On Einstein's Aether - The Way Forward For General Relativity

[Dubbelosix]

The article is not completely finished, however, it takes elements of what Einstein had spoken about on numerous occasions - I also point out an error in his understanding of weight, but support my conclusions based on the geometric properties of the Lorentz transformations in which he was clearly aware that the energy content actually contributed to the inertial effects of a system. 

 

As I said, not quite finished yet, but will try and update after more calculations. I want this article to be pristine in the sense Einstein once intended and that current physics has ignored due to aether theories becoming taboo without justification in the gravitational sense. The idea is quite difficult to understand - none of this stuff is easy. The aether is not physically transmutable, only the existence of fluctuations are. It is a strange place that we must consider a gravitational aether without the presence of a graviton, but it is even stranger to understand the roles of fluctuations and how space is not Newtonian (ie is not a pure vacuum).

 

https://quantizedblackhole.quora.com/When-Einstein-Talked-People-Listened-But-Was-He-Right-Concerning-The-Aether?fbclid=IwAR0rTQGu62Yi5tKC6yn7JlJNxSWcFOJgsHl74KDmFPuguYVATg7zZzOub5A

 

 

[FreelanceScientists]

Hey that article seems really close. But from my point of view, still no banana. Physics is a lot trickier than that. And man that's a lot of math. I don't even understand it, and I used to be really good at that sort of thing. Maybe this should be in Psudoscience or funky theories. The article there states common sense and good logic, but it can't work, and not for classical reasons. The reason is this. The minimal unit the atom is not in any way a round object. In fact it may not even be an object. The minimal geometric physical unit is a triangle or cone. This is from point line plane. Plane line point, no room in there for a sphere. Scientific measurements are taken assuming equal in all directions. You will end up with a slope at best or worse the thing studied changed directions. So it is tricky. Now back in time to the origin of matter itself. It was assumed to be a thing with interconnective forces. The forces couldn't be accounted for. So we now have our current standard model. What about the interconnective forces. Bosons, Higgs field? How about the quantum shell extending in one direction and interconnecting with others. That model creates a quantum aether. And the matter is composed of charge itself in a cone envelope. This theory means there aren't any particles anywhere. I like this theory. It works for me. You are free to choose any theory there is.

[Dubbelosix]

A number of different things in this article is discussed: 

 

1. The true origin of inertia (and as I have assumed with strong points) it is nothing more than a drag coefficient when moving in varying gravitational fields. The coefficient obviously also depends on the variations of kinetic contributions. 

 

2. That perhaps time can be treated as a non-trivial operator. 

 

3. The cosmological constant is not ''just an energy driving space,'' is it specifically the thrust interpretation of the negative of the drag which is the cosmological impetus. When I go into Bernoulli physics when finishing the article, it will demonstrate further mechanical causes as to why a universe expands rather than contracts and simply owes it due to an imbalance of momentum in one direction other than another (contraction).

 

4. Then we discuss the main points - gravity is not a force, it is not a gravitational medium consisting of any transmutable matter. But this depends on one thing, that vacuum fluctuations and the gravitational medium is not one and the same thing. There is a chance for this and it would revolutionize the way we would think about the gravitational medium because it may not be quantized directly, but gravity is still described by a stress energy tensor which applies to all types of particles (ie. all particles contribute to gravity based on their respective curvatures) and nothing physically transmutes the gravity other than through elastic properties of a metric. 

[FreelanceScientists]

Agreed here. For a substance to be effected by motion it has to recognize that it is indeed moving, which implies an external connection or reference. The reference has to be a physical thing. Newton thought so and so did Einstein. They just couldn't find it.

[Dubbelosix]

You agree that relative mass and inertia are equivalent. Would you think they are related to zero point energy, and or the higgs field. 

 

I really honestly don't think these fluctuations are playing a part in the role of gravity, other than possibly playing small pressure changes over very vast scale factors. And while the Higgs is often referenced as ''giving mass'' to particles, mass itself is not generated by a Higgs field because the act of creating matter from nothing would violate conservation principles. It is specifically given to particles through a Higgs field, as you mentioned using the Higgs boson - in this sense, gravitational matter would owe its existence to such a field but not the effects of gravity alone (gravity is not specially attached to mass) for the reason that all types of energy, free and bound, all contribute to the stress energy tensor. 

[Dubbelosix]

The Higgs field is [still] a strange mechanism for me to accept these days: You can create energy or matter, this isn't my issue because I studied diabatic universes and how energy and matter could come from a non-conservation. What I tend to bother with, is that the field does not explain why mass is a concentration of energy, or how antiparticles tend to decay back into radiation when contacting upon each other. The Higgs field explains none of this. The Higgs boson is supposed to interact with all surrounded matter in such a way that it [gives] energy to a fluctuation to make it bounce out of the ground state (into something) with a real mass. Nice concept, but it still doesn't wash well with me after all the years since they claimed to have discovered a Higgs particle within sigma five confidence. What is confident is that spin zero particles exist in nature from observation and there was nothing really fundamental forbidding this. I feel the Higgs field can't possibly explain the concentration of energy to form mass, nor can it explain how a mass can diffuse back into energy. These aspects need to be understood properly for a coherent field theory.

[Dubbelosix]

An interesting fact from the Higgs field though, may be key to telling us some of the mysteries, for instance, I quote Wiki now:

 

''Giving mass to an object is referred to as the Higgs effect. This effect will transfer mass or energy to any particle that passes through it. Light that passes through it gains energy, not mass, because its wave form doesn't have mass, while its particle form constantly travels at light speed.''

 

Ok, so light also passes through the Higgs field and gains an energy. In fact the entire idea is that mass or energy can be transferred by this field - I'd like to see that prediction in action. Scary that early theory which gave rise to the Higgs field, was more or less a spontaneous symmetry-breaking and that occured very early in the cosmology rather than the late: In field theory the symmetry breaking is known as electroweak. The term ''weak'' comes from the fact that not all force-carrying particles should be massless, the force-particles that mediate the weak force and will have mass. A last passage I will quote from wiki:

 

''The Higgs effect occurs because nature "tends" towards the lowest energy state. The Higgs effect will happen because gauge bosons near a Higgs field will want to be in their lowest energy states, and this would break at least one symmetry.

To justify giving mass to a would-be massless particle, scientists were forced to do something out of the ordinary. They assumed that vacuums (empty space) actually had energy, and that way, if a particle that we think of as massless were to enter it, the energy from the vacuum would be transferred into that particle, giving it mass. A mathematician named Jeffrey Goldstone proved that if you violate a symmetry, (for example, a symmetry with a Rubik's cube would be if you state that the corners must always be rotated 0 or 3 times to be solvable (it works)), a reaction will occur. In the case of the Rubik's cube, the cube will become unsolvable if violated. In the case of the Higgs field, something named after Jeffrey Goldstone (and another scientist who worked with him named Yoichiro Nambu) is produced, a Nambu-Goldstone boson. This is an excited or energetic form of the vacuum, which can be graphed revealing that shown above. This was first explained by Peter Higgs.''

[Dubbelosix]

 

Could zero point energy as described by stochastic electrodynamics be a version of your aether?

 

 

I can't rule it completely out no, because an elastic interpretation of spacetime would ensure some other relationship by no other word than a cosmology thrust. What causes it, could be due to fluctuations. It could be due to something entirely different tbh. 

Edited September 3, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

If you are going to have an aether of sorts how does it appear and grow/contract ie manifest itself, and how does it transmit forces.  

 

Except. this aether cannot be made of particles, so it truly cannot transmit forces as in the quantum field sense. It can exert forces which may appear to be forces, but is really due to the motion and frame of reference: As is such the case for any pseudo field - and gravity [is] a pseudo field. Secondly, having a particle being able to be detected in this aether is forbidden from the principles of Einstein's theory. There cannot be, in other words, any motion associated to this aether. The best way I have described it is, ''varying thickness to space and time,'' and space and time truly do have thicknesses associated to them which we interpret as gravitational fields. 

[Dubbelosix]

It is also due to the varying thickness of spacetime that light is not truly a constant, but remains only a constant in free space. 

[exchemist]

Zero Point energy is made up of virtual particles, it is electromagnetic in nature. via polarization it can transmit electric fields QED. The frame of reference is interesting if you look at SED, it explains both mass and inertia as one and the same. Verboten by Einstein has not stopped SED theorists explain a few simple things. Check out the mass inertia equivalence in SED due to zero point energy, what is moving with respect to what. As I think you have pointed out before its down to pressure differences, in the aether(zero point field perhaps). Verlinde goes for varying degrees of entanglement, rather than thickness, which is I similar-ish. 

 

Jumping on the fence perhaps varying degrees of connectivity describes how all competing gravitational theories work. But connectivity to what zero point energy, space time, quantum foam, membranes, entanglement. 

Correction: you are talking about the zero point energy of the vacuum. 

 

Zero point energy is a much wider concept in quantum mechanics and applies to all matter, not just to the vacuum. 

[exchemist]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy is electromagnetic in nature, as is the Casimir effect etc. 

 

Physics currently lacks a full theoretical model for understanding zero-point energy; in particular the discrepancy between theorized and observed vacuum energy is a source of major contention

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

 

Can you expand on your correction please? I am not 100% sure exactly what you are driving at.

Sure. The zero point energy of any quantum system is the energy remaining in the ground state.

 

To take an example, a hydrogen atom at absolute zero has no translational motion (obviously) and its one electron will be in the 1s orbital, which is the ground state. But that electron still has energy. So that is a form of zero point energy. It is unextractable energy, because there is no lower state available to the system, but it is still energy. 

 

Similarly, a diatomic molecule has a bond between the two atoms and and this bond can vibrate. But the vibration is quantised, so the vibrational energy of the bond can only be present in certain fixed amounts (this is how the lines in the IR spectrum arise, from transitions between these vibrational energy levels.) In the ground state, there is still some residual vibration present. So at absolute zero, the bond still vibrates a bit. That is zero point energy.

 

So, when matter is at absolute zero, it is in the ground state in all its degrees of freedom, but there is still energy present in some of these modes. This is zero point energy.

 

The vacuum is a special case, arising from the QED idea that fields too cannot be said to have definitively zero energy - hence the vacuum itself has a zero point energy, just as matter does.

 

So in the context you have in mind, to be accurate you should speak of the zero point energy of the vacuum or of the various fields, because you are not talking about the zero point energy of matter.

 

People get a bit lazy sometimes and forget this distinction, because physicists are all excited about hip and trendy virtual photons and things, but to a chemist, zero point energy is just a humdrum thing: the energy of the ground state of whatever atom or molecule one is talking about. :)  

Edited September 3, 2019 by exchemist

[Vmedvil2]

I do not believe there is a zero point energy to time-space as that would mean that energy is created from time-space itself, there has to be a bosonic field acting upon time-space to transfer energy-mass such as the Nuclear fields, Electromagnetic field, and gravitational field. Energy-mass is neither created nor destroyed but only transferred thus if you had a field that did not just transfer energy-mass that would violate energy-mass conservation such as this Zero Point Energy which I do not consider that to be correct as that would mean that the energy-mass of the universe is infinite as the fabric of time-space creates its own energy-mass, which it must be finite from the expansion acceleration rate of the universe being a finite number as energy-mass in all forms contribute to this including the zero point energy of time-space if it existed, if there were such a field then the energy-mass would need to be gained from another source "Outside" this universe to gain the energy-mass required to sustain such a field to where an amount of energy-mass is stored within time-space itself other than being transferred via bosonic fields meaning this would require a finite source of energy-mass "outside" of the amount being transferred via the bosonic fields of the universe, but if the zero point energy did exist from virtual reactions this could show a infinite energy source creation method making Energy-Mass creation possible, also a permanent erasure of Energy-mass into nothingness as well.

Edited September 4, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Dubbelosix]

Zero Point energy is made up of virtual particles, it is electromagnetic in nature. 

 

Not just electromagnetic in nature, all quantum fields possess a ground state. 

[Dubbelosix]

Sure. The zero point energy of any quantum system is the energy remaining in the ground state.

 

To take an example, a hydrogen atom at absolute zero has no translational motion (obviously) and its one electron will be in the 1s orbital, which is the ground state. But that electron still has energy. So that is a form of zero point energy. It is unextractable energy, because there is no lower state available to the system, but it is still energy. 

 

Similarly, a diatomic molecule has a bond between the two atoms and and this bond can vibrate. But the vibration is quantised, so the vibrational energy of the bond can only be present in certain fixed amounts (this is how the lines in the IR spectrum arise, from transitions between these vibrational energy levels.) In the ground state, there is still some residual vibration present. So at absolute zero, the bond still vibrates a bit. That is zero point energy.

 

So, when matter is at absolute zero, it is in the ground state in all its degrees of freedom, but there is still energy present in some of these modes. This is zero point energy.

 

The vacuum is a special case, arising from the QED idea that fields too cannot be said to have definitively zero energy - hence the vacuum itself has a zero point energy, just as matter does.

 

So in the context you have in mind, to be accurate you should speak of the zero point energy of the vacuum or of the various fields, because you are not talking about the zero point energy of matter.

 

People get a bit lazy sometimes and forget this distinction, because physicists are all excited about hip and trendy virtual photons and things, but to a chemist, zero point energy is just a humdrum thing: the energy of the ground state of whatever atom or molecule one is talking about. :)

 

While you have made some good points, please be more careful in your language. An object is never at absolute zero. 

[OceanBreeze]

Sure. The zero point energy of any quantum system is the energy remaining in the ground state.

 

To take an example, a hydrogen atom at absolute zero has no translational motion (obviously) and its one electron will be in the 1s orbital, which is the ground state. But that electron still has energy. So that is a form of zero point energy. It is unextractable energy, because there is no lower state available to the system, but it is still energy. 

 

Similarly, a diatomic molecule has a bond between the two atoms and and this bond can vibrate. But the vibration is quantised, so the vibrational energy of the bond can only be present in certain fixed amounts (this is how the lines in the IR spectrum arise, from transitions between these vibrational energy levels.) In the ground state, there is still some residual vibration present. So at absolute zero, the bond still vibrates a bit. That is zero point energy.

 

So, when matter is at absolute zero, it is in the ground state in all its degrees of freedom, but there is still energy present in some of these modes. This is zero point energy.

 

The vacuum is a special case, arising from the QED idea that fields too cannot be said to have definitively zero energy - hence the vacuum itself has a zero point energy, just as matter does.

 

So in the context you have in mind, to be accurate you should speak of the zero point energy of the vacuum or of the various fields, because you are not talking about the zero point energy of matter.

 

People get a bit lazy sometimes and forget this distinction, because physicists are all excited about hip and trendy virtual photons and things, but to a chemist, zero point energy is just a humdrum thing: the energy of the ground state of whatever atom or molecule one is talking about. :)

 

 

What you wrote is the same as my own understanding of zero point energy.

 

I do, however, have a question along these lines that maybe you can answer.

 

As I understand it, the reason that liquid helium will not freeze, even if it were to reach the hypothetical value of 0 K, is because it has a very high zero point energy, higher than any other form of matter, or so I have read. (I can look for a link, if you need it)

 

So far so good, but if enough pressure is now applied to that liquid helium, still at 0 K, it will freeze. I think the pressure is on the order of 33 atms.

 

My question is, does this (the freezing) mean the zero point energy was extracted by applying pressure?

 

I expect this would not be an efficient way of extracting energy as much more energy would be needed to apply the pressure than any amount that can be extracted.

 

Still, I would be interested to know if now, with both 0 K T and high pressure, if all of the zero point energy of the helium is removed? Or would there still be some residual energy left even under these conditions?

 

I appreciate any thoughts about this.

[exchemist]

What you wrote is the same as my own understanding of zero point energy.

 

I do, however, have a question along these lines that maybe you can answer.

 

As I understand it, the reason that liquid helium will not freeze, even if it were to reach the hypothetical value of 0 K, is because it has a very high zero point energy, higher than any other form of matter, or so I have read. (I can look for a link, if you need it)

 

So far so good, but if enough pressure is now applied to that liquid helium, still at 0 K, it will freeze. I think the pressure is on the order of 33 atms.

 

My question is, does this (the freezing) mean the zero point energy was extracted by applying pressure?

 

I expect this would not be an efficient way of extracting energy as much more energy would be needed to apply the pressure than any amount that can be extracted.

 

Still, I would be interested to know if now, with both 0 K T and high pressure, if all of the zero point energy of the helium is removed? Or would there still be some residual energy left even under these conditions?

 

I appreciate any thoughts about this.

Nice one! 

 

This, as I understand (and I am rusty on this )  it refers to the zero point energy in a specific degree of freedom, namely that in the vibration of the interatomic "bond" between adjacent helium atoms.  

 

For anything to freeze, there has to be an interatomic or intermolecular attraction - in effect a sort of bond, however weak it may be  - which the atoms or molecules no longer have enough energy to break, when they are cooled. In the case of helium this is an interatomic attraction (because it does not form molecules) due to London (van der Waals) forces and it is very weak indeed.  

 

In the QM of the harmonic oscillator, which this very weak bond resembles, the confining potential is a parabola (restoring force proportional to displacement so potential is F x displacement, i.e. proportional to the square). If the parabola is narrow and deep the energy of the ground state - the zero point energy - is quite a long way above the minimum of the curve. If it is broad and shallow, the ground state is closer to the minimum.

 

In the case of helium the interatomic attraction is so feeble that by moving the atoms apart, even though this appears energetically unfavourable, the fall in the zero point energy overcomes this. And so the "bond" needed to make it solid never forms. If you pressurise it, the energy gain from this effect is no longer enough for it to be energetically worthwhile to move the atoms apart.

 

...I think.....

 

I am conscious I may not have explained this very well. But the zero point energy in question is the vibrational ZPE, associated with the solid atom-atom vibrational mode of motion.