Re: The aether is made out of ordinary protons and electrons

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 12/07/04 

Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 15:43:17 +0100

FrankH wrote:
> Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cok7kr$fem$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>
>>FrankH wrote:
>>
>>>What is empty space made out of?
>>
>>Why does it need to be made of anything?

Why?

[snip]

>>>Is it truly empty or does it contain
>>>something that electromagnetic waves pass through?
>>
>>It contains a lot of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs,
>>zero-point fluctuations and the like. Ever heard of the Casimir
>>effect?
>>
>
>
> Then you would agree that it is filled with something?

Depends on how exactly you define "empty space". ;-)

According to QFT, the "vacuum state" (the ground state) indeed contains
(virtual) particles. Happy now?

>>>This post will put
>>>forward a theory that empty space does contain an "aether" which is
>>>made up of matter particles that we are all familiar with.
>>
>>The word "aether" has a rather well-defined meaning. If you mean
>>something differently, please consider using another term.

Apparently you won't.

>>>The idea that I would like to propose is that the
>>>aether is made up of nothing more than an array of alternating protons
>>>and electrons. They would be lined up in a manner similar to how Na/Cl
>>>ions are lined up in a salt crystal.
>>
>>1) That is not a stable configuration (ever heard of electrostatic
>>forces?)
>
>
> We have discussed this before.

Yes, and you lost.

> This is a stable configuration assuming
> that electrons and protons have a minimum non-zero spacing between
> them.

No, this is unstable.

> This is as stable as magnets of opposite poles sticking
> together.

Conveniently ignoring that such a configuration is only stable
because the atoms in the magnets repulse each other (by electrostatic
forces, and the Pauli principle).

>>2) That should be easily observable, e.g. by measuring the dipole
>>(or higher) moments of a finite volume of space, or its mass, etc.
>>
>
>
> This is probably true, and maybe we already do measure it by noticing
> magnetic and electrostaic effects through "empty space".

Again, only hand waving, instead of actually demonstrating what one
has to do with the other.

>>>The bonding between the proton/electron pairs
>>
>>Err, if they are lined up as in a salt crystal, then there are
>>no "pairs".
>>
>
>
> Yes, that is why I said "like", not exactly like salt. Salt is
> obviously too well bound and doesn't exhibit dipoles
> around individual na/cl pairs.

Well, then what does it look like, if not exactly like salt? Care
to set up a picture?

> I only mean to point out an orderly
> checkboard arrangement of the proton/electron pairs and they may not
> be evenly spaced
> out as they are in salt. The aether particles could look more like
> spheres such that one side is very slightly positive and the other
> side is slightly negative.

Well, what determines the orientation of these spheres?

[snip]

>>>and these neutrons would exhibit some dipole activity.
>>
>>Unfortunately for you, neutrons don't have an electric dipole
>>moment (within the limits of measurement accuracy).
>>
>>What do you even mean with "dipole activity"?
>>
>
>
> OK, they're definitely not neutrons and neutrons have little if any
> dipole moments. That's why I said "like" neutrons, not exactly the
> same as neutrons.

Well, then you now have *three* different particles which, according to
you, all consist of a proton and an electron: the H atom, the neutron,
and the "aether particle".

You have already admitted that you can't explain why the first and the
second behave to differently (hint: by "explain", I don't mean frantic
hand wavings); so why did you feel the need to invent yet another one?

[snip]

>>>or whatever.
>>
>>Well, it's your proposal, so if you want to pursue this idea,
>>please invent a new term, which not already has an established
>>meaning.
>
>
> OK, how about "aether particles" - nice and generic.

Nice. And now please start explaining why the three types of
electron-proton bonds behave so differently.

>>>The important thing is that
>>>they are made up of normal protons and electrons in some binding
>>>arrangement which produces a dipole.
>>
>>1) Contradicts observations.
>
>
> What observations are you referring to. The particle I am suggesting
> would be extremely difficult to detect due to its almost completely
> neutral charge.

Care to give some actual hard numbers instead of mere hand waving?

[snip]

>>>In general, neutrons are hard to
>>>detect due to their neutral charge.
>>
>>True. But normal neutrons also don't have a dipole moment, contrary
>>to your proposed particles. Particles with an electric dipole moment
>>*are* detectable.
>
>
> Can you propose a kind of experiment that could detect the presence of
> dipoles in empty space? How would this work?

Err, for starters, an electric dipole has a rather specific electric
field. If space is filled with dipoles, one should see an effect
on the trajectories of particles passing through "empty" space,
don't you think?

Additionally, as I already pointed out elsewhere, such dipoles would
begin to oscillate in the presence of an electromagnetic wave and
thereby scatter it. This is also not seen.

[snip]

>>In science, "theory" means essentially "a set of *well-tested*
>>explanations for a range of phenomena". Nothing about your ideas
>>is well-tested!
>
>
> What about "string theory".

I freely admit that "string theory" is essentially misnamed. It is so
far only a bunch of hypotheses - which can explain quite a lot of things
naturally, but for which there is no direct evidence so far.

> This is mostly a mass of mathematics with
> little hope of ever being physically and experimentally tested.

Agreed with the first, but not the second. There is actually hope to be
able to test some predictions of string theory (respectively of its
application to cosmology) with the Planck satellite.

> That's why some people think it's philosopy and not physics.

It's not philosophy. It's untested theoretical physics.

> But I would think it is a theory.

Not according to the standard meaning of the word in science.

>>>which says that real
>>>matter atoms are also constructed of an alternating series of proton
>>>and electrons in an approximately octahedral shape. (However this
>>>is a topic for another post).
>>
>>I am still waiting for you to reproduce the data by Geiger and
>>Marsden quantitatively... (and to withdraw your accusation that they
>>fudged their data)
>
>
> OK, I finally got raw data for the rutherord experiment directly from
> the professor in charge of the MIT junior labs. I spent an entire day
> doing an analysis and plotting the data.

Did you read my post where I described *my* lab work data?

> The data did show the same abberations in the
> curve shape as did the original junior lab paper I found on the
> internet, so I think the data is good.

As I already pointed out: the deviations are explained by the
beam shape (and perhaps by multiple scattering).

> However in examining the
> experiment further, a major difference in the setup was that the size
> of the sensor was much larger
> than what Geiger used. So I had to include the fact that the jr. lab
> used a sensor which covered nearly a 12 degree angle.

Pardon? Are you sure you understood that right? How could one obtain
meaningful data with a sensor that large?

> The sensor used
> by Geiger was said to be only a micrometer which would virtually
> eliminate any differences
> from alphas coming from multiple angles. After refitting the
> theoretical prediction to take into account the 12 degree angle, the
> data did match much better from 10-120 degrees. The data is still way
> off for below 10 degrees, but I consider this a reasonable fit.
> Therefore, I do conclude that is was possible for Geiger and Mardsen
> to get the results that they got. It is not
> inconsistent with data aquired using modern equipment.

Nice that we agree on that. But I notice that you entirely evaded
my point that you are still not able to describe this data
quantitatively with your model...

[snip]

>>>then I would think that a uniform sea of neutrons would be able pass
>>>all frequencies. Since it is perfectly uniform and there is nothing
>>>blocking or interfering with the wave, you would not expect any
>>>attenuation.
>>
>>Hint: electromagnetic waves interact with things which have electric
>>dipole moments. What would happen is that the electrons and protons
>>begin to oscillate, i.e. the wave loses energy. The oscillation causes
>>again the emission of a wave of the same frequency, true - but
>>(1) there also would be an admixture of other frequencies, and (2) the
>>resultant wave would be emitted in (essentially) *all* directions (try
>>reading up on "dipole radiation"), not only in the direction from which
>>the wave originally came. In other words: the wave would get scattered.
>>
>
>
> I'll have to take a look at that.

Good luck. The relevant term is "dipole radiation". In books on
electrodynamics, this is usually treated at length. The dependence of
the radiation on the angle to the oscillation axis is given by
sin^2(theta), IIRC.

> I only got a rough idea of what is
> permittivity. I couldn't find a really good definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity

[snip]

>>>2. Magnetism can be supported in a neutron dipole. The way that the
>>>neutron aether explains magnetism is that magnetic fields are caused
>>>by a dipole arrangement of the neutrons. Each of the neutrons has a
>>>positive/negative dipole and when these dipoles are all lined up, we
>>>see a magnetic field.
>>
>>What on earth has this to do with a magnetic field??? How would
>>that cause a force on moving charges which is proportional to the
>>velocity of the charge, and perpendicular to both the direction
>>of the velocity and the magnetic field???
>>
>>BTW, you said above that all the protons and electrons are in
>>an arrangement like in a salt crystal. So aren't the "neutron dipoles"
>>lined up *all the time*, in *all directions*?
>>
>
>
> That's probably where an analogy to a sea of tiny magnets would make
> more sense.

1) Make up your mind. Are there electric or magnetic dipoles? Or do you
want to say that these are the same?
2) A chain of tiny magnets also would *not* explain the force I
mentioned above.

>>>Moving charges, somehow cause the aether to line up.
>>
>>And you call *that* an explanation?????
>>
>>Why should e.g. the movement of charges along a straight line
>>cause a "line up" of the "neutron dipoles" in concentric circles
>>along the line? Or do you dispute that the magnetic field around
>>a straight wire has the form of concentric circles? Oh, while you are at
>>it, you could also explain why the strength of this magnetic field
>>decreases inversely proportional to the distance to the wire.
>
>
> Yup, I don't call that an explanation, and as you mention, you
> wouldn't think that a moving electron charge would cause the dipoles
> to line up in a concentric cirle running around the axis of movement.
> I just came up with a
> possbile solution which is that electrons spiral around a wire rather
> than traveling along the axis.

Why on earth should they do that? There is a uniform electric field
in a wire, and we know from experiment that electrons in such a field
do *not* spiral around the force lines.

BTW, how would that explain that the magnetic field around a wire
has the form of concentric circles and decreases with 1/r?

> We know that electrons spiral in a magnetic field, so why not a wire?

Because electric and magnetic fields are different???

Do you suggest that Maxwell's equations are totally wrong, or what?

> This is consistent with the fact that most of the current
> flows around the surface of a wire and not through it.

1) How on earth is that consistent with this?
2? This so-called "skin effect" is already easily explained without your
model, thank you. *Quantitatively*, BTW.

> This would also
> help explain why the movement of electrons in a wire appears to be so
> slow (a few cm/sec for a 100w DC current)

And that is *also* already explained by standard physics, thank you.
*Quantitatively*, BTW.

> yet appears to contain great kinetic energy.
> A 100 watt electric fan shows that there is certainly
> a lot of kinetic energy for something that seems to move so slowly.

How on earth does the fan show that???

> The kinetic energy of the electrons is contained by speeding around
> the wire, not through it. If the electrons spiral around the wire,
> then they would put the aether particles in a concentric alignment.

Why????? How?????

And what about the fact that the magnetic field around a *beam*
of electrons, accelerated in free space, *without* a wire, *also*
has this form?

> I would also think that there may be some bias in the aether particle
> such that it lines up in a particular direction as the electron goes
> whizzing by. There is possibly some imbalance of the aether particle
> dipole which leads to what we understand as the right-hand rule, but I
> really must do more investigation of this idea.

*sigh* Why don't you do some investigation of standard physics first?

> I would think explaining the decrease in field strength would be
> similar to the electrostatic case whereby as a field radiates from the
> source, it is diluted according to 1/r^2.

Hint: we don't talk about radiation here.

>>>The more lined up the dipoles, the greater the magnetic field
>>>strength.
>>
>>So there should be a maximal possible magnetic field, occuring
>>when the dipoles are lined up perfectly?
>
>
> Yes, you'd think there ought to be some maximum field strength
> possible in a vacuum.

Feel free to propose a number.

Also, what about thermal fluctuations? Do the dipoles oscillate and
rotate due to temperature? If yes, shouldn't the maximum possible
magnetic field also depend on the temperature? (you *are* aware of such
effects in ferromagnets, aren't you?)

> I have been searching for such a thing and so
> far, it doesn't appear that we have reached any limit, but this could
> be due to our limitations in
> carrying out physical experiments. This maximum field strength,
> however, is apparent in solid materials.

Where it is explained by standard physics.

Franklin, why do you keep searching for alternative explanations
for things which standard physics has explained already decades,
even *centuries* ago? Just because you don't like these explanations?
Because you think that an explanation is not really an explanation as
long as it does not use particles which behave like hard billiard balls,
i.e. extrapolates common-day experiencies to the microscopic world?

>>>If you bring together fields where the dipoles are facing in
>>>the opposite direction, the electrostatic repulsion generated by the
>>>dipoles creates a repulsive force.
>>
>>Err, why on earth should there be a repulsive force between two
>>chains of dipoles facing in the opposite direction? (even ignoring
>>that this idea of two chains contradicts yet again your "salt crystal"
>>arrangement proposed above...) In reality, the force between
>>two such chains would be repulsive or attractive, depending on
>>the relative displacement between the dipole (parallel to the
>>chains)!
>
>
> Does the sea of tiny magnets analogy help explain this.

No. The same argument applies there.

And again, magnetic and electric dipoles are fundementally different!

> You have a
> bunch of aligned magnets with their north pole facing right. You place
> it near another bunch of magnets with their north pole facing left and
> there is a net repulsion between the 2 sets of magnet alignments.

Only if the north poles are directly beside each other. If the north
poles of the one chains are beside the south poles of the other,
they attract each other!

[snip]

>>>In this way, the magnetic force is related
>>>to the electrostatic force and is in fact caused by the same
>>>electrostatic force. This eliminates magnetism as a separate force,
>>>but is rather a geometric arrangment of the aether particles.
>>
>>I would like to remind you of the argument above (velocity and all
>>that); ever heard of the Lorentz force?
>>
>
>
> Thanks for the Lorentz force hint, that helped solve how a wire
> generates a concentric magnetic field.

You did not "solve" anything above; you merely made a lot of new
unsubstantiated claim contradicting the evidence as well as Maxwell's
equations, and have still made no attempt to explain the Lorentz force.

>>>3. Permeability is a materials ability
>>>to magnify an existing magnetic field. So for iron, when it
>>>surrounded by the aether which is lined up in a particular direction,
>>>it causes the imbedded iron matter particles to also become aligned.
>>
>>How?
>
> 'Just like if you a magnet next to a compass, it lines up with the
> magnet.

What do you mean by "iron matter particles"? The atoms, or what? How
can they become aligned if they are bound?

[snip]

>>>In the process, they add their own magnetic field to the existing one
>>>and the magnetic field becomes magnified.
>>
>>Why do the iron matter particles have an own magnetic field?
>>You said just above that a magnetic field is a chain of aligned
>>"neutron dipoles"; have you already forgotten that?
>
>
> Iron has a magnetic moment which is due to the imbalance in the
> symettry of the iron atom. This results in a slight dipole just
> like an aether particle.

So you still confuse electric with magnetic dipoles, I see.

> As such, it can participate in the make up of the
> magnetic field just like any
> other aether particle. It is the amount of alignment which determines
> the strength of the magnetic field, it has no separate existence as a
> force which is outside of the normal electrostatic force.

Still ignoring that electrostatic and magnetostatic forces behave
totally differently, I see.

>>BTW, have you ever heard of Lenz' rule?
>
>
> This is very interesting, I will have to do more research.

Yes, *PLEASE* do!

It would be *really* nice if you *first* would get an actual
education in physics before you start making up your own strange
ideas!

> I think
> somewhere in these laws is perhaps more evidence that electrons travel
> in spirals around the outside of a wire and may better explain the
> physical mechanism behind
> transfers of electric to magnetic force. We all know the equations
> which escribe the transfer, but I haven't seen a mechanical reason why
> the transfer should occur.

Sorry, what transfer are you talking about?

That a changing electric field induces a magnetic field and vice
versa?

Why *should* there be a mechanical reason for the transfer? Why do you
want to reduce everything to "mechanical reasons"? Why do you think
that the mechanics of everyday life is so fundamental that it should
be used to explain every physical phenomenon?

[snip]

>>>4. The aether is said to be extremely dense and solid.
>>
>>By whom?
>
>
> The is actually a Zero Point Energy postulate that I got from another
> newsgroup. Something to the effect that the amount of energy avalible
> in the vacuum is equivalent to some absurd density like 1000 lbs/cm^2.

What has that to do with "extremely dense and solid"?

>>>An ordered
>>>array of protons/electrons would indeed be extremely dense.
>>>It would be much denser than ordinary matter
>>> and would be about as dense as the nucleus of ordinary atoms.
>>
>>Why?
>
>
> If you take the cubic model as a base, the atom core is built out of a
> similar checkboard pattern and should have the same density as the
> aether.

Why?

> Macroscopic matter is less dense than the aether simply
> because of the extra spaces which exist between atoms.

I don't remember you ever explaining why such "extra space" exists
there... Whereas ordinary QM quite easily explains this.

>>>Since it is an alternating cubic array with
>>>each proton surrounded and attracted to six electrons,
>>
>>Err, have you already forgotten your "chain of neutrons" idea
>>just above?
>>
>
>
> It is not a "chain" of neutrons, but a checkerboard arrangement.

If there are no chains, then you have a problem with "explaining"
magnetic fields again.

> I just
> thought that polarization experiments showed that light could travel
> and be blocked due to transverse waves. I always assumed that they
> could also travel as lognitudinal waves in any direction. I will have
> to do more research since you are correct in assuming that logitudinal
> waves should also propagate.

Thanks. Yet again, I would like to point out that getting an education
beforehand would be a good idea...

>>>In this model, the speed
>>>of sound through the aether is what we actually measure as the speed
>>>of light.
>>
>>Sound is transmitted by oscillating atoms in a medium. So, according
>>to you, electromagnetic waves would be transmitted by the oscillating
>>electrons and protons of the "aether"? Hint: this does not work.
>>Again, read up on "dipole radiation".
>
>
> It would radiate if the component proton/electron were allowed to
> move. But I think that the aether particle is not like an atom which
> has movable components and that the aether particle is too tightly
> bound to allow normal dipole radiation.

1) Doesn't this pose problems elsewhere in your model?
2) What about rotations?

>>Also, if electromagnetic waves moved through such an aether, the
>>Michelson-Morley experiment should have detected its existence. Or
>>do you suggest that the Earth drags the aether along?
>
>
> Well, I haven't seen any conclusive experiments ruling out this
> possibility.

Ever heard of Fizeau?

[snip]

>>>However, this would actually depend on
>>>how tightly bound the aether particles were.
>>
>>When protons and electrons are as close together as you suggest,
>>there is an *enormous* electrostatic force between them.
>
>
> We wouldn't be taking about the forces between the bound
> proton/electron, but rather the weak force between basically netural
> particles - like the force between neutrons.

Specifically, we are talking about the force between electric dipoles.
This decreases quickly with distance - but after all, the aether
particles are very close to each other, according to you! Try
calculating the force... Hint: it's quite large.

> The aether particle I am
> invisioning is almost completely neutral, it only has a very very
> slight negative charge on one side and a slight positve charge on the
> other

Err, didn't you say that it is a bound state of an electron and
a proton? Both have quite strong charges.

> - only enough to cause it to align to electrostatic fields.

If magnetic fields are chains of the aether particles, and
they align with electrostatic fields, the magnetic field along
a beam of electrons accelerated in free space should point along
the direction of motion. It doesn't.

[snip]

>>>which allows matter to slip by almost as if it wasn't there. However,
>>>there are some measureable effects such as inertia.
>>>
>>>5. Inertia can be explained by the amount of energy required to push
>>>aside the proton/electron or neutron bonds in the aether.
>>
>>Why should the force required to accelerate something be proportional
>>to the acceleration in this model, and not the velocity or the
>>velocity squared, as ordinarily when moving through a medium?
>
>
> I can't quite understand your question.

"inertia" is measured by the mass. It is a commonly known
fact (Newton's second law) that the force required to accelerate
an object is its mass (i.e. its inertia) times the acceleration.
Why should that be so, if inertia is due to the "resistance" of the
aether to movement? Normally, a resistance force is proportional to
the velocity or the velocity squared, not to the acceleration!

> I haven't thought about
> acceleration since I am trying to explain why an object keeps moving
> after it is accelerated and no other forces are acting on the object.

Oh, so you were talking only about Newton's first law, not the
second. Well, I should have thought that, since the second law
is again a *quantitative* law - something which you don't dare
to approach, since the only thing you can present are vague qualitative
handwavings.

>>>The larger
>>>the mass, the more bonds have to be broken, so this explains why it
>>>takes more energy to move a massive object than a light object.
>>> You have to add more energy to push past more aether.
>>
>>Err, "more massive" is not the same as "larger".
>
>
> In this case, mass would need to be somehow proportional to the
> surface area since it is the "breaking" surface area that would
> ultimately determine how difficult it was to push through the aether.

"more massive" is also not the same as "more surface area".

>>>I would imagine that
>>>the aether is small enough to fit through the spaces between even the
>>>most dense materials,
>>
>>Err, if the aether is that densely packed, it is entirely irrelevant
>>how small its constituents are.

No comment?

>>>so the surface area of a real mass would be
>>>exactly proportional to the mass (I think).
>>
>>This is totally contradictory to the actual observations! Hey,
>>this is totally *obvious*!!! I can make two things with exactly
>>the same surface area out of different materials, so that they
>>will have different masses - and then the two will have *different*
>>inertia, although they have the same mass!
>
>
> That would be true for macroscopic large scale objects. If you
> consider the cubic model, all atoms at their core will have the same
> density such that more massive atoms have a larger diameter than
> smaller atoms.

Well, since the cubic model is demonstrably wrong, that does not
help you much.

(Hint: it is demonstrably wrong because, in contrast to the standard
model, it can't explain Rutherford scattering quantitatively. For starters!)

> (Although I am guessing that the surface area may not
> be in direct proportion to the number of protons/electons in an atom,
> but I will have to examine this).

*sigh* Shouldn't you have done this *before* inventing your claim here?

[snip]

>>>As a mass passes by the aether, the
>>>neutrons bonds would reform as the aether array snaps back together.
>>>This action of snapping back together, releases forward energy back to
>>>the object.
>>
>>How on earth could it?
>
>
> Take two disk magnets and arrange them such that they attract. Put a
> pea between them such that it is offset a little. When the magnet are
> allowed to attract to one another, they squeeze out the pea shooting
> it forward.

Please note that in this case, the pea has *not* pushed the magnets
apart previously. So your analogy fails badly. Even not taking into
account that your aether particles are not disks.

[snip]

>>>6. The creation of matter and antimatter in high energy experiments
>>>can be explained if you think of the aether array being shaken hard
>>>enough that it knocks out a proton or electron out of the array and
>>>places it far enough that it cannot rejoin the array.
>>
>>Err, doesn't the array fill all space? So how could anything be placed
>>far from it?
>
>
> Usually, it does, so it takes quite a bit of energy to distort the
> array. It would be like taking a salt crystal and plucking out an
> individual sodium atom and then jaming it into the array in some other
> random spot. It is still inside the array, but it doesn't fit neatly.
> I don't mean to say it leaves the ather array entirely and goes to
> some "non-aether" location.

It is not hard to calculate the energy required to knock out a
proton or an electron from such an array. Please do. I would be very
surprised to see that it is equal to the amount of energy needed to
produce matter-antimatter pairs.

>>>In this case,
>>>you would get an extra proton which doesn't fit into the array and you
>>>would get a hole in the array where the proton used to live. The hole
>>>is antimatter and would appear to be negatively charged, not because
>>>it is negatively charged, but because it has created an area of
>>>unbalanced electrons in the aether.
>>
>>Nice. But what about the creation of neutron/anti-neutron pairs,
>>muon/anti-muon pairs, tauon/anti-tauon pairs, the hundreds of
>>hadronic resonances, jets, etc. ad nauseaum?
>>
>
>
> I think the research on subatomic particles like quarks may have a
> handle on this. You can get all kinds of stuff by breaking apart
> neutrons/protons/electrons. I will have to look into this,

*sigh* No comment anymore.

> but
> generally the anti-particles should represent different types of holes
> in the aether.

Oh my goodness. "different types of holes"???

> I have also seen things which would suggest that some
> of the anti-particles are not really holes, like an anti-proton, but
> are spin variants of real matter particles. So there could be two
> distinct types of anti-matter.

"spin variants"?????

>>>If the hole and the proton get
>>>together again, the proton/antimatter hole is annilihated and the
>>>aether matrix reforms sending electromagnetic waves throughout the
>>>aether in an observable burst of energy.
>>
>>If you did not notice: the annihilation of a proton and an anti-proton
>>does in general not give only electromagnetic radiation. A whole
>>lot of different particles can be formed out of it. See above.
>>
>
>
> I would imagine the process of rejoining the matrix, collisions
> between aether particles could occur such that it breaks down local
> aether particles into other more exotic and short lived particles. The
> aether may actually serve
> as the supply source for some of the particles.

If you can explain the occurence of three-jet events and their ratio
to two-jet events by this, feel free to do so. Hint: standar QCD
can do this *quantitatively*.

>>>7. The mass of protons/electrons can be explained if you think of
>>>electrons as being able to slip through the aether matrix much more
>>>easily than protons.
>>
>>Why should it? It has the same charge as a proton (only the opposite
>>sign), so the same forces act on it.
>
>
> I admit I don't have a physical reason why an electron should be more
> mobile than a proton, but this is clearly the case.

Thereby suggesting (yet again!) that there is a problem in your
model, don't you think?

But unfortunately, such inconveniences don't stop you. You don't
try to patch the old holes - you simply go on inventing more and
more stuff...

>>>Certainly a proton is not just the reverse of an
>>>electron.
>>
>>Nice that we agree at least on that. But that is entirely irrelevant
>>here, since the magnitude of the electrostatic force acting on the
>>two is exactly the same.
>
>
> Perhaps, the electron really does have a smaller volume than the
> proton such that it has to separate the aether particles much less in
> order to slip through.

I notice that you are *still* treating elementary particles as
if they were little billiard balls!!!

> I have thus far been assuming that they could
> be the same size, but I
> think there must be a physical difference in order to explain the
> hugely different behavior.

Well, if you assume them to be of different sizes, don't you get
problems elsewhere in your model?

>>>The most peculiar property of the electron is it's mobility
>>>through matter, whereby protons are pretty much stuck in place in the
>>>atom.
>>
>>*sigh* Because they are bound together by the other electrons.
>>
>
>
> Huh? I really don't understand what you mean by that. I suppose that
> makes some sense in the cubic model but doesn't make any sense in the
> standard model. Please elaborate.

By the mobility of electrons in matter, you probably meant conductance,
right? If yes, then you apparently missed the fact that only a
small part of the electrons in a conductor is really mobile. Most
are still tightly bound to the atoms, and thereby keep the atoms
also in place.

[snip]

>>>8. The aether can explain the method used to transmit electrostatic
>>>force. Why should a proton be attracted to an electron?
>>
>>Due to the exchange of virtual photons. If you did not notice: there is
>>an actual theory describing that. It is called "QED". And it makes
>>*quantitative* predictions (in contrast to your qualitative hand
>>wavings, which ignore most of the actual observed effects), which agree
>>with the observations up to 10 significant digits (in contrast to your
>>very few attempts at actual quantitative calculations, which agreed with
>>the observations at best on the percent level).
>>
>
>
> You don't think that calling something "virtual" doesn't make that
> explantion a hand wave?

No, since the term came only *after* the *mathematical*, *quantitative*
description by these particles by the theory. Virtual particles weren't
simply inventend out of thin air, made up in order to get a fancy
explanation - they were a direct prediction of the theory!

> You might as well call them "we don't know
> what the heck they are" photons.

No, that would be totally inaccurate.

> This appears to be a lump of equations which correctly
> describes the "how", but not the why.

If you mean by "why" that you want to have a *mechanical* description
using little billiard balls, then you are perfectly right.

Fortunately, physicists don't insist that everything on the
microscopic level should be explainable by everyday behaviour
of macroscopic objects. They realize fairly well that elementary
particle do *not* behave like little billiard balls.

>>>If the aether is a compressible medium,
>>
>>Ever heard of the Piezo effect?

Have you?

>>>it can explain the basic physical mechanism
>>>for the attraction between protons and electrons. It has been shown
>>>that 2 objects vibrating in phase in a compressible medium will
>>>attract while similar objects vibrating out of phase repel in
>>>accordance to the 1/r^2 law. This is known as the Bjerknes forces.
>>
>>Reference, please.
>
>
> See:
>
> http://historical.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/cul.math/docviewer?did=02780002&view=50&frames=0&seq=11

136 pages! Do you expect me to read all this?

> This is a facinating paper which describes the electrostatic force in
> hydrodynamic terms.
>
> Also see: http://members.aol.com/Dennis2020/Bonds.html
>
> "For more than a century, it has been known that particles that
> oscillate in media systems produce attractions and repulsions that are
> mediated through the medium. In the 1870's, the physicist C.A.
> Bjerknes (1) showed that "two
> spheres immersed in an incompressible fluid, and which pulsate (i.e.,
> change in volume) regularly, exert on each other (by the mediation of
> the fluid) an attraction, determined by the inverse square law, if the
> pulsations are
> concordant; and exert on each other a repulsion, determined likewise
> by the inverse square law if the phases of the pulsations differ by
> half a period.... If the spheres instead of pulsating, oscillate to
> and fro in straight lines
> about their mean positions, the forces between them are proportional
> in magnitude and the same in direction, but opposite in sign, to those
> which act between two magnets oriented along the directions of
> oscillation.
>
> The results obtained by Bjerknes were extended by A. H. Leahy (2) in
> the case of two spheres pulsating in an elastic medium..... For this
> system, Bjerknes' results are reversed, the law being now that of
> attraction in the case of
> unlike phases , and of repulsion in the case of like phases; the
> intensity is as before proportional to the inverse square of the
> distance."
>
> 1. Repertorium d. Mathematik I (Leipzig, 1877) p. 268. Gottinger
> Nachrichten (1976), p.245; Comptes Rendus, lxxxiv
>
> (1877), p. 1375; cf. Nature, xxiv (1881), p. 360.
>
> 2. (Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc. xiv (1884) p.45)

Thanks. Really interesting!

> In this model, atomic particles are
> pulsating spheres with proton pulsing in one phase and electrons
> pulsing 180 degress out of phase with the protons.

Well, and what would be the medium required if you want to use Bjerknes'
model? Your aether particles???

> This is a simple
> mechanical explanation for how basic electrostatic attraction works
> and can be demonstrated on a macroscopic scale. The source of energy
> for this pulsing comes from ambient thermal energy.

Huh? How does this work, specifically? Doesn't that contradict
the 2nd law of thermodynamics (heat can not be transformed totally
into mechanical energy)?

> The atomic
> particles act like bells which when struck, ring at a specific
> frequency and phase. Like a bell, no matter how many times or how
> randomly you strike the bell, it can only get so loud and continues to
> ring at the same frequency.

Well, then protons and electrons have to consist of a material
with elastic properties. What do you propose for this material?

>>Also, you might consider that the 1/r^2 law changes at small
>>distances, as shown e.g. by the Lamb shift (hint: that's yet again
>>a quantitative prediction by QED, in nice agreement with the
>>observations).

Apparently you choose to ignore that.

[snip]

>>>and
>>>it is the interactions of these waves that we detect as the
>>>electrostatic force.
>>
>>Could you please try to wave your hands less vigourlessly and instead
>>come up with something quantitative?

Apparently not.

>>>This model would predict that protons emit an
>>>extremely high frequency which is identical to electrons but phase
>>>shifted.
>>
>>Why should the frequency be extremely high, why should there by a phase
>>shift, and why was this never observed?
>
>
> I would think the frequency must be high because we can observe
> relatively low frequencies up to gamma rays,

You call gamma ray a radiation with relatively low frequency? Wow.

> and the vibrating objects are extremely tiny.

So what?

> There have been some calculations of this maximum
> frequency based on the plank
> constant etc. I would imagine our present day techonology is incapable
> of registering such a frequency.

If you did not notice: high frequency of the radiation corresponds to
high energy
of the corresponding photons. And photons are *more* easily detected the
higher their energy is.

>>>Perhaps the reason for this is that there is some maximum
>>>vibrational frequency which protons/electrons can have and that the
>>>only difference you can have at this frequency is a different phase. Just
>>>by chance, half of the particles take on the proton phase and the other
>>>half take on the electron phase.
>>
>>You apparently consider protons to be elementary particles?
>>If yes, you might try explaining Bjorken scale invariance.
>>
>
>
> I would think that protons could be broken into quarks,

Well, then how are you justified in modelling them as vibrating
spheres?

> and the net
> isn't very helpful in describing what scale invariance is.

Well, as I said: an actual education in physics might be helpful...

IIRC, e.g. the book by Povh addresses this. Didn't you order it?

>>>9. Neutrinos can be explained as aether particles in motion.
>>
>>So they should be either protons or neutrons. So they should react
>>to electromagnetic forces. They don't. You lose again.
>>
>
>
> They are neither protons or neutrons - they are the nearly neutral
> aether particles as I have described them.

Then they should at least have an electric dipole moment. They don't.

> They do react with
> electromagnetic forces, but we currently recognzie their reaction as
> the magnetic field.

You really want to say that neutrinos react with electromagnetic
forces, but we attribute this to the magnetic field? Man, you
really have not the *faintest* clue what you are talking about.

>>>Collisions could
>>>knock lose an aether neutron from the ordered array.
>>
>>Hint: the mass of neutrinos is much lower than the mass of
>>neutrons, their interactions are totally different, they
>>don't decay like neutrons, there are three different types
>>of them (which even can change from one to the other), etc. ad
>>nauseaum.
>>
>
>
> This is where slipperyness comes into effect. In addition to surface
> area, we should consider that a bare proton and electron has a lot of
> excess electrostatic force and it makes it more sticky to the aether
> particles. An aether particle has little excess electrostatic force
> and is less sticky. So while it might have the same physical volume as
> a neutron, it is not as sticky and is thus more slippery and registers
> has having less of what we measure as "mass".

*sigh* You don't have any clue how one actually measures the
mass of neutrinos, right?

Hint: it has nothing at all to do with determining which force
one needs to accelerate them.

Try looking up the beta decay spectrum and neutrino oscillations!

> I will have to study this further to determine if multiple
> neutrino types are compatible with this model.

Good luck. Hint: this is rather essential, since the existence
of three different types of neutrinos is the basis for one of the
methods for measuring their masses! (actually, the mass differences)

[snip]

>>>but since the particle is still part of the aether and neutrally charged,
>>>it is undetectable.
>>
>>But neutrinos *are* detectable...
>
>
> How about not detectable in the usual way through ion trails in cloud
> chamber like devices.

Movement of goalposts noted.

>>>For example, when a neutron breaks down into a proton and
>>>electron, part of the energy is given to the neutrino aether particle and
>>>the electron and proton separate at less than 180 degree angles. The
>>>neutrino was never part of the original neutron.
>>
>>If I understand you correctly, you want to say here that neutron beta
>>decay is caused by a collision of the neutron with an already
>>existing neutrino? This is not consistent with the observed
>>energy spectrum of the decay.
>>
>
>
> No, neutron beta decay happens on its own. Part of the energy in the
> decay could be said to knock an existing neutrino into motion and
> removes some of the decay energy.

The neutrinos are bound in the "salt crystal" like structure, right?
Hence if one wants to knock an existing neutrino into motion, one
has to spend first the binding energy, right? Hence the sum of
the energies of the neutrino and the electron should be smaller
than the total energy released by the beta decay (i.e. the mass
difference between the neutron and the proton), right?

>>>The mass of a neutrino would be dependent on how
>>>slippery an aether particle I would imagine it is very slippery
>>>since neutron aether bonds appear very weak and should appear as
>>>having very little mass if any.
>>
>>Why should the mass of an actual neutron be so big then?
>
>
> Unlike an aether particle, it is not part of the array.

So what? It also is neutral, and should have the same size,
shouldn't it?

> Just like
> stuffing an extra sodium atom into a salt crystal, it doesn't fit and
> it distorts and compresses the surrounding matrix.

But the same is true for a neutrino which has been "knocked out" of
the matrix.

> Neutron decay could
> be due to the compression forces causing the proton and electron to
> separate.

Where should these compression forces come from?

> The combination of the compression forces and the
> differences in how a neutron is bound compared to an aether particle
> all contribute to it's being not very slippery through the aether and
> causing it to register a high mass.

A lot of handwaving, but no explanation.

>>>10. The aether can explain the slowing of atomic clocks in gravity fields.
>>
>>Yet again, you think that "explain" means "make up some hand waving
>>qualitative claims". Hint: in science, explanations should be
>>*quantitative* and have *predictive power*. As long as you don't
>>manage to do this, you don't do science. You merely spew wild fantasies.

Apparently you choose to ignore that.

>>>If space were filled with neutrally charged aether particles, they
>>>would all exhibit an attraction to a strong electrostatic force. This
>>>is a basic electrostatic principle.
>>
>>It is a basic electrostatic principle that neutral particle
>>are attracted by an electrostatic force? Say, what have you been
>>smoking?
>
>
> Prove it to yourself. Cut of some tiny pieces of paper (neutral
> matter) and then take a comb and charge it up by
> combing through your hair. Put the comb near the paper and it is
> attracted to the paper.

Right. But we were not talking about paper pieces here - we were
talking about *particles*, and I thought you meant *elementary*
particles. In contrast to paper pieces, elementary particles are
not polarizable!

> Neutral matter is always attracted to areas of
> higher electrostatic field strength. This is normallly attributed to
> the dielectrophoretic force, but I think that on the macroscopic
> scale, this doesn't apply since this force is not a 1/r^2 force and
> depends on orientation.

So what?????

> I have experimentally measured the attraction
> of a neutral mass to an electrostatic force to decrease as 1/r^2 just
> like gravity. See my post:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl942172497d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=46484c9f.0410022207.2f46538a%40posting.google.com

Sorry, but this simply makes no sense. You probably fooled up
your experiment somewhere.

It is a simple *fact* that the attraction between a dipole
and a point charge goes with 1/r^3. This only could be wrong
if either math is wrong, or the principle of superposition is
not right in electrodynamics.

If you could repeat this experiment under carefully controlled
conditions, the Nobel prize would be yours!

On the web page you cited,
<http://www.ibmm-microtech.co.uk/pages/science/dep.htm>,
quite a lot of references were given. Did you ever try to look
them up in order to find out what experiments were done on
this already by other people?

[snip]

[snip]

>>>I have many posts discussing the details of how this can work
>>
>>You have many posts ignoring counterarguments to your proposals.
>
>
> As far as I can see, I have explained the counter arguments except for
> the problem that gravity is unsheildable, while the electrostatic
> force appears easily sheilded.

The main counterargument, that the force should not be proportional
to 1/r^2, still stands. Your crude experiment does not disprove
that. In order to prove your claim that the force goes indeed with
1/r^2, you would need a much more carefully designed experiment,
and you would also have to look up the already published literature on
this effect and explain the results reported there.

[snip]

>>>So if you have 1000
>>>neutral particles attracting and 1 positive charge particle repelling,
>>>the attraction wins. Similarly charged objects do not always repel.
>>
>>Crank. Of the worst sort: denying not only modern physics, but
>>even Maxwell's theory. And not even understanding Newton's laws
>>properly.
>>
>
>
> I have done simple experiments showing simiarly charged objects can
> attract.

The crucial word here is "simple".

> If you take a pith ball and charge it up with a rod, you can
> get it into a state whereby at large distances, it repells, but if you
> force it close enough, the pith ball ends up sticking on the rod, even
> though both the pith ball and rod are similarly charged. I presume the
> attraction of the neutral matter to the charge overcomes the repulsion
> over short distances.

What neutral matter? Aren't both the ball and the rod charged
here? Or why do they repel at large distances?

>>>The
>>>gravity force is weaker because it is a diluted electrostatic force.
>>>If 1 in every 10^38 atoms were missing 1 electron, this would generate
>>>a force which has the same magnitude as gravity.
>>
>>Does not explain why *all* objects attract each other by gravitation,
>>why we never observe gravitational repulsion.
>>
>
>
> In my post, intergalactic repulsion may be due to electrostatic
> gravitational repulsion.

If you can reproduce the observed supernova light curves with
this proposed repulsive 1/r^2 force, feel free to show your work.

>>>If the electrostatic gravity theory is true, then the density of
>>>the aether will be higher in a higher gravitational fields due to
>>>compression forces. Gravity pulls down and compresses the aether
>>>just like water pressure in the deep sea is higher
>>>than on the surface. With this higher density means that any
>>>mechanical process from point A to point B will have to traverse more
>>>aether particles than it would in a lower density area. The increased
>>>number of particle interactions effectively increases the amount of
>>>time (in an absolute sense) that it takes for something (like the
>>>ticking of an atomic clock) to happen. Thus, clocks in a high gravity
>>>field tick slower than one in a lower gravity field.
>>
>>And why on earth should the time dilation be proportional to the
>>gravitational potential?
>
>
> Higher gravity potential means a denser aether.

Why? And even granting this: why should the density be *proportional* to
the potential?

> Higher density means
> harder to travel through. Harder to travel through means takes longer
> to travel through, and thus slower time.

*Qualitative* hand waving, as usual...

>>And how does this explain other effects, like light bending at the
>>sun?
>>
>
>
> Just like light bends when hitting denser water, it bends when hitting
> denser aether - easy isn't it?

Qualitative hand waving, isn't it?

[snip]

>>>What Einstein attributed to a warp in space causing shifts in time is
>>>really a density effect.
>>
>>Reproduce the predictions of General Relativity *quantitatively*. As
>>long as you can't do that, you have no basis for claiming that you
>>have found an alternative, even better explanation, and should simply
>>shut up. Sadly, you won't.
>>
>
>
> Certainly, this is an interesting area of research. Based on the
> physical model, I should be able to come up with exactly the same
> equations of general relativity but also provide the "why" of how they
> work.

Before trying that, perhaps you should go back to where this all
started and first try to come up with Rutherford's formula, don't you think?

[snip]

>>>Other relativistic
>>>effects such as length shortening and time shifing in objects moving
>>>near the speed of light might also be explained as density effects
>>>such that an object moving as such speed compresses the aether ahead
>>>of it creating a zone of higher aether density which causes time
>>>shifting effects similar to gravity.
>>
>>*sigh* So you want to go back to LET?
>
>
> What is LET?

Lorentzian Ether Theory. An alternative to SR which makes exactly
the same predictions and hence can not be experimentally distinguished,
but is rather ugly from a theoretical point of view - and which
has in the last about 100 years not led to any new development,
in contrast to SR...

>>And conveniently ignore the observational (read: *quantitative*) success
>>of SR, GR and theories like QED, which are based on it?
>>
>
>
> Certainly there is much going for these theories, while the math is
> correct, it really doesn't do a good job of explaing exactly how these
> equations are physically manifested.

If you mean by "explaining" here: "reduce all of the effects to the
behaviour of small billiard balls", then you are right. But why should
one do that?

> My goal should be to reproduce
> these under a physical framework.

Hint: you have another idea of what a "physical framework" is than
most physicists.

>>>These are just a few of the musings I've had about the aether.
>>
>>Stop musing. Learn some physics.

Apparently you won't.

>>>I make
>>>no claim of right or wrong, but I think giving the aether a physical
>>>description is vital in trying to explain how such an aether might
>>>work.
>>
>>Perhaps before giving the aether a structure, you should first
>>provide evidence that it exists, don't you think? For a start,
>>you might try explaining the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
>
>
> Aether dragging. It is exceedingly difficult to prove something
> doesn't exist.

If you propose aether dragging, you might try looking up Fizeau's
experiment.

>>>I think part of the problem in searching for the aether is that
>>>we didn't know what to even look for. Such a physical description of
>>>the aehter may also give rise to experiments to
>>>show that empty space is actually filled with neutron-like particles. I
>>>welcome your comments.
>>
>>Get an education.

Apparently you won't.

Bye,
Bjoern

Quantcast