Dear Raphael Neelamkavil ,

If you have a look on a paper in my profile, you will find a paper discussing a Low Energy Electron Diffraction experiment. This demonstrate the necessity of a medium surrounding all masses.

What exactly is this medium is another discussion (that you can find in another paper on fundamental EM). In any case is must be absolutely fundamental for all physical phenomena.

JES

Thanks Stellan Gustafsson! I will look up the article.

And have you already finished publishing the videos on physics? Could you give me the link?

Raphael Neelamkavil

Sure Raphael Neelamkavil

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1CTc1zBmqoySI85N9ml4ow

It's not finished. I will, around Christmas time, put a video on atomic physics which will explain and calculate centrifugal force + a "forgotten" force extracted from induction + the fine structure constant and Planck's constant. After that I present a simulation code giving the exact trajectory + position and velocity at any moment of all electrons + nucleus of the lighter atoms.

JES

Thanks, Stellan Gustafsson. I shall wait for them.

Raphael Neelamkavil

I forgot

https://daontheory.com

this site is old and abandon put if you have the time, there is a first version of the totality of the daon theory presented (if it works still)

JES

Thanks.

The correct answer is no, because the ether is a fictional concept, and there may be papers claiming its existence, but there is absolutely no proof that they are in any way more correct than those written more than a century ago, which became irrelevant with Michelson and Morley's experiments involving the speed of light, and Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. (Of course the fellows who have sent you links to their papers proving the necessity of an ether will disagree with this, because if they didn't, they would be admitting that they're wasting their and your and now my time.)

Thanks, Courtney Seligman. I have been discussing this matter in Academia.edu, under "CHALLENGING THE UNIVERSALITY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT AS A CONSTANT". One person goes on giving Newtonian answers and insists that ether exists.

I am copying this answer of yours for this person to read. He seems to be fixed on his opinion. He will of course think that I am fixed on my claims!

Raphael Neelamkavil

Thanks Davide Vatteroni...

If you get time, just take a look at my academia.edu ("CHALLENGING THE UNIVERSALITY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT AS A CONSTANT"), and read some opinions on the existence of ether...! One insists that ether should exist, and Newtonian reasons alone become sacrosanct....

https://cives-school.academia.edu/RAPHAELNEELAMKAVILPhDDrphilWorkingonGOUNDINGANALYTICSCIENTIFICANDPHENOMENOLOGICALMETAPHYSICS

Raphael Neelamkavil

I hope that those that doubt that "aether" exists, have enough wisdom to read the paper in my profile making the demonstration. It's very simple, low speed is used so no relativistic effects are discussed , only the pertinence of the local reference frame is demonstrated.

JES

The existence of an ether-like component of our universe is a matter of postulates. As such, it is not subject to proof. But then observations do NOT prove any model, they only reject models. So, the support of ether-like stuff is in the number and (size, energy) range of the observations it explains. Physics today recognizes 3 size realms -Cosmological, classical, Quantum. The problem is each realm has an independent model. Interestingly, each realm has a possible ether-like model.

IMO defining the properties of the ether to explain observation in all 3 ranges is a goal. So, the question becomes what are the properties? I call my suggestion the ``plenum'' after Descartes. The other component is called the hod (from Hebrew tree-of-life). This model reduces to Cosmology and Quantum realms, explains many problem observations .

SUMMARY

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

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344442808_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

my videos

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc0mfCssV32dDhDgwqLJjpw/videos

Thanks, John Hodge.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Raphael Neelamkavil

Either is a good option to represent a medium for electromagnetic and other like waves in vacuum space... but existence of either is completely false.

Let's assume either exists then we know all mediums are made up of something then what is either made up of?

Exactly! Thanks, Ritik Bharadwaj.

Dear Raphael ( Raphael Neelamkavil )

The ether exist of course: witout it canot be explained the magnetic and the gravity phenomenon :

The rest is present in the project of graviton:

https://www.researchgate.net/project/A-new-formulation-of-the-possible-nature-of-the-graviton

Regards,

Laszlo

Thanks Laszló. I shall read it.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Raphael Neelamkavil,

The many views expressed about an ether demonstrate the challenge of understanding and proving its existence. In order to convincingly demonstrate the existence of an ether, one must first determine specifics about its construction and dynamical laws. These specifics must then lead to numerical or relational results that at the very least conform to known data. Ideally, the results would be predictive to a strongly convincing level.

I have long believed in a Fabric of Space that some may consider to be an ether. For many decades I thought that convincing numerical results were unlikely to emerge from conceptualizing the underlying fabric. Now, I am fully convinced that a very specific fabric exists. The problem comes from attempting to communicate the elaborate details and convincing results. This problem is greatly compounded by the existence of many views both within and outside of mainstream. The view you are seeking must accord with everything in Nature.

I applaud your interest in this area. The question I would first address is what could constitute proof of an ether. I suspect that most would respond to this question with an elaborate argument that confuses as much as it helps. My answer would require precise and predictive numerical results and model relationships that seem so far out of reach that most would consider them impossible to achieve. When one considers something to be impossible they seldom exert much effort in understanding it.

Richard Marker

Dear Richard Marker, thanks. Before making a short comment, I want to draw your attention to an interesting fact: You have the face-cut of Alfred North Whitehead! Take a look at his Process and Reality, The Free Press.

If ether is of finite activity at any given space-time, it must be part of this universe of matter-energy, because it will interact with matter-energy.

If ether is of infinite activity, it may or may not interact with matter-energy (we do not know), but we have no way of proving or even assuming its existence.

But if this ether is the continuously creative Source of all that exist, we have both problems and solutions. This has been discussed elaborately in my second doctoral work towards the end. But that work is mainly on Causality in Astrophysical Cosmology.

In any case, I find the concept of ether strange. In my academia page (( https://cives-school.academia.edu/RAPHAELNEELAMKAVILPhDDrphilWorkingonGOUNDINGANALYTICSCIENTIFICANDPHENOMENOLOGICALMETAPHYSICS )) I have a short paper:

"CHALLENGING THE UNIVERSALITY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT AS A CONSTANT".

A few persons have been commenting on it. One insists that ether exists. He gives strange arguments:

(1) Binary thinking means that we have been occupied by the question reference frame or nothing and failed to imagine any third option. The state of motion of the ether must NOT be the same in all points. The ether can never move faster than light speed. Black holes are never really black. It is impossible to prove any theory, or modern physics, to be right. Instead, you have to disprove the alternatives one by one. 2 different theories can predict the same. I hope you will try to disprove my ideas.

(2) The ether is small and fast and neutrino-like particles with very small mass moving in all directions. Fatio 's model.

ETC....

This is why I put this question here in ResearchGate.

I gave some counterarguments, but there come further arguments.

Yesterday I wrote: "What physical proofs do we have to claim the following as you did?: "The ether is small and fast and neutrino-like particles with very small mass moving in all directions."

The reply was: "Why do you ask? This idea is the only explanation of a mechanism we have! This explained in the 2 links you find above. Read them. You do not have any other model of ether and of gravity that is logical, since bending of nothing is absurd. Fatio's model is OK, for 300 years, and emergent gravity by absorption explains NO aberration. There are more articles by me on RG and Academia. CAN YOU PRESENT ON ALTERNATIVE?"

Today I wrote: "I don't know if I can ask only if and after I have developed an alternative model.......

Fatio's model may be ok for some. But as you said: "The ether is small and fast and neutrino-like particles with very small mass moving in all directions. Fatio's model.", if this is the case, we need a proof as to why ether is like neutrinos or even thinner-energy stuff.

After all, these particles can only have finite energy. This is absolute commonsense. And if finite in energy, they are part of this world of energy and matter, and not an absolute frame of reference for energy. If no absolute reference is possible, then it is better to admit that a reference frame like ether exists!"

Raphael Neelamkavil

Raphael Neelamkavil,

I do see the Alfred North Whitehead resemblance you mentioned. The poor guy can't help if he resembles me. ;)

Surprisingly, you do seem to honestly be pursuing answers rather than self-promoting. The neutrino-like 'particles' moving in chaotic motion are very early thoughts. It is the building of those thoughts that eventually leads to a relationship that may provide the 'proof' you seek. The expression: "The proof is in the pudding." comes to mind.

Whether the pudding is proof may be arguable, but it provides a strong indication that the underlying basis has significant merit. I consider the underlying Fabric to be synonymous with the term ether, but not everyone would agree.

What is this 'proof'? It comes directly from a structure that develops logically from the early chaotic beginnings. I make no serious attempt to document this logic path as it is very long and involved. If someone has interest I am happy to Zoom with them to explain it. If you look toward the end of my 'ggee' paper you will find a ratio that normally develops somewhat directly from the gravitational constant. Take a look at the precision and accuracy of the result which is electromagnetic in accuracy rather than gravitational. Most people would assume that the result must be forced to produce the experimental value, but it is not forced in any way. Had these relationships been found over 50 years ago they would have at that time produced today's value of Big G (+1.85 sigma) with today's accuracy. Of course, this seems impossible.

Preprint Theoretical Ratio of the Gravitational Force to the Electrom...

I avoided providing this link in my earlier answer because it seems self-promoting. It was quite surprising to me that thoughts about the fabric would ever lead to numerical answers of any significance. In my mind they provide the 'proof' you seek. They also have many implications about one's world-view.

If you want an opening to criticize my results, take a look at reference 5 in which I correct a Codata published value for the precision of Big G. If you look at the chronology of the precision of Big G shown in the table that references the note, it is difficult to come to any other conclusion. Yet, it has remained uncorrected for over 20 years.

I have never attempted publication of this paper because I am not into wasting my breath; and have no interest in publishing it with anyone other than a highly reputable publisher.

if you wish to follow up with a Zoom session, please let me know. I am generally available.

Richard Marker

Thanks, Richard Marker. I will first read this paper. And thereafter we will see. Moreover, I am in further studies, and work during the day a few hours for living -- this is just correcting doctoral works, nothing else. That is, life is tough.

Am looking for a postdoc somewhere in the philosophy of physics. But it is difficult to get. Hence, I continue to study until I obtain one!

Raphael Neelamkavil

Raphael Neelamkavil,

I wish you the best in your search for a postdoc. For someone with a bent toward philosophy of physics, the paper may not appeal much to you. I do not discuss the philosophy underlying it. Instead, I stay focused on the ingredients of the calculation itself.

I did put together a website several years ago that travels the philosophy path that gets one there. I don't think anyone has ever seriously read my 'ThursdayThoughts' website. Also, I may not have left sufficiently detailed clues to assure an understanding. The point of the website was to provide the major junctions in thinking, but not to deprive a reader the thrill of gaining their own understanding of the process. Sometimes I'm a little too subtle.

Richard Marker

There is both experimental and theoretical proof that the quantum vacuum is a quantum mechanical acoustic medium. The term "ether" does not adequately describe this content because the only function of the ether was to propagate light. The medium I am describing has the properties of a field that generates everything in the universe - all particles and all forces. This medium also propagates both light and gravitational waves. Therefore, it fulfills the key function of the ether but goes much further and is the foundation of all fields.

There is experimental proof that the quantum vacuum has content. For example, the vacuum has experimentally observable impedance of free space Zo ≈ 377 Ω. 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. Finally, the quantum vacuum has a finite wave propagation speed - the speed of light. These are all properties of a single field that forms everything.

The M-M experiment disproved the ether model because the assumption was that the interferometer was not affected by ether drift. However, if everything in the universe is based on waves propagating in this universal field medium, then this assumption is wrong. If everything, including the M-M interferometer, rulers, and clocks, scale with waves in this medium, then the effects of drift are canceled. No motion relative to the universal field is observable.

Why do the vast majority of physicists believe the vacuum does not have physical content even though they also believe non-physical fields exist in the vacuum? 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, this simplification creates the numerous mysteries known to exist in quantum mechanics and general relativity.

The only example of wave-particle duality on a macroscopic scale are rotons in a superfluid such as a Bose-Einstein condensate. In a superfluid, angular momentum is quantized into ħ units. Introducing ħ quantized angular momentum into a superfluid can produce either a quantized vortex or a small rotating spherical volume of the superfluid below the surface. These are quantized rotating solitons that have both wave and particle properties. They are analogous to fermions in the wave-based model of the universe. This wave-based model also generates an electron's gravity and charge. These concepts are explained further in the following articles.

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

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

Maxwell, Stokes, Lorentz, Poincare' thought that existed an aethereal medium driving light similar to a medium that allowed in vacuo to drive light.

The MM experiment showed that it is not possible to detect the relative motion of Earth around the Sun from experiments that are made on Earth itself .... other than that no experiment out of the gravitational environment of earth has been performed, for example for the propagation of light:

Article On the trajectory of light. From Special Relativity beyond t...

If the speed of anything including that of photons and gravitons explains many things more than gravity potential explains, can escape velocity be (theoretically) better than gravity potential? If the assumption of ether as existent facilitates all these, would ether then be proved to exist?

This is the most difficult question that prohibits the understanding of existence of ether in your arguments. Forget about binary thinking and multi-valued logic. But in any case, in the kind of physical theory that many seem to propose, they need not only to presuppose the existence of ether and show that this explains many things better.

We need that this so-called ether be imaginable in the possible ways that it can possess an internal constitution. Here comes my argument that asks whether ether has finite activity or infinite activity.

If it has finite activity, it can only be part of this world; and if it has infinite activity, the processes of this world are unable to interact with it.

Why it should exist is not at all being proved by anyone by creating a theory that presupposes the existence of ether.

We have had many philosophies and physics where a God was presupposed to exist as the guarantor of all that happens in the world and of all that can go wrong in the world. But that was no proof for God's existence. Einstein's theoretical Lambda, turned today theoretically into a presupposedly existent dark energy, is of this type.

Matter is affected by the properties of ether but ether is not affected by the presence of matter, this is a contradiction. Also it is assumed every where so it's affect on all things will be same. Only because waves requires medium to travel and light is exception to it we can't justify any substance specially in Universe. It's like observing and viewing the impacts of things on absoluteness. Without motion or change or properties nothing can be said about it. And if some how we assume it then its like thinking about absolute motion only continuously.

Anil Kumar Jain, your intervention is very good. I have been arguing for this many times, especially in Academia.edu. But many seem to follow the notion of an "absolute ether" which, at the same time, they insist to be not of infinite action! In that case, it should be of finite action, and hence it has to interact with matter and energy! When I say this, some say that I am talking nonsense. They ask why I should bring in finite action and infinite action!!!

Raphael Neelamkavil

In the framework of “the theory of informatons”, the medium that makes gravitational and electromagnetic interactions possible is identified as a cloud of mass- and energy less granular entities, called “informatons”.

Informatons are defined in the “postulate of the emission of informatons”[1] which starts from the hypothesis that any material object manifests itself in space by the emission - at a rate proportional to its rest mass - of mass and energy less granular entities that, relative to an inertial reference frame, are rushing away with the speed of light. They are carrying information regarding the position and the velocity (g-information”) and about the electric status (e- information) of their emitter. Because they transport nothing than information, these entities are called “informatons”.

This hypothesis implies that any material object is at the centre of an expanding cloud of informatons that forms an indivisible whole with that object. On the macroscopic level, the g-information carried by the constituent elements of that cloud manifests itself as the “gravitational field” of the object. And if it is electrically charged, the constituent elements of the cloud carry - in addition of g-information - also e-information, that on the macroscopic level manifests itself as the “electromagnetic field” of the object.

The presence of matter in “vacuum” (“emptiness”) is thus accompanied by the presence of an expanding cloud of informatons which - according to the theory of informatons - makes the gravitational and electromagnetic phenomena possible.

This implies that since the moment of the "big bang", an ever-expanding region has been developing where the "emptiness" is replaced by a "space" filled with a medium that makes the gravitational and electromagnetic phenomena possible. What is geometrically possible in that space (what geometrically can and what cannot) is described by the Euclidean geometry.

Since the informatons are moving at the speed of light c, the boundary of that space linked to any mass cluster is currently (T seconds after the moment when the mass became reality – the moment of the “big bang”) at a distance R from that cluster (e.g. the earth) given by R = cT. If we assume that that space swells evenly since its genesis; then a point at a distance r from the mass cluster is drifting away with a speed v = (r/R).c =(c/ R).r = (1/T).r = H0.r (Ho is Hubble's constant.

By introducing information as a substantial element of nature, it is possible to explain the gravitoelectric description (GEM) of the gravitational phenomena[1], as well as Maxwell's description of electromagnetic phenomena[2]. This is an indication of the existence of a medium as described by the theory of informatons.

1.

Book GRAVITOELECTROMAGNETISM EXPLAINED BY THE THEORY OF INFORMATO...

2. Article ELECTROMAGNETISM EXPLAINED BY THE THEORY OF INFORMATONS -version 2

Antoine J.H. Acke, please read this reply of mine carefully and of course critically.

Considering "information" for practical purposes as a sort of ether is ok. But there are two problems here:

(1) Information is always carried by energy. That is, what is working as the existent background is not information but the energy. Just considering information as something carried exclusively by energy, and later considering information as existing irrespective of energy is unacceptable. See how Norbert Wiener initiated this sort of a way of thinking.

If one continues like this, I may produce a new theory saying, cause is being propagated by energy, and hence cause should exist independent of the energy that propagates IT, and hence CAUSE IS THE ETHER THAT SUBSUMES EVERYTHING IN MOTION...!!!!!!

I have been militating against this sort of understanding and reification of concepts. Recently I wrote a work of about 90 pages: CAUSAL METAPHYSICS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: VIRTUAL WORLDS VS. CONSCIOUSNESS.

(2) Secondly, after erroneously taking information as some sort of existent ether, we cannot extend this theory to cosmology and say that the ether behind the whole cosmos is information. This is too fantastic to make sense. I know biologists who write peer-reviewed articles (and perhaps books) saying that information is all that the body and the mind sustain, and hence information is the background and the stuff of all living phenomena!

William of Ockham, a late medieval philosopher, has said: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, "Entities should not be multiplied without necessity".

I do not mean to cause any offense here. I have been seriously pursuing the above sort of thinking of mine, and plan to publish a book-length study analysing and critiquing the sort of multiplication of entities in the new information science that concludes too much from informatics, artificial intelligence, robotics, etc.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Dear Raphael Neelamkavil ,

Yours is very good, but be careful to give fundamental physical meaning to information like majorities of theoreticians in physics give for the term used by them in mathematical equations used for describing physical processes.

'Anything that exists somehow communicates information about itself. Information is evident when what exists is distinctly different from its surroundings. And this information itself, if we start to think exactly the reverse of what we said before... It requires the existence of what many deny'- This idea is just being born, its essence ensures a declaration of the fact that the ether exists. Various paraphenomenal phenomena can only be explained by the existence of the ether. this sentence will be attached to the next project:

https://www.researchgate.net/project/A-new-formulation-of-the-possible-nature-of-the-graviton

Regards,

Laszlo

László Attila Horváth, you said: "[...] be careful to give fundamental physical meaning to information like majorities of theoreticians in physics give for the term used by them in mathematical equations used for describing physical processes."

Exactly this is what I have been doing and meant in my comment above.

But what you said thereafter is just the contrary: "'Anything that exists somehow communicates information about itself. Information is evident when what exists is distinctly different from its surroundings. And this information itself, if we start to think exactly the reverse of what we said before... It requires the existence of what many deny'- This idea is just being born, its essence ensures a declaration of the fact that the ether exists. Various paraphenomenal phenomena can only be explained by the existence of the ether."

Whatever the paraphenomenal stuff that seems to exist, we will finally have to ask whether this paraphenomenal is an existent unobservable or just a term or (most probably) a concatenation of many concepts. The best example that I can give is that of "potential energy". We speak of energy in terms of what we measure as the energy of some propagation or as the result of a propagation. But we also speak of existent, detectable energies like photons, neutrinos, etc. But we should not confuse between the two. Now you see, potential energy is in fact not an existent energy but the conceptual concatenation of some measurable effects, termed so due to the mathematical facility we obtain thereby. Now, to say that potential energy is a form of propagation exactly like the existent propagations like photons, neutrinos etc. will be a reification of conceptual stuff.

In both my doctoral works I have militated against this tendency in physics and cosmology. And recently in about 90 pages (not yet published), also about the reification of information ('informatons') beyond the very energy in whose conglomeration we find information. If not by minds, then by machines...! There may be many informatics specialists who technically and mathematically take information as something separable from the conglomeration of the energy that carried it. Such an age of proliferation of such works is already here before us. But in that case, I would prefer to become infamous among the academia by questioning the conceptual reifications behind such works.

Raphael Neelamkavil

To Raphael Neelamkavil: About the role of "g-information" in het gravitational interactions.

In §2.2 of GRAVITOELECTROMAGNETISM EXPLAINED BY THE THEORY OF INFORMATONS we explain what is understood by “g-information” and in chapter 7 we thoroughly treat the phenomenon of the gravitational interaction. A short summery.

Consider a set of point masses anchored in an inertial reference frame O. They create and maintain a cloud of “g-information” identified as the “gravitational field” of the set. At each point of the space linked to O that gravitational field is completely determined by a time independent vectoral quantity: the “field” Eg that is the density of the flow of g-information at that point.

Each mass is “immersed” in a cloud of g-information. At every point, except at its own position, each mass contributes to the construction of that cloud.

Consider the mass m anchored at a point P. If the other masses were not there, then m would be at the centre of a perfectly spherical cloud of g-information. In reality this is not the case: the emission of g-information by the other masses is responsible for the disturbance of that “characteristic symmetry” of the proper g-field of m. Because Eg at P represents the intensity of the flow of g-information send to P by the other masses, the extent of disturbance of the characteristic symmetry in the immediate vicinity of m is determined by Eg at P.

If it was free to move, the point mass m could restore the characteristic symmetry of the g-information cloud in its immediate vicinity by accelerating with an amount Eg. Indeed, accelerating this way has the effect that the extern field in the origin of the reference frame O’ anchored to m disappears. This means that, if it accelerates with an amount Eg , the mass would become “blind” for the g-information send to its immediate vicinity by the other masses, it “sees” only its proper spherical g-information cloud.

So, from the point of view of a particle at rest at a point P in a gravitational field, , the characteristic symmetry of the g-information cloud in its immediate vicinity is conserved if it accelerates with an amount Eg. A point mass that is anchored in a gravitational field cannot accelerate. In that case it tends (it is under pression) to accelerate. These insight is expressed in the following postulate:

A particle anchored at a point of a gravitational field is subjected to a tendency to move in the direction defined by Eg, the g-field at that point. Once the anchorage is broken, the mass acquires a vectoral acceleration a that equals Eg.

Macroscopically we can state that the gravitational field Eg is the cause of the tendency to accelerate. In the context of classical mechanics that tendency is attributed to the configuration of the system: one refers to it with the term “potential energy”. But microscopically it is caused by the phenomenon that a mass tends to become blind for g-informatation send to its immediate vicinity by other masses.

Dear Raphael Neelamkavil ,

Thank you for the observation! I'll think more about what I wrote, to know exactly how big the mistake was.

hamarosan lesz egy gondolat az éterrel kapcsolatban, amely válasz lesz a te mostani gondolatoddal az éterrel kapcsolatban...

We cannot measure paraphenomenal phenomena... But we would be able to determine what it triggers in individuals who have this ability!The human brain is much more sensitive than an instrument.

Regards,

Laszlo

In my opinion, none of the arguments presented here so far is convincing enough, because the theoretical foundations of any argument in favor of existence of ether are not merely shaky but also contradictory to reason based on both a finite and an infinite content in the cosmos.

Raphael Neelamkavil

I think the data are there to make a strong argument for the ether, but were analyzed to make a different point. And with an ether several more enigmas in physics can be explained.

The obvious experiment would to remove the ether from a volume of space and show that light will not pass, but we do not know how to do this. However, if there is an ether, the ether would have to have some mass, however small it might be, and that would lead to density variations across the universe, being more dense around massive objects and less dense in intergalactic space. As a result the speed of light will vary with the ether density just as the speed of sound varies with atmospheric density. If there is no ether the the speed of light would be a constant. Also if the ether has no mass then a wave has no kinetic energy.

The data analysis leading to the conclusion that the universe's expansion is accelerating is based on a constant speed of light. Had the analysis assumed that the universe's expansion is slowing then the resulting speed of light calculation would imply that the speed of light in intergalactic space would be less than 2/3rds of what we measure here. In essence, assume a constant speed of light and the conclusion is the illogical rate for the universe's expansion, or assume the universe's expansion is slowing and the speed of light varies implying an ether. See: http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2016.79084 for more details.

Another thought that goes with this argument is with respect to dark energy. It may be possible that a logical expansion for the universe will not need the concept of dark energy. So the assumption of a constant speed of light leads to two illogical conclusions: the universe's accelerating rate of expansion and the concept of dark energy. It is also highly likely that dark matter and the ether are one in the same.

The big question though, is if there is an ether, how does a transverse wave create the EM characteristics of a photon? An ether particle must therefor have some kind of EM characteristic. No matter how you vibrate or rotate or combine electric charges to make up an ether particle, the EM characteristics of the photon cannot be envisioned. The obvious simple answer is that the ether particle creates a magnetic field proportional to its velocity, then a transverse wave would create an oscillating magnetic field and, from Faraday's law, a transverse electric field like those of a photon. This would obviously be an EM property not before identified. The expansion of this property to normal matter leads to a localized vortex wave in the ether to transmit the Coulomb force and a localized longitudinal wave to transmit gravity. See: https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2018.97083 for more details. In addition, inside a very small distance these waves are not formed and thus prevents the singularity in the Coulomb force, thus turning off the Coulomb force in the nucleus, and also providing a mechanism for the proton and electron to magnetically bond into a neutron. See: https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2020.118073 for more details.

While a significant amount of physics can be explained with the existence of an ether, it does not prove anything, which got me to thinking about what you meant by a "theoretical proof." It would almost seem that "theoretical proof" is an oxymoron. I think you might mean a generally accepted theory since there is always the possibility that new data can come to light that is in conflict with the theory. At some point one must choose if there are sufficient data to earn your belief in an ether; currently there would seem to be more arguments in favor than opposed, its up to you.

Keith Lyon, thanks for this intervention in the discussion. Well thought-out.

Raphael Neelamkavil

The universe is a complete entity that has control of several hundred billons of galaxies, and place several billions solar system in each of them.

The reality is this organized existence has unit, it is called ATOM. Anything smaller than atom is "particle" these particles are not part of atom or would be part of atom. Thus ether, or either do not exist anywhere in the universe, it is just phrase of old ideology of past for something small that it exist, but it cannot be seen, like atom.

It is like speed of light that taught us that speed of light is constant for over a century, but reality this speed of light is refer to speed of flashlight, not speed of sunlight that massive of different frequencies, wavelength, with visible/invisible characters.

Article Title: Science is wrong on…Light & Photon

The eather exists in nature. It is a superfluid which fill all the universe. The eather is the fundamental state of the electromagnetic field. Its entropy is exactly the Boltzmann constant. It have a frequency about 700 Ghz which gives us exactly the density of vacuum predicted by General Relativity.

Alaya Kouki,

If ether is the fundamental state of the electromagnetic field, it need not be called by the same term as ether. Ether is supposed to be something different.

Raphael Neelamkavil,

You can call eather as the fundamental state of the quantum field. It is more general.

How is it more general? Some connect even cosmic quantum vacuum to it. Is this what u mean? In that case, why not connect also gravity to it...???

I do not understand why there SHOULD be some ether to keep everything within......

If ether is to be considered as element of information even then it is not possible to prove absolute ness or non vital property or nature of ether by using vital things. This is possible only when absolute ness

declare itself, and if this happens then it will never be possible to prove any such things. We can not justify wholeness or whole numbers using natural numbers. If anything requires infinite action then any such phenomenon will be automatic implicitly and explicitly by energy and which is again contradiction logically but correct by point of view of absolute consciousness which you are saying para phenomenon actions.

Any objective action can not carry energy of any subjective thing each and every time on timeline which is the limit of all things. Confusion is only because space and time do not carry as much broad definitions as science requires.

Anil Kumar Jain

"Confusion is only because space and time do not carry as much broad definitions as science requires."

In fact space & time are energy. The problem remain unsolved because we don't find the good absolute system of unities which mesh the space-time. Planck system is not the good system, we need another system with which we can have a scale factor for General Relativity.

The question seeks an experiment:

Interference Experiment with a Transparent Mask Rejects Wave Models of Light

Optics and photonics journal vol. 9, No. 6 jun 2019

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=93056

https://doi.org/10.4236/opj.2019.96008

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFDB-K_sSjU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A07bogzzMEI

The experiment was conceived as an extension of the STOE model (the theoretical part of your question). It can also be used to prove the existence of a continuous medium that is influenced by bodies and that influences bodies.

So, consider the order reversed

1) the last is that the nail blocks light (wave or particle and the 2nd mask is the glass plate (no slit) observed is the fig. b (diffraction pattern, NOT interference pattern) with the shadow of the nail.

2) replace glass plate with 2 - that is with a gap (slit 0.5 mm) between the plates. with the gap in the shadow of he nail. See the interference pattern (a diffraction pattern with fringes ) fig d.

So, how does the slit influence the pattern when no light goes thru the slit.

This experiment rejects wave models of light as does several other experiments.

Note: The Michelson-Morley experiment DOES not reject all ether model - It rejects the "luminerferous ether" model. It DID detect something that did influence light. Looking at the DATA (and not other's comments and restatements) shows an effect in a direction inconsistent with the velocity of Earth and consistent with an effect of the Sun and Moon. (nearly perpendicular to the Earth's motion). So, it did reject the "luminerferous" concept of the ether but no other concepts. It did support the idea that whatever other properties of the ether, it was influenced by bodies (Sun related - gravity) and the ether does influence light - as Newton said in his "Opticks".

IS ETHER CONCEIVED AS A REALLY EXISTENT BACKGROUND, OR SIMPLY AS SPACE OR TIME OR SPACETIME?

Ether is really exist. It is the fundamental state of the EM field. It have direct influence on gravity (expand Universe) and on atoms (maintain there structures). Sape time without ether signify space time without vacuum energy (speed of light very hight and constant lamda equal zero) , the mean frequency of the fundamental state of the EM field will be the Planck frequency. Gravitation lower the mean frequency of the fundamental state of the EM field to create a negative pressure so constant lambda appears again as a measure of a positive density energy of vacuum. The frequency of the fundamental state of the EM field will as gives exactly the vacuum energy density of GR. it seems as the classical gravitational field is created by the interaction of a mass m with an infinite harmonic oscillators damped with high coefficient damping (c3/G) so they don't move at all (the lambda coefficient is equal zero and there is no ether). The high coefficient damping is equal by principle of correspondance as there is no damping at all and theorotically the oscillators can have a high mean frequency (great c and not infinite).It is like we have neglect the effect of the garvitationnal field. If we don't neglect it so constant lamda appear and there is a low damping coefficient (a) wich can be determined by the quality coefficient of excited atoms or the photoelectric experiment or electric dipole oscillation.

Alaya Kouki,

In the final analysis, if ether is "the fundamental state of the EM field", why to assign to it a separate existence other than merely as EM fields? As you know, all sorts of purity have been attributed to ether. Some say it is the final background plasma. Plasma of what? Or, what sort of such a plasma is the cosmos? If it is just a plasma or a pure EM field behind the cosmos, why not call it God and stop at that? What I mean is that this seems to be the intention of some. Or else, some merely seem to feel that everything needs a medium. And to avoid the question of the medium behind this medium they say that ether fills space. And in that case it should mean that everywhere is absolutely dense with ether. And how do the cosmic objects surf in this medium by finite movement? In my opinion, ether is unnecessary.

Howdy Raphael Neelamkavil,

This question just appeared on an RG sidebar so I read through the set of replies. It's quite a trip, and of course I have my own theory, but I enjoy the discussions your questions raise.

I believe "catalyst" is the term I want here. My best tuned muffler design emerged in the aftermath of a terrible idea that was otherwise quite useless! Aristotle's introduction of the "aether" as the quintessence filling the universe beyond the sublunary sphere was quite useful to him in description. Young's double-slit experiment proved the wave nature of light, for a while, and the aether concept supported extensive learning which eventually produced more complete understanding, and many remaining questions about it. Why worry whether aether is "actual" with or without proof when it is so useful? Granted, it may mislead, but that is my point with the tuned muffler incident. We are still so ignorant we must have mavericks that explore, while the majority marches on incrementing what works.

The Philosophy of Science must be opportunity that aids discovery, not rules that protect all those doing philosophy from error. Proof about aether will come in it's time. In the meantime, what should be done about the fact that there are 11,552 replies to the RG question "What are the major and most effective refutations of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity?"

Factually, I do not understand "If ether is of infinite activity, it cannot interact with anything in the world, and hence also with matter, EM and Gravitation." If aether exists, activity associated with it will be local and its "infinite activity" seems to me irrelevant. Oh,well, great discussion!

Happy Trails, Len

Leonard Hall, thanks. You asked: "Why worry whether aether is "actual" with or without proof when it is so useful?" To my mind, this must increasingly be an unacceptable attitude in science and of course in philosophy, because this is the attitude that stalls the progress of both (and also of human institutions), by creating discrete "epochs and revolutions" in their way ahead.

Of course, there are persons living a happy family life under the blissful feeling that whatever they do in their life (earning money, loving only their own, dressing well, traveling around together by putting up a show that they are the happiest couple and family in the world). They can be a big majority in humankind, but none of them makes a difference in the world. They behave like sheep.

For me, the question as to the existence of ether, and if it does exist its manner of action and influence on the world are important. Not because the answer will come soon. But there is always some more light into the eventual near-perfect but imperfect solution when we keep reasoning about its existence and non-existence, influence and non-influence, extent of influence and non-influence, etc.

For some scientists, only a direct proof will count. "Mere reasoning" is useless. But they have not produced many direct proofs for anything -- and if they insist on science having produced direct proofs, the others will and shall attempt to show them that, theoretically, they are not even able to prove the existence of the physical world directly.

Hence, indirect reasoning too has its value -- even if science, philosophy, etc. will transpire only in terms of epochs and revolutions. I for my part have used the MMM (Maximal-Medial-Minimal) Method for this purpose.

About the RG question "What are the major and most effective refutations of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity?". If you notice the going-ons therein, you will realize also the attitudes and motives behind many of the warring factions therein. Sorry, if not the motives, then at least the attitudes that come to the fore through the words being uttered. I do not say this about all of them. Some of them use their words in such a manner as for others to feel that the ones who express themselves so will surely have missed parental love in childhood.

Leonard Hall,

I have been planning to initiate a question in RG: "Meaning of Theoretical and Practical (Pragmatic) Attitudes in Science and Philosophy".

Would you please permit me to use your this intervention as such and my reply to it as the starting point / material for the question? I will mention your name as the author of your intervention. I will not appropriate it in my name, of course....

Howdy Raphael Neelamkavil,

It is good to have our different perspectives available on these topics. I am confident we both strongly affirm the advance of human knowledge and are merely exploring important aspects of how to proceed. I do not think that my "unacceptable attitude in science and of course in philosophy" is the cause of "discrete 'epochs and revolutions,'" they are more human than that and will arise in any system. The discussion to which I came late addressed your objective of "But there is always some more light into the eventual solution when we keep reasoning about its existence and non-existence, influence and non-influence, extent of influence and non-influence, etc." quite well in my opinion and I applaud that focus as also important.

"Warring factions" is an excellent description. I just abandoned a long Q&A because of them when the originator finally set up an invited discussion with limited posters to escape it. They also are natural, sigh.

Feel free to proceed as you choose with the new question you have planned. If my comments could be of benefit as a starting point or the material could be of value to approve or contend, using either would meet with my purpose on RG, which is to make available what I do and have done.

Happy Trails, Len

Leonard Hall, thanks for permitting me to use our conversation. I will put your intervention as such, and slightly change and add a little more in mine -- but responsibly.

Thanks also for the appreciation.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Results_of_Theoretical_and_Practical_Pragmatic_Attitudes_in_Science_and_Philosophy

Yes there is ample evidence of the Aether - detected as light speed anisotropy in the Earth's (moving) IRF:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26842358_Combining_NASAJPL_One-Way_Optical-Fiber_Light-Speed_Data_with_Spacecraft_Earth-Flyby_Doppler-Shift_Data_to_Characterise_3-Space_Flow

AND working theory for it too:

The Light Timing Calculations of the Interferometer in the Quest to Detect Light Speed Anisotropy and a Case Study of the Michelson-Morley and Miller Mt Wilson Experiments

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=115944

The ``ether'' has many definitions. Part of the problem is to define its character. But just restrict it to a continuous component of our universe that is influenced by and directs matter. This allows the

Interference Experiment with a Transparent Mask Rejects Wave Models of Light

Optics and photonics journal vol. 9, No. 6 jun 2019

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=93056

https://doi.org/10.4236/opj.2019.96008

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFDB-K_sSjU

as an experiment that happens only if the photons in the final interference pattern are directed by something that encoded the slit information that is not matter, the ether.

Hi

The existence of ether was not rejected in the Michelson-Morley experiment?

Seyed Mohammad Mousavi

That is the common belief that the (almost) Null result of the MMX disproved the Aether, but Lorentz contraction was proposed the account for the result and this meant that the Aether theory is still viable. So, it is a misconception that the Aether was disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment…

I actually have a paper that I published last year that has the theoretical calculations, based on an Aether type model, that predicts the EXACT results of both the Michelson-Morley and Miller (Mt Wilson) experiments. This shows there there IS an Aether and that light's speed is ansiotropic in the Earth's (moving) reference frame and it actually travels at c-v and c+v through our reference frame (where v is the speed of the Aether wind or alternately of the Earth through the preferred space reference frame). You can read it here:

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=115944

Well, length contraction and time expansion in Lorentz Fitzgerald's assumptions were also interpreted with the theory of special relativity!

Are we still looking for ether or is there still a reason for its existence?

Seyed Mohammad Mousavi

There have been numerous experimenters (including myself) that have detected the anisotropy in the speed of light in the Earth's moving reference frame. That proves the Aether theory and disproves Relativity's assertion that the speed of light is c and isotropic in all reference frames.

See some of the experimental evidence here:

Article Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data wi...

Preprint Detection of light speed anisotropy and Aether wind speed us...

And the theory explaining the observations in my paper here:

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=115944

Does that mean you reject all light isotropic experiments? So the speed of light is not constant in all references?! So the laws of physics depend on references? And that special and possibly general relativity are invalid? This opinion of yours seems very revolutionary!

Very good question. I await the reply from Declan Traill. And then I would be happy to opine, too

Seyed Mohammad Mousavi Yes, this is quite revolutionary, and it is not just me saying so - there are a number of researchers who have been saying so for a long time! Even Miller way back in the last century had clear results indicating an Aether wind. However, I am the first to have correctly formulated the theory to explain the exact result obtained. See my paper for that theory..

Please read the paper this I posted a link to:

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=115944

It is a fairly short paper, but it explains why moving observers still measure the speed of light to be c in their moving IRF - except for the very small effect that can be detected when light is moving through a medium with refractive index > 1.

There are other light speed experiments that seem to indicate isotropy, but they are caught out by the subtle nature of the effect or the fact that it is not detectable in vacuum, or other such flaws in the experimental design.

Another trap in the pursuit of a well designed experiment is that if you use single-mode optic fiber in your experiment (as the arms of an interferometer, for example) then the anisotropy is not detectable because single-mode fiber prevents light from propagating in the staircase-like pattern when traveling perpendicular to the Aether wind direction. This propagation pattern is what causes the slight timing difference which allows the anisotropy to be detected.

Having said that, though, single-mode fiber CAN be used in one-way-speed-of-light experiments (such as performed by Krisher et al) as this timing difference depends on the longitudinal (rather than transverse) light timing changes.

Declan Traill, thanks. Let me express a few reservations about the notion of ether:

(1) The problem of interaction between ether and the cosmos. If it is already a physical existent at any so-called spacetime, then it is capable of interaction with the cosmos. If so, the question that remains is the following.

(2) The problem of the extent of the interaction. If infinite, then ether will become God. Then the said proof/s will not suffice. If ether is not infinite in its interaction with the cosmos, then it is an integral part of the cosmos, and we need to find out another background ether....

Please do not take this intervention as silly, non-mathematical and hence non-physical, etc. I think these questions have relevance.

I read the results of your article, it was an interesting review, I should also check the relationships used and the analysis done when appropriate. How does the work done by you relate to the mond theory of gravity?

Raphael Neelamkavil The way I formulate it, the Aether is simply the sum of all of the wave-functions of all of the particles in the Universe. Every particle is a 3D spherical Electromagnetic standing wave (wave-function). These wave-functions have infinite extent but each have energy densities that decrease rapidly the further away one gets from the particle's center. The result is that space is filled with a huge sum of very weak waves that add up to a large overall amount. Thus, the Aether field is created and all matter interacts with it. In fact, there is a symbiotic relationship between particle wave-functions and the Aether field, such that all EM waves, even those in solid matter, propagate through the Aether field like it is a medium; yet the Aether field is created from the existence of trillions of such matter particles.

What is ether or aether ?

What is particle?

There is no explanation for either 0f them, for their existence or their internal structure, but we use it without know them.

Here is fact, we do not know the building block of atom, but we use modeling atom for no reason..

Another fact, Science is using speed of flashlight as sunlight for century.

The fact is, there is no formulated equation exist to describe three dimension of nature that constantly changing through temperature & pressure.

we should think better, and not follow past century..

read my articles.

best

Javad Fardaei See my paper on how electrons/positrons are constructed purely from Electromagnetic waves:

https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/0/47058

Declan Traill,

Your reply does not address any of the questions I have expressed. As it looks, your ether looks just a mathematical stuff.

Raphael Neelamkavil Then you didn’t read my reply properly - go back and re-read it. It explains what the Aether is.

everything in the Universe is Electromagnetic waves. Particle’s are 3D EM waves and Aether is made from the particle’s waves added together in space.

Exactly this is my problem too. You said: "Aether is made from the particle’s waves added together in space." If that is the case, are particles different from the waves at any instance and in any manner? If they are different, how do you separate them from the wavicle nature? If they are not different, how to posit a separate ether? Moreover, if particles are just the 3D EM waves, how does ether get created (made) from the particles' waves? Do you not think that this sort of explanations are either (1) merely mathematical and not realized in nature, or (2) simply paradoxical?

Howdy Declan Traill,

"The way I formulate it, the Aether is simply the sum of all of the wave-functions of all of the particles in the Universe." Then, why call it by another name, Aether? You do not seem to see it as greater, or even different, from the sum of its component wave-functions. It seems to me that did Aether exist it would be the substrate for the wave-functions rather than being their sum.

Happy Trails, Len

Leonard Hall, this is what I have been trying to tell him, too.

Howdy Raphael Neelamkavil,

From your original post: "Just insisting on the existence of ether as the background under the presupposition that it is necessary is not a demonstration of the existence of ether!" Agreed! And this is very important to me as well, especially since so many proofs and readings of data are efforts to verify a preference. I would love to have hard science be hard science, but that is hard to do when "many scientists agree" is actually considered meaningful to validity and it is so effective to interpret data with a purpose. Nature ignores opinion polls but human society does not.

Turning to hard science on your point (1): ". . . interaction with the cosmos." I need help with what you mean by interaction. A blade of grass grows where it is, and yet it is interacting with the cosmos in a sense. So also would an electron be interacting with the cosmos "where it is" were it a wave-function on the ether, however extended its EM and gravitational fields. Would you clarify, please?

Which raises your point (2): "The problem of the extent of the interaction. If infinite, then ether will become God." Why? How? So what, there are so many gods like that already it is not significant in itself, is it? "If ether is not infinite in its interaction with the cosmos, then it is an integral part of the cosmos, and we need to find out another background ether...." Why? Finite and infinite here must refer to the content of the universe, and "integral part" strikes me as good wording for a substrate of all else.

Actually, your question has produced a large number of experimental and theoretical proofs that have been cited for "the" existence of ether pro and con. That both pro and con proofs are challenged is quite a comment on the current state of our knowledge. It does keep increasing.

Happy Trails, Len

P. S. In my innocence, my thoughts are all about a natural phenomenon's existence that is labeled "aether" and whether it exists in keeping with any of the word sets used to define it. Whether it is an integral part of the universe or separate from the rest of the universe is part of it's definition, isn't it? lfh

Leonard Hall,

The problem is of the extent of interaction by ether on the cosmos, if ether is a background for the cosmos.

If the intereaction from the side of ether is infinite (of course, at any given point), then this ether is not part of the cosmos nor ether but a sort of God, according to the traditional concept of God. Do these people want to posit God by insisting on the existence of ether?

Your postscript was wonderful. "P. S. In my innocence, my thoughts are all about a natural phenomenon's existence that is labeled "aether" and whether it exists in keeping with any of the word sets used to define it. Whether it is an integral part of the universe or separate from the rest of the universe is part of it's definition, isn't it?"

This is the essence of the matter. I find that most of the arguments in favour of ether are just convolutions on what in fact should at the most be part of the very cosmos, of which they use some processes / phenomena as the proof for the existence of ether....

Howdy Raphael Neelamkavil,

Thank you for your clarification, I have a better idea of your meaning, especially with respect to the god issue and the extent of "interaction from the side of ether" process. To the extent that I do "do philosophy" I recognize the presence of "creator omnipotence" in an infinite interaction from the side of ether. It would be a godlike cause of the cosmos.

I do not find that in most efforts described here; I find extensive, sincere, confident effort to establish or dismiss aether as a "background" for the cosmos with data, theory and opinion in the various posts. They disagree because we don't know yet # # # # #

New thought: Gödel's Theorem! Certainty about aether requires a level of science on which aether would be in a subspace with all aspects explained! We are not there yet. For instance with natural numbers, "there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system." (Wikipedia on Gödel's incompleteness theorems.)

As for the essence of the matter in how science is done: it is human activity. Perhaps it's just a Pollyanna spirit on the loose, but we do see that humanity works and does have improved life experiences to illustrate it is working well at times. Teaching one another how to do it better is part of the whole and I appreciate your efforts along those lines.

Happy Trails, Len

Leonard Hall, thanks. The kind of fight to be watched and take pleasure in, is the discussion titled:

What are the major and most effective refutations of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity? Question Asked December 6, 2019.

Howdy Raphael Neelamkavil,

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'll pass. There another 33 entries there since I last looked. It's good. Real feelings are being expressed, and truth is overrated where venting is the important process. When there is no moderate outlet for feelings, society explodes. But, I'd rather watch movies of mule deer in my backyard, a few of them have strong feelings about which gets to eat first - also truth.

Happy Trails, Len

Raphael Neelamkavil I have a working 3D model of electrons/positrons. I worked out the wave-function for both and built a 3D PC computer model to test these functions. The resulting modeled particle wave-functions have all the correct properties of the real particles. Read my paper here:

https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/0/47058

As the wave-function formula represent stable configurations of Electromagnetic waves that can persist indefinitely once formed, EM waves will tend to 'lock into' these structures when the conditions are right. For example, Gamma rays entering the strong electric field around a lead nucleus will cause charge separation to occur in the energy of the Gamma ray. These resulting EM wave 'blobs' can easily form into the wave-function patterns and cause the production of an electron/positron pair.

Howdy Declan Traill,

Your post and the abstract of your paper are very interesting. Aether aside in earlier posts, I find agreement and a stronger result in what you write, compared to my thoughts along these lines. I particularly like your observation on factoring a Gamma ray and the idea that factored "EM wave 'blobs' can easily form into the wave-function patterns" of an electron/positron pair. That the latter are natural structures of their content that does 'lock into' them rings true for me. I have thought a great deal about that factoring process in seeking to conceive the nature of a photon and the process of photon propagation. Getting full understanding of the meanings of "photon," "particle," and your "wave-function formula" as it applies to factoring a Gamma ray will take time. I'll look into it.

BTW I used "content" above to leave open what each of us consider the "content" of particles. In my case I like the idea of a wave-in-a-well with mutual refraction providing stability and I write in terms of both the wave and well as wave states with kinetic and potential energy exchanges. I intend to check out your *.pdf file (41 pages) to see what I find there.

Happy Trails, Len

Leonard Hall I'm glad you find my work interesting and in agreement with your own thinking. You might be interested to explore my website where I have posted animation videos from my computer model (along with links to papers and other interesting stuff, including modeling for Protons, Neutrons, Neutrinos and Quarks)... Here is a link to my webpage (at the electrons tab):

https://www.energyfieldtheory.com/electrons

Howdy Declan Traill,

Thank you for the information. You'll find some of my stuff here on RG. The more extensive exploration of Gamma ray factoring was not posted, as it is primarily brainstorming with heuristic figure animations in Power Point. I shall certainly check out your website and the resources there.

Happy Trails, Len

Dear Raphael Neelamkavil

First question, what is ether?

Science does not have any explanation for it.

To my understanding, ether is made up thing.

remember, The smallest unit of the universe is atom, period.

yet science think it is mechanic...which it is totally incorrect.

Javad Fardaei First of all, everything in the Universe (anything you can think of except for a truly empty vacuum - if there is such a thing) is made from Electromagnetic waves. Particles are not discrete points but 3D Electromagnetic wave-functions that each have infinite extent - but their EM wave energy density decreases rapidly with distance from the particle center. However, there is enough EM wave energy in space from all of the particles in the Universe to form a field of EM energy - the Aether.

Javad Fardaei, I too think that ether is a non-starter. By just giving a new name to physically existent energy waves, how do that make it a background entity? They give no direct reply to this! You did not tell why you should insist that the atom is the final smallest level of existence.

Declan Traill, why should you can the "EM wave energy in space from all of the particles in the Universe to form a field of EM energy - the Aether"? If it is EM wave energy too, then let it be that. Just calling it as ether does not separate it from EM.

Raphael Neelamkavil The naming is for historical reasons mainly. It can be called Aether, vacuum energy, gravitational potential, Higgs field. All essentially refer to the same thing.

I’m not sure how many people realize that EVERYTHING is Electromagnetic waves! So you could say why refer to matter or particles when they are just electromagnetic waves too…

Now you speak in a clear manner. Good. I agree that the matter is comparable to distinguishing between matter and energy particles. If so, what you call "ether" is constituted out of EM fields.

Raphael Neelamkavil Yes Indeed! As is everything else in the Universe...

Declan Traill, in the following discussion, I seek help to define matter and energy non-circularly.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_we_find_any_definition_of_matter_and_energy_without_reference_to_each_other

Raphael Neelamkavil Good luck with that! I'm not sure it is possible to do that as matter is EM energy waves trapped into a localized , self-perpetuating structure. Maybe you could explain both in terms of motion only - i.e. all EM waves (and matter) can be modeled at the lowest, most fundamental level as a field of rotating Hertzian vectors. The frequency of rotation and amplitude of the vectors determines the amount of energy/mass.

This is very good, of course. Additionally I want also to produce a couple of definitions that are acceptable also to physical ontology. This is where I find no success......

Raphael Neelamkavil By ’physical ontology’ do you mean how such quantities as energy and mass are explained in terms of other physically real properties of space or fields?

The field of rotating Hertzian vectors I referred to above can be further broken down: the vectors have units of Volt-Meter, so they describe a polarization of the neutral vacuum state into positive and negative regions separated by a small distance of space.

Positive and negative charges can also be further explained as a flow of phase into or out of a region of space.

So, if there is a scalar field in space, it can resolve into regions of phase flow that set up the Hertzian vector field.

Declan Traill, I do not mean that as physical ontology. It is the general study of physics processes in their nature as existents with Extension and Change, which are exemplified in all that we speak of in all sorts of sciences, including the physical, biological, and human.

I’m not sure I understand what that means nor how one would explain physics to satisfy such a requirement?

Declan Traill,

I have explained these matters in my paper: MATHEMATICS AND CAUSALITY: A SYSTEMIC RECONCILIATION.

You can get it from my RG site, under Research. Just 4 pages.

Ok, thanks...

Raphael Neelamkavil I think the most convincing proof comes from the LIGO experiment together with multi messenger observations. I will clarify.

The LIGO experiment has observed gravitational waves coming from a neutron star merger at a distance of 130 million light years.

We have known about the theoretical possibility of gravitational waves for over 100 years. They are a wave solution to the Einstein equations of General Relativity. GR shows that space can be curved and a gravitational wave is a wave propagation of a variation in space curvature.

So we have to think of space as a medium for wave propagation. I prefer not to use the term ether. I am more comfortable with the description of “the medium of space “.

Now the important thing is that this medium is expanding so that galaxies are moving further apart due to the expansion of space. When these gravitational waves were detected by LIGO they had traversed a distance of 130 million light years. This means that the merging system of neutron stars is moving away at around 1/100 of the speed of light or 3,000 km/sec.

Other telescopes observed the same event in the gamma ray portion of the spectrum. Gamma rays and light rays are part of a wave spectrum with very different wavelengths but I think everyone would agree that they share the same transport medium.

The fact that the gravitational waves and gamma rays were observed from the same event means that they must have the same medium.

Therefore gamma rays and light are waves in the medium of space.

This is explained further in the introduction section of this presentation:

https://youtu.be/zEu-_0ACl3I

Richard

But the LIGO observations are all in terms of EM propagations with luminal veoicity. We may be sure that we observed gravitational waves by indirect methods.

But why should EM and gravitation have a medium through to hold them while at propagation? Can they not travel without a medium, the so-called ether?

Raphael Neelamkavil That is not what the theory of gravitational waves suggests. Take a look at the book Relativity by Paul Dirac.

Also you might be interested to know that Albert Einstein equated the ether to space in his talk to the University of Leiden in 1920.

Preprint Ether and the Theory of Relativity

Richard

Richard Lewis,

Mathematically, space is the "thing" that can curve. Hence, Einstein and all others might have called it as the thing that in fact is curving in physical processes, including gravitational. But is this not a mathematical heresy in physics?

Mathematics is not physics. It can only help physics. Why can and why should math try to be physics and call "space" as a thing? Now, if space is renamed into a medium, will it become ether?

Should space or space-time curve in gravitational processes, or should existent matter-energy fields curve?