The standard model is a house of cards, kept together with money and status.

It was demonstrated at LEP that virtual particles don't exist.

The "aether" exists; that is the only logical explanation for all interactions.

Stellar aberration is the main difficulty with the "aether" theory, but is can be explained by a better understanding of the photon.

JES

Dear John A. Macken

A field is “constructed” with the help of the experimental outcome of a particle (actually the measurement instrument) in relation to the volume of the universe. Exactly like we walk around with a thermometer to determine the local temperature “at every point” inside a room (termed "temperature field").

Thus a field represents measurable properties inside a certain volume of space in relation to the measurement instrument. Basic quantum fields exists everywhere in the universe and represent the properties of space at the smallest scale size of detectable reality. There are only a couple of basic quantum fields: the universal electric field with the corresponding magnetic field (together termed "electromagnetic field") and the universal scalar field (Higgs field). The gravitational field emerges at the moment matter is created.

Vacuum is a term for every volume in space without matter. But we know that matter – rest mass carrying particles – force the local decrease of 1 or more scalars of the Higgs field (scalars enclosed by the rest mass carrying particle). Thus we can describe vacuum as the volume in space where the universal scalar field – the Higgs field – is perfectly flat. That is nearly the whole universe. Thus only the nucleus of an atom isn't vacuum space (and the volume of a black hole).

In other words, if Einstein thinks that space can curve because he is convinced that it is the origin of gravity, we must measure that all the basic quantum fields will curve too. Because fields are nothing else than the measurable properties of space itself.

With kind regards, Sydney

John A. Macken I agree with Stellan on this one. The problem goes right back to a change in understanding after James Clerk Maxwell. Maxwell thought of a field as a classical field and attributed the forces of electricity and magnetism to an effect of the medium. Not only did he unify electricity and magnetism, he also conceptually unified with gravity by showing it to be an effect delivered by the medium. He noted that the inverse square law applies to gravity and electromagnetism.

Then Albert Einstein showed that gravity is caused by the medium of space in the form of Spacetime curvature. This was General Relativity. Unfortunately, Special Relativity creates a big problem for the unification of physics. Einstein said in his talk to the university of Leiden in 1920 that an ether is required for general relativity and this ether is space itself. He then goes on to claim (because of SR) that we cannot consider motion relative to this ether.

Denying the existence of a medium of space was a missed opportunity at unification. Now we have the standard model of particle physics and of course it is possible to replicate experimental results by defining multiple (21) physical fields with parameters in the field equations taken from experimental data. The problem is that fundamental physics is not to be understood through particles or fields but through waves in Spacetime.

Conference Paper THE UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS (Conference Paper)

Richard

If I state that fields are not real because the only “reality” is the aether, what will be the meaning of my statement?

We use the term “space” to address the existence of the volume of the universe. We also use the same term to address every volume in the universe that is not an object. And there are a couple more "concepts" that use the term “space”. But the aether was a term to express the existence of a medium in “empty space”, although the aether was not observable. Actually, the aether was necessary to create a mechanical explanation for Newton’s force of gravity that acts instantaneously between objects and celestial bodies. At that time the speed of light was not a universal constant. It was thought that the interactions with the help of light are instantaneous, like the influence of the force of gravitation.

In modern physics the structure of the electromagnetic field generates quanta.[1] That means that every unit of the structure is capable of “emitting” fixed local changes of energy (Planck’s constant). Thus in vacuum space there is a constant “emission” of quanta of energy and the result of this “emission” is what is called “quantum fluctuations” of “vacuum amplitudes”. These vacuum amplitudes can be detected.[2]

The consequence is that vacuum space is totally “filled” with quantum fluctuations. And it is not difficult to imagine that the classic concept of the “aether” more or less revived by this new concept that originates from classic physics (the electric and corresponding magnetic field).

Unfortunately, the aether was thought as a medium for Newton’s force of gravity. Modern basic quantum fields are thought to be the origin of everything we can observe and measure (physical reality).[1] Therefore we cannot replace quantum field theory with the concept of the aether. The aether is too limited (and the concept is not in line with Einstein’s curved spacetime).

Einstein’s idea that there exists no absolute velocity (velocity in relation to a rest frame) is outdated. The discovery of the CMBR dipole in 1977 and the recent confirmation by Jeremy Darling [3] shows that the foundations of Einstein’s theory of relativity don’t exist at the scale size of the microcosm. The consequence is that Einstein’s relative time is about an effect and not about the origin of time (in quantum field theory time is a constant).

However, the big problem is that in QFT fields have a structure and in General relativity space has no structure. It is thought to curve and even to expand (the big-bang hypothesis) but there is no description (= accepted theoretical framework) of the geometrical structure of space itself. Although quantum field theory describes the properties of the structure of space. The interpretation is that every basic quantum field describes an aspect of the properties (= structure) of space. Thus a field is a set of corresponding properties. Like the Higgs field “envelopes” scalar properties and the magnetic field envelopes vector properties in correspondence with the local changes of the electric field. The electric field envelopes topological properties. All the dynamics of the 3 sets of basic properties are “covered” by the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of momentum. And the 3 sets can interfere with each other (e.g. quantum strangeness), showing that the 3 sets have the same origine (= structure of space).

With kind regards, Sydney

References:

Sydney Ernest Grimm and Richard Lewis

I both agree and disagree with parts of your answers. After years of working on the foundation of physics, I have concluded that fermions, such as an electron, are not corpuscular particles but are rotating soliton waves existing in a field that has the properties of a quantum mechanical acoustic medium. I asked the question about whether fields are a property of the vacuum to bring out comments such as yours that describe the commonly held perception of fields and the vacuum.

To counter this commonly held model, the first step is to establish the vacuum has observable physical content. For example, the vacuum has experimentally observable impedance of free space Zo ≈ 377 Ω for EM radiation and the impedance of spacetime (Zs = c3/G) for gravitational waves. Impedance is a property of a medium that propagates waves. An empty vacuum should not have finite impedance. The vacuum also is an experimentally observable dielectric with a permittivity constant of εo ≈ 8.85x10-12 farads per meter. An empty vacuum should not have dielectric properties. Vacuum content is also proven because the quantum vacuum only allows angular momentum to be transferred in quantized units of ħ (Planck's constant). An empty void should not enforce quantization of angular momentum. Finally, the quantum vacuum has a finite wave propagation speed - the speed of light. I maintain these are all properties of a quantum mechanical field with acoustic properties.

Why do the vast majority of physicists believe the vacuum does not have physical content but also believe multiple fields exist in space? These fields are usually thought of as causing measurable effects at points in space, but also having non-physical properties. The problem appears to be the commonly held model used to explain wave-particle duality. Waves and point particles are fundamentally incompatible. They cannot be equal partners. A wave propagates in a physical medium and occupies a minimum volume related to its wavelength. A point particle has no volume and does not require a physical medium to move. If you visualize all fermions and bosons as corpuscular particles, then you have no need for a propagation medium, such as an ether-like field. However, if you visualize fermions as rotating soliton waves, then your vacuum model must be a field with quantifiable acoustic properties. John Wheeler proposed that the quantum vacuum was locally violent on the scale of Planck length. He proposed vacuum zero-point energy, and the uncertainty principle are explained by the vacuum being a sea of Planck length vacuum oscillations at Planck frequency. This has the necessary properties to be the fundamental field that makes all particles, all forces, all physical constants, and all laws of nature.

This is just the first step in explaining this model. Additional information is contained in the following articles. However, this introduction conveys my position that the quantum vacuum has the property of a universal field that generates everything in the universe.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353049276

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264311427

John A. Macken We are very close in our thinking about fundamental physics and very far from the currently accepted ideas of the standard model of particle physics.

I note the key point in your post being the fact that light is a wave propagating in a medium. I take the view that this medium is Spacetime itself. You take the view that it is the soliton field. The SM takes the view that it is the electromagnetic field.

If we could just sort out and agree on the nature of light . . . .

I present the evidence for my point of view based on the observations of gravitational waves by LIGO. The observations show that gravitational waves and electromagnetic waves travel at the same speed c even when travelling through expanding space. If you assume that light travels with a field as the medium of propagation and this field is independent of space then you have to explain why the field is expanding at the same rate as space itself.

Richard

Dear John A. Macken

I have no problem with the concept that local concentrations of energy – like the electron – are rotating wave packets of the electromagnetic field. Actually this concept is widely accepted because the concentration of energy is impossible without a loop of energy like the spin of a particle.

The description of the electromagnetic field as a “quantum mechanical acoustic medium” is a bit strange because the term “acoustic” refers to physical reality at a much larger scale size (without atoms there is no “acoustic”). That is why your description suggests that you have no propper mathematical model of the distinct foundational field structure.

I don’t know why you want to counter QFT. No theorist claims that vacuum space is empty. On the contrary, the general concept of QFT is that the basic quantum fields “create” physical reality because the basic quantum fields together “fill” all the volume of the universe. Thus the spatial existence of the basic quantum fields is not restricted to the volume of the universe that we have termed “vacuum space”. See reference 1 in my previous comment.

If there is no matter in the universe the only “dynamics” is created by the electromagnetic field. The electromagnetic field has a structure and it is easy to calculate the consequences of the existence of the structure in relation to the constant speed of light that is a basic property of the structure. If the structure has a metric of 300.000.000 m every unit of the structure can only create 1 quantum of energy during 1 second. Thus if we decrease the metric of the structure we increase the number of quanta that are generated by one unit of the structure of the electromagnetic field during 1 second.

If we propose that the shortest wave length and the size of the smallest particles must be an indication of the “tangible” metric of the electromagnetic field (actually space itself) we will find that every unit of the electromagnetic field must generate about 1023 quanta during 1 second; even in vacuum space. If we propose that the metric is identical to the Planck length (about 1,6 x 10-35 m) we create a problem because every unit of the structure of the electromagnetic field will generate an amount of energy during 1 second that is equal to the energy within the combustion chamber of an automobile. And everybody knows that the conditions everywhere in our universe are not equal to an enormous combustion chamber.

Theorists have to deal with conflicting grand theories. For example the contrast between Einstein’s theory of relativity (inclusive gravitation) and quantum theory. Time isn’t relative in quantum theory because the amount of change is a constant (Planck’s constant) and the velocity of a quantum of energy is a constant too (speed of light). But in the theory of relativity time is variable and even the distance between 2 fixed points in space is variable because of the amount of curvature of space itself (General relativity).

Thus if a theorist wants to publish a paper he/she has to avoid conflicts. For example most physicists adore Einstein. So how do I avoid that my paper is rejected? Don’t write about space, just write about fields. It is the same but if we don’t explicitly make that statement nobody can disagree.

With kind regards, Sydney

Richard Lewis Sydney Ernest Grimm

These short posts are incomplete and lead to misunderstandings. Both of you have misinterpreted my model. My basic premise is that the quantum vacuum has a quantifiable structure. This basic structure was first proposed by John Wheeler in 1955. He proposed that vacuum zero-point energy and the uncertainty principle could be explained if the quantum vacuum is a locally violent sea of Planck length (Lp) vacuum oscillations at Planck frequency (ωp). He called this medium “quantum foam” or “spacetime foam”. These oscillations are happening at the speed of light because Lpωp = c. Therefore, waves naturally propagate at speed c.

Rather than making vague references to multiple independent fields with no conceptually understandable physical structure, this is a quantifiable model of a single universal field that can generate everything in the universe - all fermions, all bosons, and all other fields. For example, the quantifiable impedance of this medium is: Zs = c3/G = 4×1035 kg/s. This is the same impedance encountered by gravitational waves as described in books such as Advanced Gravitational Wave Detectors edited by D. G. Blair. This impedance is so enormous, that a fermion can be modeled as a rotating soliton wave with undetectable amplitude of Planck length.

So far, this can sound like unsupported speculation. However, this model makes correct predictions. Planck frequency is a boundary condition that makes this medium into a quantifiable nonlinear medium. This nonlinearity creates gravity in this model. An electron has been modeled as a rotating soliton wave in this medium. The same soliton wave model that successfully generates an electron's de Broglie waves and energy also was found to generate an electron's electric and gravitational fields. Since both fields are generated by a single model, this model predicts there should be previously unknown mathematical connections between the electrostatic and gravitational forces between two electrons. It is possible to go directly to Section 12 (page 16) of the following paper to see the equations that prove this model makes correct predictions.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353049276

If we assume that the vacuum is energy and the field is another energy, then there is no relationship between them. While if we study them in the form of waves, there may be interference between the two waves, but this is not clear and impractical. The thing that may be accepted is that the vacuum it can be the carrier of the field.

Dear John A. Macken

Your hypothesis that “… this is a quantifiable model of a single universal field that can generate everything in the universe - all fermions, all bosons, and all other fields.” isn’t new. And it doesn’t originate from John Wheeler but from the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides and followers who reasoned that observable reality is created by an underlying reality that exists everywhere in the universe and it is composed by one enveloping structure of indivisible units (about 500 B.C.).

Actually, no theorist will qualify the general idea of your hypothesis as nonsense. They only want to know the details of your hypothesis: how did you unify all the properties of the detected and observed phenomena into one conceptual framework? Because you are advertising a unified theory thus they want to verify its reliability. They don’t accept a clarification that is far more troublesome than the existing grand theories.

Thus your hypothesis has to describe the existence and (hidden) properties of the “… multiple independent fields with no conceptually understandable physical structure”. If you like it or not, sorry.

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm

You say, physicists "only want to know the details of your hypothesis: how did you unify all the properties of the detected and observed phenomena into one conceptual framework?"

I have written several technical papers and a 400-page book that show how everything in the universe can be derived from the proposed universal field. These papers and the book are available at my ResearchGate home page.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John-Macken

“Are fields independent of the vacuum or a property of the vacuum?”

- by the vacuum definition that is something [a container] that contain nothing, including fields, etc., and have in concrete cases only two properties: (i) – a concrete number of a container’s dimensions, and (ii) – container is empty. So fields, that are placed in a vacuum, are, of course, independent on the vacuum.

Cheers

Dear John A. Macken

A new hypothesis like the existence of one universal field “that creates all” doesn’t mean that the descriptions of the accepted theories are wrong. These descriptions are approximations but rely on experimental evidence. Therefore the big problem in theoretical physics isn’t the experiment itself but the interpretation of the experiment. And of course the construction of a model that can unify all these descriptions.

Thus a theorist has to show that his/her solution is in line with a large range of experiments. At least if he or she wants to convince all the others that the hypothesis shows a better concept of physical reality. The consequence is that the new hypothesis cannot ignore all the research from the past. Thus if researchers have evidence that a solitary electron isn’t influenced directly by the force of gravitation – because the electron has no rest mass – the new hypothesis must correspond. Although it is reasonable that the conceptual framework of the new hypothesis describes the electron in a different way because of the foundation of the hypothesis, the one and only universal field.

In daily live we have the habit to express our negative opinion about a theory – e.g. Einstein’s theory of General relativity – with the term “wrong”. Thus if Einstein’s theory has some flaws we comment with the expression: “the theory is wrong”. Unfortunately there are a lot of experiments that show that Einstein’s model of spacetime is in line with the results of these experiments.

So I cannot state that Einsteins theory is wrong, I have to show in a convincing way why his theory is in line with the new hypothesis although its meaning has changed. Thus if I have the opinion that Einstein’s theory of General relativity describes the electromagnetic field and not Newtonian gravity – because of my new hypothesis – I have to write a paper about the subject with the help of the new hypothesis. Because I cannot ignore the consensus about Einstein’s spacetime. And that is why you cannot ignore the existence of QFT because it is the leading theory in theoretical physics for about 70 years. The consequence of a hypothesis of the existence of one universal field is that we cannot rely on cherry picking. Nobody is impressed if I state that high energy particle physics is unimportant for research on the foundtions of physics; I have to show it in a paper.

Therefore the problem with the concept of one universal field is that you have to do research in nearly the whole framework of theoretical physics, inclusive cosmology. Even if your model describes the universal properties of physical reality in a mathematical convincing way. The latter proves that your hypothesis is absolutely correct but this isn’t a type of proof most physicists are familiar with so they don't know how to react.

That is why you have to convince them with an extensive description about a lot of aspects of modern physics. Al least… if you like it. Because you can do research without the aim to convince others too. Of course as a scientists we all have the responsibility to describe our research if it is not nonsense but mostly we already do it for ourselves. However, trying to get our descriptions published in one of the renowned scientific magazines is a time consuming "job", even if our research has a lot of scientific value. Fortunately nowadays there are repositories to ease our sense of responsibility.

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm

From your answer, I cannot tell is you have read any of my papers. These papers show there is a great deal of support and no fundamental conflicts with experiments. For example, it is a physical interpretation of general relativity that gravity is a geometric effect. Even Einstein did not have this interpretation. Another example is the conclusion that an electron is smaller than 10-18 m. This is not obtained by a direct measurement of an electron. It is a physical interpretation of collision experiments that assume an electron is a physical particle with a fixed radius. They are looking for indications of head-on collisions that produce back scatter rather than deflections. A rotating soliton wave with Planck length wave amplitude has no detectable volume. This is a soft soliton that shrinks its size when it momentarily absorbs energy in a collision. Therefore, it is easy to see how this model of an electron can probe the internal structure of a proton in very energetic collisions.

The currently accepted point particle model of an electron is incompatible with the electron's known physical properties. For example, we know an electron has ħ/2 quantized angular momentum, but this is impossible for the point particle model. Therefore, it is necessary for physicists to assume there must be an imaginary "intrinsic" form of angular momentum that does not involve physical rotation. All molecules physically rotate with ħ/2 quantized angular momentum in their lowest energy state - there zero-point energy state. It is reasonable that fermions with ħ/2 angular momentum are also physically rotating. My model of an electron is a physically rotating wave with approximately ħ/2 angular momentum. My model also generates an electron's energy. The point particle model has no structure and does not imply any specific energy.

QFT teaches that fields are present in the vacuum. The properties of fields are known at points, but the structure of fields is unknown and never discussed. Will science ever be able to understand the underlying physics of fields? I mention this because a constant speed of light in all frames of reference and all gravitational potentials requires coordination between all fields. This coordination can only happen if there is one universal field.

The gold standard for confirming a new scientific theory is whether it makes correct predictions that can be confirmed by experiment. The model I propose meets this standard. The model predicts that an electron's gravitational force should be mathematically related to an electron's electrostatic force through an electron's wave amplitude raised to different exponents. This comes from the nonlinear properties of the universal field. This and other predictions have been proven correct.

Dear John A. Macken

Your hypothesis that there exists only one universal field in the universe is comparable with the existence of the proposed unified field theory. Thus if you want other RG members to read your papers you have to show why your approach is far more promising than the papers of others about the subject. Because everyone is advertising his/her papers and arXiv.org expects about 8 million new uploads between 2023 and 2027. So everybody has to make choices because it is impossible to read “everything”. And... your discussion is about the nature of fields in relation to vacuum space.

Your hypothesis seems to be based on phenomenological physics (the mutual relations between observable/detectable phenomena). The image above shows the principle. I have to move the point of balance to get the relation between the mass of both objects (length A and length B). But I can never detect the hidden reality behind the existence of both objects. Because both objects are compositions of energy and although we know that energy is quantized – Planck’s constant – the quantization is also a relation. In other words if there exists an external observer who is not “build up” by the properties of “the one and only universal field”, he/she will not observe the quantization of energy. Simply because the quantization of energy (geometrical change) only exists between 2 phenomena as a mutual relation.

So there is a theoretical problem… It is impossible to create the ultimate unified field theory if we use the mutual relations between observable/detectable phenomena as the base for our hypothesis.

Let’s face the reliability of the the use of the Planck units. The Planck length is derived with the help of the smallest amount of energy (h) and the weakest force, the gravitational force (see Wikipedia for the details). But in the unified field theory all the 4 forces have the same origin (the so called “unification of forces”). Thus the different strength of the 4 forces is not determined by the properties of the distinct forces itself but by the “local” properties (local configuration) of the unified field. In other words, Planck’s derivation of the Planck length is like string theory, there is no “tangible” evidence (and gravity isn’t an elementary force too, it is an emergent force). So it is just speculative physics. And it is not difficult to grasp because there is an enormous scale gap between the Planck length (10-35 m) and the smallest particles (10-15 m). But we don’t observe phenomena at the scale size of 10-15 m that have a very extensive composed structure. It is just the contrary. There is asymptotic freedom and we cannot split the smallest particles in a number of separate building blocks (and these building blocks in smaller constituents till we “arrive” at the Planck length). The existence of asymptotic freedom was the cause behind the quark/gluon model.

QFT “teaches” that phenomenological reality is created by an underlying structure of basic quantum fields. The consequence is that our universe is an enormous volume and the detectable properties of the volume are “translated” into the concept of basic quantum fields. In other words, a unified field theory must describe the origin of these properties. Not in terms of mutual relations but in terms of absolute properties (a dynamic geometrical model).

With kind regards, Sydney

This question starts to address the postulates of a proposed model. Therefore, the support for the answer is the scope, simplicity, consistency, and explanation accuracy of the model. So, my answer is there is only 1 field in the universe and it exerts the only force in the universe. I think the idea that the medium of this force is not a vacuum. That is, the medium of the field is real.

SUMMARY

Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) unites the big, the small, and the four forces (GUT) by extending Newton's model

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=2414

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YlJGdTvuTU

Until now, I have imagined any variant of the physical vacuum by analogy with the Dirac vacuum. That is, as a sea of virtual particles representing the quanta of the corresponding fields. May be, I was wrong?

John A. Macken: "This coordination can only happen if there is one universal field."

One particular universal field that I am aware of is the accumulated gravitational potential of distant masses, which is the basis of Mach's Principle as well as the high-speed rotor experiment proposed by James C. Keith (see references below).

https://rmf.smf.mx/ojs/index.php/rmf/article/view/836/600

Article Significant Deviation of Rotational Decay from Theory at a R...

Research A second look at experimental data suggesting gravity speed ...

Dear John A. Macken , you have once again produced a gem of a question, deep and enlightening.

It seems to me that fields and vacuum must be dual to each other, thus allowing evolution of the field to the ground vacuum state. The duality is self-similar, IMO, to wave-particle duality.

It is this, however, in which I am most interested "... virtual electron/positron pairs are continuously forming and annihilating. Are the virtual electrons/positrons distinct additions to the vacuum or is the electron/positron field and these virtual particles a fundamental part of the quantum vacuum?"

My latest research conjectures that this virtual particle creation is caused by a universal phenomenon of radiation without annihilation. The source is electron/positron colocation in a wave packet of a single resonant oscillation. I believe that this is the cause of "space roar" and could be experimentally demonstrated.

All best,

Tom

Preprint Mars space roar

T. H. Ray: "It seems to me that fields and vacuum must be dual to each other, ..."

Similarly, I consider space and elementary particles as two corresponding energy states, one propagating thus spanning up space, and the other localized by rotation, forming protons as fundamental elementary particles, see reference below.

Research Proposal Triple-gyro model for deduction of proton radius and magnetic moment

Dear John A. Macken ,

it is quite interesting the following thoughts of Maxwell:

from

THE SCIENTIFIC PAPERS OFJAMES CLERK MAXWELL

https://ia800908.us.archive.org/24/items/scientificpapers01maxw/scientificpapers01maxw.pdf

"The intrinsic energy of the field of gravitation must therefore be less where ever there is a resultant gravitating force.

As energy is essentially positive, it is impossible for any part of space to have negative intrinsic energy. Hence those parts of space in which there is no resultant force, such as the points of equiUbrium in the space between the different bodies of a system, and within the substance of each body, must have an intrinsic energy per unit of volume greater than

1/8pi *R2

where R is the greatest possible value of the intensity of gravitating force in any part of the universe.

The assumption, therefore, that gravitation arises from the action of the surrounding medium in the way pointed out, leads to the conclusion that every part of this medium possesses, when undisturbed, an enormous intrinsic energy, and that the presence of dense bodies influences the medium so as to diminish this energy wherever there is a resultant attraction.

As I am unable to understand in what way a medium can possess such properties, I cannot go any further in this direction in searching for the cause of gravitation."

Stefano Quattrini

I recognise this quote from the paper “A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field section (82) Note on the attraction of gravitation.

He starts the section with: “After tracing to the action of the surrounding medium both the magnetic and electric attractions and repulsions, and finding them to depend on the inverse square law of the distance, we are naturally led to enquire whether the attraction of gravitation, which follows the same law of the distance, is not also traceable to the action of a surrounding medium.”

So he is saying that the electromagnetic force is an action of the medium and proposing that the gravitational force is an action of the medium.

It was another 50 years before Albert Einstein showed that space itself was the medium (Ether) which delivers the gravitational force.

Preprint Ether and the Theory of Relativity

Richard

Dear Richard Lewis ,

Maybe Einstein said that in Leiden in presence and in honor of Lorentz, I don't remember. The fact is that the actual interpretation of GR as a theory of gravitation is that space-time is deformed by mass, but vacuum energy density is very low... right the opposite of what Maxwell said..

Stefano Quattrini Hi Stefani. That is a very interesting point and I am trying to visualise what we actually mean by vacuum energy density. Thinking of space as a medium it must be under enormous tension for waves to travel at 300,000 km/sec.

So the stored energy in the medium must be enormous and I think this is what Maxwell was suggesting.

Now, I am not sure about how we measure vacuum energy density but I have heard that the predictions of QM and GR differ by around 10^120.

I think this is an important issue but I can’t quite resolve it because I don’t have a clear understanding of vacuum energy density and how we would measure it.

Richard

Stefano Quattrini Thinking some more about the definition of vacuum energy density in the context of GR, I realise that there is a problem with the definition.

I have shown in this analysis that dark energy can be better explained with a cosmological constant of zero:

Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on Dark Matter and Dark Energy

So with the definition of vacuum energy density for GR based on the cosmological constant we would get a vacuum energy density of zero from GR.

So we need a new definition of vacuum energy density for GR. I would suggest an analogy with an elastic string. It takes a certain amount of energy to put an elastic string under tension. Then it will support wave propagation but the wave energy is small compared with the energy required to put the string under tension.

So I would suggest defining vacuum energy in the context of GR based on the energy required to put the medium of space under sufficient tension that it supports wave propagation at 300,000 km/sec.

Richard

Dear Richard Lewis ,

I don't think it is possible. Since grav energy is not localisable in GR there is no energy density of vacuum in principle. So GR is just a theoretical model of superficial waves of a very deep sea.... Dark matter is part of its huge depth...

Dear friends of gravity, relativity, fundamental physics, quantum physics and elementary particle physics,

Fields are a property of vacuum.

Gravitational fields are caused by vacuum, see Carmesin (2021a, 2021b, 2022a, 2022c).

Electromagnetic fields are caused by vacuum, as the electric charge is caused by vacuum, see Carmesin (2021c, 2022b).

Electroweak field, coupling constants and charges are caused by vacuum, see Carmesin (2022b).

Moreover, particles are caused by vacuum via phase transitions, see Carmesin (2021b, 2022b).

ALTOGETHER, the different fields of present-day physics are unified on the basis of the dynamics of cosmological vacuum (Carmesin 2022c).

THEREBY, all results are in precise according with observation, whereby only fundamental principles of physics and the fundamental or universal constants G, c and h have been used, so that no fit has been executed.

I am looking forward to your reply.

Literature:

Carmesin 2021a: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350373240_Quanta_of_Spacetime_Explain_Observations_Dark_Energy_Graviton_and_Nonlocality

Carmesin 2021b:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353851329_Cosmological_and_Elementary_Particles_Explained_by_Quantum_Gravity

Carmesin 2021c:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355889856_The_Elementary_Charge_Explained_by_Quantum_Gravity

Carmesin 2022a:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358581911_Quantum_Physics_Explained_by_Gravity_and_Relativity

Carmesin 2022b:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359426539_The_Electroweak_Interaction_Explained_by_and_Derived_from_Gravity_and_Relativity

Carmesin 2022c:

Carmesin, H.-O. (December 2022): Unification of Spacetime, Gravity and Quanta. Berlin: Verlag Dr. Köster.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366544455_Unification_of_Spacetime_Gravity_and_Quanta

Kind regards,

Hans-Otto Carmesin