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

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 01/05/05 

Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:30:52 +0100

franklinhu@yahoo.com wrote:
> Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
>
>>FrankH wrote:
>>
>>>Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
>
> message news:<cok7kr$fem$1@news.urz.uni-
>
> heidelberg.de>...
>
> Once again, sorry for the slow response, I am still working on
> responding to your original DEc 7 post. I am taking it a section at a
> time as I have time. After that, I will reply to your other replies.

I would *really* appreciate it if instead of writing long posts,
you would get a decent physics education first...

>>>>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?
>>
>
>
>>>From what I have been able to read on the web, he did a similar
> experiment using running water. I don't see how this
> rules out aether dragging.

Sorry. A better argument against aether dragging is stellar
aberration. That can only be explained by an aether which
*moves* relative to Earth.

> If you mount the Michelson-Morley experiment
> on top of a moving car, you can see the non
> -null result. (http://www.aetherweb.com/surfacestatus.htm)

Err, they simply claim that there will be a non-null result.
They have no data so far.

> It would be
> interesting to see the same experiment
> perfomed in space to rule out the atmospheric effects.

Did you even read yourself what the page you cited states?
They already said that they want to do this experiment in
orbit!

[snip]

>>>We wouldn't be talking about the forces between the bound
>>>proton/electron, but rather the weak force between basically
>>>neutral 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.
>>
>
> It would be difficult to say how much the force would be.

Why? Give the distance between the proton and the neutron,
and we can calculate it.

> You are still
> invisioning the aehter particle as separate
> electron and proton.

Well, they *are* still separate, according to yourself
- even if there is no distance at all between their surfaces,
there still is a distance between their centers!

> If the binding mechanism places the opposite
> charges close enough, it can arbitraily reduce the
> excess field strength to close to zero, producing very small external
> forces.

That depends on the ratio between the distances *inside*
an aether particle and *between* aether particles. Care to
give some numbers?

> A neighboring aether particle might
> only see an electrostatic field 1/5000 of that produced by a bare
> electron. But since I have no idea of how the
> binding actually works, it would be impossible to calculate what the
> field strength might actually be.

In other words: as usual, you have nothing quantitative,
only lots of handwaving.

>>>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.
>>
>
>
> As I mentioned above, if placed closely enough, the charges neutralize
> almost 100%.

What exactly do you mean with "the charge neutralize" here?
That the *electric fields* produced by the two cancel
each other? Or *really* that the charges *themselves*
somehow cancel each other?

>>>- 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.
>>
>
>
> I would agree - I am still thinking how this could work in my aether
> model - it is a problem.

Your model has more problems than quantitative answers, if you
did not notice.

> I shouldn't feel too
> badly - I haven't actually seen any explanations for how magnetic
> fields are generated by moving charges.

So what? I have seen no explanation by you how particles can
have hard surfaces.

> The
> magentic field appears to align itself at right angles to the charge
> orientation which is really hard to explain.

With "charge orientation", do you mean the direction of the
velocity of the charge here?

[snip]

>>>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!
>>
>
> Inertia isn't due to the resistance, it is actually due to the energy
> released back to an object in movement as
> aether particles reconnect behind the object.

You have still not explained how this is supposed to work.

> There is a difference
> between the resistance provided by the aether as
> opposed to things like wind resistance in that the forward resistance
> is balanced by the rear-ward push. It would be
> like a car driving through the wind, but it has a jet engine in the
> back negating the forward resistance. This
> basically negates the effect of velocity, so the only thing that can
> affect the car's motion is acceleration.

Yet again totally handwavy. Does not explain at all why
the force should be *proportional* to the acceleration.
Does not explain why higher derivatives of the velocity
have no effect. Etc. ad nauseaum.

[snip]

>>>>>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?
>>
>
>
> I think I was trying to imply that the density of normal matter is such
> that aehter particles can completely
> surround the normal matter particles at all times. If this were true,
> then the number of aehter bonds that need to
> be broken would be exactly proportional to the number of protons and
> electron particles in the larger atom. In this
> way, an aehter bond has to be broken to move a proton in an atom
> forward. If there are 100 protons, 100 aehter bonds
> must be broken.

Huh? Sorry, how does that follow? Do you want to say that
even protons bound in a nucleus are surrounded by aether
particles?

> That is how I propose to get around the more massive =
> larger and more surface area.

And how do you explain the mass differences betwen electron,
proton and neutron then?

[snip]

>>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!)

I notice that you still choose to ignore that inconvenient fact.

>>>(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?
>
>
> I think my new idea that each particle in the atom breaks aehter bonds
> no matter the position in the atom helps to
> overcome the problems you cite.

The main problem I mention (not cite) is that you don't know most (read:
about 99.99%) of the available data, of the reasoning which
led to the theories we have today, and you keep refusing to
make an effort to learn that stuff.

>>>>>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.
>>
>
>
> This may be something that could be modeled in a computer since it
> cannot be modeled in the real world due to
> friction forces. But my main point was to show how objects snapping
> back together can provide a push. The analogy is
> still perfectly valid from that perspective.

You showed that one certain arrangement can provide such a
push. But since that certain arrangement has nothing to do
with your proposed aether model, the analogy fails to explain
how the aether could accomplish such a push.

[snip]

>>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.
>>
>
>
> Due to the unknown nature of the bonding of aehter particles, it would
> not be possible to calculate the energy
> required to knock out a particle from the aehter. However, the energy
> required to produce matter-antimatter pairs
> might tell us something about the strength of the aether bonding.

How surprising: yet again, your model is not able to make
any quantitative predictions.

[snip]

>>>>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.

I may guess: you have not bothered to look into this in the
meantime, right?

>>>but
>>>generally the anti-particles should represent different types of
>>>holes in the aether.
>>
>>Oh my goodness. "different types of holes"???
>
>
> The characteristics of an anti-matter hole depends on the aether
> particles surrounding it. The hole itself is
> identical to any other hole, but if it is surrounded by net positive
> charges it is an anti-electron. If it is
> surrounded by net negative charges, it is an anti-proton.

Sounds like the Dirac sea concept of antiparticles.

>>>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"?????
>>
>
>
> I was referring to the spin number of particles - naturally, lots more
> reading before I can say anything sensible about this.

*sigh* You know my comment on this?

[snip]

>>>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*.

So you don't bother?

[snip]

>>>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...
>>
>
>
> It is reasonable to make the assumption that electrons are more mobile
> than protons since we can experimentally see
> that electrons are easily moved around in matter, while protons are
> stuck in the atoms.

Err, by far not all electrons in matter are mobile, if you
did not notice. Only the ones which are only weakly bound.
That protons can not move around is easily explained by the
fact that they are hold in place by the remaining, strongly
bound electrons. I notice that I already explained that
below...

> Even if I cannot explain why this is so,

Unfortunately for you, this is again something with which
standard physics has no problem at all.

> if I have a model which relies on this property, the model
> is properly grounded since the property I am
> relying on is well experimentally verified.

You simply overstate the property and ignore counterevidence.

[snip]

>>I notice that you are *still* treating elementary particles as
>>if they were little billiard balls!!!
>
>
> Yes, that is the whole idea - make elementary particles compatible with
> classical mechanics instead of explaining it
> by pulling out an entirely different rule book of quantum mechanics.

Feel free to explain the results of the double-slit experiment.
*Quantitatively*.

Yet again, I recommend the Feynman lectures (volume 3)
and Styer's book "The strange world of QM" to you.

There are *reasons* why QM was invented. The reasons were
*experimental evidence*. When will you ever start thinking
about that?

>>>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?
>
>
> No, an electron can be like a speck of sand sitting on a bowling ball
> and the cubic model/ather model work just
> fine.

Why should the nucleus then have such an orderly structure,
like a chess board?

[snip]

>>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.
>>
>
>
> This doesn't negate the observation that electrons are far more mobile
> than protons.

But this *explains* *why* this is so! And therefore no
assumption about different sizes and therefore different
resistance is needed!!!

[snip]

>>>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!

Did you get that?

[snip]

>>>>>If the aether is a compressible medium,
>>>>
>>>>Ever heard of the Piezo effect?
>>
>>Have you?
>>
>
>
> What does the Piezo effect (electricity generated through stressing
> materials) have to do with anything we're discussing here?

It obviously has to do with compressible mediums which contain charges
(or dipoles), don't you think?

[snip]

>>>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."

Thinking again about this, this last bit sounds strange. After
all, an incompressible medium is just the limiting case of
an elastic medium, with the elasticity going to zero, isn't
it? Why should there be a discontinuous transition when going
to the limit?

[snip]

>>>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???
>
>
> Yes, exactly. The aether particles form a medium which can transmit
> mechanical waves.

Please consider that in Bjerknes' model, a *continuous* medium
was considered. It is not clear to me if and how his results
would change when considering a medium consisting of discrete
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)?
>
>
> Isn't heat basically the mechanical kinetic energy of the atoms?

Specifically, *disordered* kinetic energy.

OTOH, your pulses would be a quite ordered motion. Hence my
question. I'm quite sure that this contradicts the 2nd law
of thermodynamics.

> The way this works specifically is like a table
> full of bells. You shake the table and the bells bump into each other
> causing them to ring at their specific frequency.
> The shaking in this case corresponds to passing
> electromagnetic waves.

Err, you were talking about "ambient thermal energy" above,
not about passing electromagnetic waves.

>>>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?
>>
>
>
> I have no proposal, but protons/electrons would need to have this
> elastic property.

Do you have the slightest bit of evidence that protons and
electrons have such a property?

> Materials which have elastic properties are very
> familiar to us in the macroscopic world.

And for all of them, the elasticity is a result of the
microscopic electrostatic forces between the electrons and
the atoms.

> The main principle I am
> working with is that properties that we see with everyday objects,
> translates all the way down to the tiniest objects.

Conveniently ignoring that the macroscopic properties are
explained by *other* properties of the microscopic particles,
and that hence the microscopic particles can't have these
properties. Also conveniently ignoring that experiments show
that microscopic particles behave differently (double-slit
experiment etc.).

> So elasticity of
> protons/electrons cannot be ruled out

Yes, it can.

> and it makes some intuitive sense.

It also makes some intuitive sense that the sun goes round
the earth.

> The model grounds out at the point of requiring elasticity of
> electrons/protons which is not unreasonable.

It is entirely unreasonable.

>>>>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.
>>
>
>
> I suspect that most of the predictions of QED are based on how
> spherical harmonics works.

Totally wrong. About 99.99% of the predictions of QED have
nothing to do with spherical harmonics.

I don't even understand what you mean with "how spherical harmonics
work". They don't work. They are *functions*.

> QED correctly predicts spectra since the
> ionized electrons around an atom are subject to spherical harmonics

What on earth is "are subject to spherical harmonics" supposed
to mean????????

> (which is a classical mechanical concept

Yes. They occur also in electrodynamics. And in other problems
when one analyses spherically symmetric situations.

> - can be at least partially
> represented by billiard balls attached by springs - better modeled by
> computers which can simulate the particle trajectories).

What on earth have spherical harmonics to do with billiard
balls attached by springs and with particle trajectories???

I have the strong suspicion that you have not the *faintest*
clue what you are talking about!

[snip]

>>>>>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.

Do you?

>>>and the vibrating objects are extremely tiny.
>>
>>So what?

Hello?

>>>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.
>>
>
>
> The high frequency could be something like 10^21 Hz, a frequency so
> fast that it affects materials in a completely different manner. It
> may
> not do things like convert its energy into thermal energy as higher
> frequencies of light do.

Thanks for showing that you have no clue of the mechanisms
of photon absorption.

Hints: photo effect. Compton effect. Pair creation.

All of these effects are described *quantitatively*
by standard physics. I.e. the cross sections for these
processes have been calculated, and they agree nicely
with experiment.

And no, this has nothing to do with spherical harmonics.

[snip]

>>>I would think that protons could be broken into quarks,
>>
>>Well, then how are you justified in modelling them as vibrating
>>spheres?
>
>
> I don't think anyone has speculated on what the shape of quarks might
> be.

Yes, people have. They are considered, like the electron, to
be point-like, in current physics.

> Maybe three quarks end up as a sphere.

Huh? Care to illustrate how that might work?

>>>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?
>>
>
>
> Yeah, but I returned it since it was too expensive to keep if it didn't
> explain rutherford scattering in a detailed way.

*sigh*

You could have learned a lot from it. You could have looked
up a lot of data in it. You could have tried to understand
from it *why* people developed the theories we have today.

You chose to remain ignorant.

>>>>>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.
>>
>
> That we can't measure a dipole moment is either due to the limitations
> of our instruments

Please suggests some number for the size of that dipole moment.

> or they really don't have a dipole. I don't think we
> can rule out an instrument problem.

And what's your basis for thinking that? Do you have *any*
idea of what instruments we have, and how such a measurement
would actually be done?

> People are currently setting up all
> kinds of extravagant experiments to detect dipoles in neutrons, surely
> some people must think the dipole must exist in neutrons.

*sigh*

Yet again, you demonstrate that you have only a totally superficially
understanding of modern physics. Try finding out *why* some
people think that.

BTW: we were talking about neutrinos, not about neutrons.

>>>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.
>>
>
>
> Actually, a neutrino is a fast moving aether particle and its inertia
> overwhelms any effect from electromagnetic forces.

What on earth is this supposed to mean?????

> They are still
> effectively neutrally charged and should be little affected by any
> static electric charges. I would predict that if you could slow a
> neutrino down to a stop, that you just might see it dissapear into the
> aether without a trace.

What on earth has this to do with the stuff about the magnetic
field you wrote above?

Bye,
Bjoern

Quantcast