bang theory, how long did it take to store then release this energy? Maybe a bazillion, gazillion years?

When it comes to issues of the infinite, space is a strong one. Time does get a bit fuzzy in spots, but if there was a time before time started, then how could anything move to get time rolling? While it is a head banger to put time in the infinite box as well, it does kinda fit in many ways.

If we could move our mass as light speed then time would stop. This Is the closest edge to our universe I have seen so far. For a practical application, nukes come close.

a reply to: kwakakev

The Quantum Luminferous Aether is made of two solid substances. One has positive charge; the other has negative charge. While there is some possibility it could be electrons and positrons, or protons and antiprotons, it isn't both. My present suspicion is that it is neither and that the aether is made of something else. The theory did not yield a mass for the aether quanta. Light of all forms (visible, infrared, x-rays, etc.) is an oscillating of the aether substances, one moving one way, the other moving the other way.

The speed of light limit is a ramification of the fundamental equations of physics. These fundamental equations are the Lorentz Force Equation, Maxwell's Equations, Newton's law of gravity and Newton's law F=dp/dt. In my work on the Quantum Luminiferous Aether, F = dp/dt is the first basic assumption listed in section A.4.1 on page 8. The other fundamental equations are then derived in the remainder of the work.

The theory of light being formed when atoms decay from one state to another is one way light can form. However, light can also form by the acceleration of charged particles, such as when klystrons are used to amplify radio waves. Additionally light can be pair produced via particle-antiparticle annihilation events.

As for super massive objects and the big bang, it gets rather speculative. The conditions inside super massive objects such as Sgr A* at the center of our galaxy may be so extreme that the aetherial properties change. A couple of speculations are investigated in section J.12 of Appendix J in the paper. A speculation that aetherial displacement saturates leads to agreement with all observations. Building speculation upon speculation, I then mention that it is possible that a large enough object would put enough stress on the aether that it would rip apart. Since the gravitational force holding super massive objects together originates from the aether, when the aether rips apart the containing force is gone so the whole thing would blow up in a big bang. However, this is all VERY speculative. As a result I put it into an appendix instead of the main body of the paper. Even in the appendix the relevant subsection is listed as speculative.

Time and space are assumed to be what they were prior to Einstein. Space is flat and Euclidean. Time is the parameter that orders events.

Have you downloaded the PDF and looked at it at all yet?

a reply to: delbertlarson

Have you downloaded the PDF and looked at it at all yet?

Nope, I found three errors in your videos from my perspective and stopped there. I am not yet content with the answers too delve deeper.

I try to keep it at the simple stage of stuff, is F= dp/dt a bit like F=ma?

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: delbertlarson

Have you downloaded the PDF and looked at it at all yet?

Nope, I found three errors in your videos from my perspective and stopped there. I am not yet content with the answers too delve deeper.

I try to keep it at the simple stage of stuff, is F= dp/dt a bit like F=ma?

F = dp/dt is F = ma when gamma is approximately equal to 1. gamma is (1-v^2/c^2)^[-1/2], so F = ma is the limit of F = dp/dt when v is small with respect to c.

What three errors do you think you found?

a reply to: delbertlarson

What three errors do you think you found?

1. Mainly about trying to understand how you see light works. If we cannot find some common ground with how it works here, way to easy to get lost when going into outer space.

I have started on your paper, link

2. Page 3,

Other experiments also showed evidence that clocks ran slow when they traveled through the aether.

I am aware of time dilation effects as mass drags on the fabric of space. Go faster and things slow down. If you can accelerate a mass to the speed of light time will stop, takes infinite energy to get there.

The speed of light is important to how light works. This comment is more of an observation in trying to get a clear picture of this aether you describe.

3. Page 9,

The Density Postulate. In any volume, the density of the positive-aether equals the density of the negative-aether minus an amount proportional to the extrinsic-energy within the volume.

This does conflict with the idea that it is a election/positron relationship that defines the photon. I don't see enough positrons in our natural environment to equal the electrons in density.

a reply to: kwakakev
OK, good enough. No errors found yet. I wasn't expecting you to have found them judging by your comments so far. Rather, I expected you didn't understand yet. That too is good to discuss, and I am very happy to try to explain further in case others also may have the same confusions. For your point 1, once you have Maxwell's Equations light is a special case and we've discussed the oscillation of the aether already in comments above. For point 2, you appear aware of time dilation, so we are likely good there also.

For point 3, this confusion concerning my work concerns the substance making up the aether. If it is made up of an infinite sea of electrons plus an infinite sea of positrons (which is one possibility) then those seas are in a different state than the electrons and positrons we find in the natural environment. How many we find in the natural environment has little bearing on how many will be in the seas. As an imperfect analogy, consider water vapor. Water vapor is a fairly low percentage of the atmosphere, but water itself is a high percentage of the oceans. If you are only aware of a "natural environment" of the atmosphere you could say the amount of water vapor is far too small for the oceans to be made up of water.

If you have a lot of energy, you can pair-create an electron with a positron; this kicks one of each out of the aether. If that was the only production mechanism for electrons and positrons since the dawn of time, that process would result in an equal number of electrons and positrons observable today. However, if there were a lot of electrons lying about at the dawn of time already, then the positron that gets created in pair production will find an electron and annihilate. (Which is what we see today.) Also, we can pair create a proton-antiproton pair as well. So then you might think the aether is made up of proton and antiproton seas (which is another possibility.) But in this case it is the antiproton that will soon find a proton and annihilate, since there was a great excess of protons over antiprotons at the dawn of time. (And this is also what we see today.)

Now if the aether is an electron sea and a positron sea, we can still make protons and antiprotons via pair creation out of it. A known law of nature concerns lepton number conservation, which tells us that lepton number is conserved in all processes that we observe. We can assign the electron a lepton number of one and a positron a number of minus one. There is also a law of baryon conservation, and we can assign a proton a baryon number of one and an antiproton a baryon number of minus one. One possibility then is that the electron and positron are kicked out of the aether by enough energy, and then they annihilate immediately into energy, and that energy forms a proton and antiproton pair. As long as everything is done in pairs, the total lepton number and total baryon number is always zero when we make stuff by kicking things out of the aether.

If instead, the aether is a proton and antiproton sea, we can kick one of each out of the aether and they can annihilate and the energy can make an electron positron pair. So all of these processes don't really tell us what the aether itself is made of. You might think it has to be the electron positron pair because they are the lightest. But that is not correct. Quantum mechanics allows heavier pairs to be produced for a short time, so the aether may be made of heavier particles and still produce electron positron pairs even when there isn't enough energy to make the heavier proton and antiproton.

What we do know is that each aether component has charge, and if you read further you will see that the paper does not assume what the aether is, and we (I and you, the reader) will only assume it exists with some density. From there a derivation of Poisson's Equation will show that the aetherial quantum has a charge.

The question about why our universe has more electrons than positrons and more protons than antiprotons is a question of initial conditions. It just started that way.

I hope this clarifies the point, and thanks for raising it. The foundations of the aether theory may be difficult for many, since physics as presently taught is so far away from the older concepts that I have based my work on. This and any future explanations may be helpful for many, should they be open minded enough to read and think outside of the present box.

a reply to: delbertlarson

1/ To clarify things, I don't see positrons and antiprotons playing any part of the visible light in the electromagnetic spectrum. When it comes to x-rays this is different with these components very much a part of how these extremely high frequencies are generated.

As an experiment, go in a small dark room with just an LED light source. The only light we see is that generated by electrons dropping in orbit as the battery gets drained. No positrons involved.

When it comes to how a wave passes through a sea, it just not just pass through the H20 or NACl molecules, but goes through all of them. I have never really considered how a photon can pass through a proton, maybe it is possible? Generally I have seen how the electron bounces around in its orbit sphere is where the energy of a photon is moved through space. If a proton has a similar bouncy charge that moves around then it makes sense they are all connected.

It is one reason why lasers are so dangerous, get these electrons / maybe protons bouncing their energy enough in one direction and it just rips the material apart.

2/ Page 10,

In this rest condition it is possible to divide the attached-aether into small volume elements (cubes)

Using a cube framework is a great way to get started and find where the relationships are. As things become more refined, a spherical framework has some advantages when working with omnidirectional behavior of light. Perhaps the term all directions is better than no direction. Over time as it becomes more refined, then a more rain drop shape helps account for all the other forces going on in the atom. This does look to get messy as different electron orbits do have different shapes.

3/ Page 12,

With the hypothesis of a fermionic aether, no two quanta will be able to occupy the same state,

I disagree with this. In terms of the solid state of the electron or any other part of this sea that has mass, it goes CERN LHC if they are to take up the same space. Otherwise, for the detached-aether it just generates an interference pattern as forces from different directions cross over.

To explain how I see your theory fitting so far, the 0 ground state of these opposing aether forces is when the electron is in the center of its electron orbit region. As the electron moves away from this spot towards the outer regions of its electron orbit it is passing the wave energy of photons from all directions. There is a natural forces of the atom that wants to hold the electron in its central orbit position. When the electron is not centered, there does exist a directional potential difference.

a reply to: kwakakev
In my view, religion is a deeply held set of beliefs. Those beliefs become unshakable in the mind of the true believer. Typically, the practitioner learns their beliefs from a previous generation of believers. Religions often grow over time, adding more beliefs (and rules) along the way until the structure has 100's of rules. When the religion becomes massively large, there becomes a society and power structure within it. And within that power structure, individuals at the top of the power structure believe that they themselves have open minds as they argue whether to add a new rule to the basic paradigm, or to make small alterations here and there. Those below the top of the paradigm are preached to and not listened to. In all of this, there is a growing mindset that many aspects of the religion should not be changed. Practitioners know things. Once you know something it can be very hard to discover that it is incorrect.

Physics as now practiced meets the above description. The standard model has something like 150 terms in its Lagrangian, and something like 90 free parameters. It is in agreement with the vast majority of experiments (some notable exceptions do exist). It was worked on for decades, and people have added to it over time. Those at the top of the society believe they have open minds to add a little or to tweak something here or there. You can even say that something must be wrong and we need an advance in its two main pillars (quantum mechanics and relativity) but what is searched for is tweaking of them under certain conditions, not a complete overhaul. This is because everything works so well.

The first step to truly advancing is to notice our own religious nature. I know I have one, and I believe, as all believers do, that mine is quite sound. But I am very much aware that some of my fundamental beliefs may be wrong.

I have been looking for discussion of my work for many years and I have not found it. In the rare instances where discussions begin, the end comes quickly by agreeing to disagree. I have a rather deep understanding of the present status quo and find it lacking; those in the status quo do not dig deep into my theories. I find this sad, but also understandable. There are many crackpots out there, and fundamentally new ideas always seem crazy at first, so I get lumped in with the crackpots. It is understandable that busy status quo physicists don't take the time to dig deep into my alternative.

The reason for the above response to you is that we have now reached a similar point, although you appear to not have a very deep background in the status quo. You keep insisting on a model for the aether that is different from the one I have presented. I am willing to try to explain my theory if there are misunderstandings, but I can't possibly dislodge a religious adherence to a point of view that is contrary to my axioms. In your case, it is this idea that my hypothesis of a two-component aether made up of mirror quanta must be rejected in favor of your idea that an aether must be based on prevalent particles. At such a juncture we must agree to disagree. The hypotheses are meant to form the basis for further development so that testable differences with other hypotheses can be explored via experiment. If you reject my hypothesis on religious grounds then we are done.

As a further point, you are also disagreeing with the Fermi exclusion rule (item 3 in your previous response), something that is observed to be proven to a very high degree.

Sadly, I don't see much value in continuing. I do thank you for your comments though. Mostly I just get silence.

a reply to: delbertlarson

In your case, it is this idea that my hypothesis of a two-component aether made up of mirror quanta must be rejected in favor of your idea that an aether must be based on prevalent particles.

It is not that I reject your ideas, I am just trying to find a place that this angle fits in. From the start you could not define what this aether is, but you saw something with a two state being. As for one place this two state could reside, I have provided something to look at. I know I need to get deeper into your theories, a lot of what you say and where you stand does make sense.

In terms of being religions, I like the deny ignorance that this site has. I know it sucks bad having our perceptions challenged, I have had to eat that humble pie at times. It has made my perceptions stronger when swallowing it.

If your religion values the truth, you do have a friend here. It can be a bit of a fight club at times especially as politics rolls up in the debates. It comes across I chinked your armor in presenting how the electron can contain this polar force you are looking for.

With how covid had played out, I don't care what some overpaid nut job has to say about it. In looking for the science, c19early.com kicks ass. I am not in some elite science club and don't have funding issues to consider.

When it comes to working out how this light stuff works, starting with where it might fit on the prevalent particles has a stronger position than making up and looking for some new particles, especially in these days. There is still a lot of new stuff to discover in how these electrons bounce around.

So should I keep reading or wait for your next draft?

originally posted by: kwakakev
When it comes to working out how this light stuff works, starting with where it might fit on the prevalent particles has a stronger position than making up and looking for some new particles, especially in these days.

The above quote is representative of our problem. My entire work hinges on a postulate of an aether that is made of two materials, at least one of which may not be prevalent outside of the aether itself. It is a starting hypothesis. It is also a more general (open minded) starting hypothesis than one constrained to prevalent particles. From that and other hypotheses everything follows, and experiment can guide us on what the specifics turn out to be.

If you can accept my hypotheses as a starting point we can move on. At the moment the only future drafts that are foreseen are ones that will involve typo correction. I believe the present draft accurately and rigorously derives all equations needed for electromagnetism and gravity. Only if an error is found or a counter-indicative experiment becomes known to me will a fundamentally new draft be needed. (And depending upon what a new experiment may show, the whole thing or parts of it could be falsified.)