Absolutely, ether (or ether field) provides nice back ground for all interactions. It's absolutely needed if we even dream about TOE. Check out my model which is based on ether, it most likely is the TOE.

Thanks, Kimmo, for your answer. Where is the link of your paper? And does it offer some new predictions? Best wishes.

@Victor It surely does offer new predictions! You can find my papers either from my profile or from viXra.org.

http://www.vixra.org/author/kimmo_rouvari

Dear Kimmi, thank you for your reply. Yes i have read the first of your papers in vixra.org, but it seems that it does not mention about aether. I know Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg who is able to derive quantum mechanics from Boltzmann equation using Planck aether as starting point. I can send you his paper if you wish. Best wishes

@Victor Please do that! In my theory ether is made of Force Transfer *Ether* Particles (FTEPs).

Actually, that first paper is a piece from my future book. You should read Theory of Everything by Illusion.

Thanks, Kimmi, for your reply. Ok i will send you prof. Winterberg's paper tomorrow. Btw can you send your book in pdf file to my email: [email protected]? Thank you. Best wishes

@Victor My book is still in its early stages so you get better grip of my theory by reading that Theory of Everything by Illusion paper, then Antimatter or Atom Model and Relativity.

Ok then, thank you Kimmo. Best wishes

@Kimmo. Included here you can find Prof. Winterberg's (1995) paper on quantum mechanics derivation from Boltzmann equation using Planck aether as starting point. Hopefully you will like it. best wishes

I read it, thanks for the pdf. It seems to be a step towards the right direction but still far away from my model. Also the concept of negative mass ain't my thing. Never the less, ether kicks *ss ;-)

Actually, it's interesting to see who will conduct (and report) first my antimatter experiment proposal. I'll put my money on China!

Ok, Kimmo, best wishes to your endeavour.

Thanks for your wishes! :-)

Hello.

I present a different point of view about the ether. For my part I think the idea of attributing properties (such as energy, viscosity or geometry) to vacuum space is wrong. It happens that due to some misinterpretation of data in both cosmology and general relativity or quantum mechanics we finished attributing characteristics of matter moving to empty space.

An example is the representation of the effects of gravitational force as a result of distortions in the geometry of spacetime. In this case there is a confusion between our representation of reality with reality itself. It is an epistemological problem.

The space have not geometry, it is not a deformable plastic membrane. One consequence of this confusion is the concept of extra dimensions. Although this is an excellent and very useful idea, the extra dimensions are just an abstraction. The distortions attributed to the geometry of space-time reflect the reciprocal relations between two or more physical systems in motion.

What happens if it changes the speed of the carriers of the interactions (photons, bosons, gravitons, etc.) is demonstrative of this. If this speed (the speed of light) is multiplied tenfold, distances, durations and the whole perspective of the universe would be altered (Joao Magueijo, Faster than the speed of light).

Moreover, all quantum properties that attributed to the "empty" space can be easily attributed to the fields.

From this point of view, Where is empty space?. Everything around us is furrowed for fields and radiations.

Carlos,

When working towards a unified field theory it becomes important to attribute the unified field to a physical entity. For example, if one were to say that virtual particles are responsible for forces, such claim does not add any insight into what matter or fields are. One can continue to add purely mathematical constructs to a theory in order to obtain macroscopic predictions, but realistically things don’t work this way. The only physical entity that does exist however is space itself, both on the macroscopic and Planck scale. Therefore, I must disagree with “The space have not geometry, it is not a deformable plastic membrane”, as the only logical path to the unified field theory is through the assumption that particles are localized Planck scale fluctuations of space itself. Both gravity and all other forces are clearly non-local an instantaneous, which is satisfied by assuming particles are localized entities with extended bodies (fields). However, I do agree that space does not deform as predicted by Einstein’s field equations and it is instead the coordinates relative to each particle/field that is varied similar to special relativity/classical electrodynamics.

The standard model does roughly fit into this paradigm and I’ve expanded upon this in my “Theory of Everything”. For example, I’ve been able to combine electromagnetism and gravity into a single framework starting from classical electrodynamics leading up to the Dirac equation. Finally, aether in this perspective is vacuum energy density due to the presence of particles and fields. If there are no particles or fields then vacuum energy density would be 0 for all points in space. In other words, there is a fixed background but it cannot be detected by local observers. This is essentially what Einstein meant by a new kind of aether, i.e. one that is relative to a particle-particle basis rather than particle-fixed background as ruled out by the Michelson–Morley experiment.

Dear Michael

I don't know your unified field theory and I will grateful to know. My point is epistemological. The material world exist in a independent form of us, but we can know this by means of science. Our theories are simplified representations, constructed on the base of simplifier assumptions, and thereby, its aplication range is limited to certain conditions defined for the precision with we can to register the phenomena. The criterion of true is the practical verification by means of experimentation and observation. On the other hand, maybe we can make a theory of "everything we know" but never a theory of everything, right now there are indications that there are more that four fundamental forces and, despite the enormous effort to assert the Standard Model it is obvious that it will soon extend or replace it, so do relativity and the Big Bang.

Carlos,

In terms of a unified field theory, I am still working on the geometric formulation. In short you can think of each particle as localized Planck-scale fluctuations of space itself (~1/r), analogous to a 3-dimension spring-mass system. The forces between two particles would therefore originate from a mechanical nature, i.e. the interaction of two localized waves will generate instantaneous action through time-dependence alone. What I have done is to connect the standard model with gravity through approximating vacuum energy density for each particle; i.e. the underlying energy density of the analogous 3d spring-mass system. For example, the vacuum energy density of one particle will induce time-dilation relative to another; this is the Newtonian contribution to general relativity. Simply transforming the coordinates of each particle to that of the space-time metric (general covariance) incorporates these wave dynamics via the geodesic equation.

What I consider to be the "theory of everything" with respect to physics would basically incorporate everything except for the unified field theory, i.e. it explains the connection between gravity and all other fundamental forces through conventional mechanics. This would provide the building blocks on which everything else is based upon, with the only difference between a “theory of everything” and unified field theory being an epistemological (approximate) and mechanical (exact) approach. I’ve attached the central equations from the paper if anyone knows how to get the post-Newtonian parameters or is interested in simulating composite objects (numerical methods, bulk flow and pressure are discussed in the text). The weak-field predictions are similar to Einstein’s field equations but there are no event horizons or gravitational waves.