[General] The New Aether

[Vivian Robinson]

John,

I have read your paper and would like to mention the following points. 

1	You indicate the critical energy density for the universe is about 10^-9 J/m^3. The results of Perlmutter et al., [Astro Phys J, V 517, p 454-7 (1999)] and Perlmutter [Physics Today, V 56, No. 4. p 53-60 (2003)] showing the measurements of type 1a super nova (SNe1a) magnitudes at different redshifts, suggest that the measured energy density is close to that value. I believe that establishes your stated universe energy density of about 10^-9 J/m^3 as an experimental fact.

2	You then indicate that the implied vacuum energy density, as obtained from quantum mechanics (QM) is about 10^113 J/m^3. As I understand it, this is a theoretical value that appears to come from an attempt to unite quantum mechanics with general relativity and relates to the conditions necessary for the formation of black holes at the quantum level of elementary particles. It has never been measured and I doubt that it could be obtained in any experimental situation. 

3	Experiment is reality, not theory. The energy densities used to measure the properties such as charge and magnetic moment of sub atomic particles are significantly higher than the measured 10^-9 J/m^3, but do not get close to 10^113 J/m^3. Those energy densities are sufficient to measure properties like the magnetic moment of an electron to an accuracy greater than 1 in 10^10 and exactly match the quantum electrodynamics (QED) calculations for the same property, at least for the electron. There is no experimental reason to go to higher energy densities.

4	There is no experimental evidence to suggest that an energy density of 10^113 J/m^3 exists or is required to match QM calculations. It is only required to match the black holes predicted from Einstein’s general relativity. Black holes themselves are a theoretical prediction from solutions to Einstein’s gravitational field equations. Those field equations and their solution have only been tested and found to be accurate at distances r >> α, the Schwarzschild radius by several orders of magnitude. The existence of black holes and the 10^113 J/m^3 energy density is an extrapolation from a theory by several orders of magnitude away from where the theory has been experimentally tested in the macro world. In turn the macro world is many orders of magnitude away from the micro or quantum world at which the energy density of 10^113 J/m^3 is applicable. 

5	IMHO those features are not a good foundation upon which to build a theory. I have previously sent a copy of and reference to a paper that derives a space time geometry equation that uses exp-α/r instead of 1 - α/r in the current Schwarzschild metric - visit
 http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2013.48149
The Maclaurin Taylor series expansion of exp-α/r is 1 - ½(α/r)^2 - .. Every measurement that supports the Einstein’s gravitational field equations supports this metric so it is just as accurate experimentally. It does not predict the existence of black holes. Until such time as 1 - α/r is shown to match experimental observation better than exp-α/r at the macro level, the foundation for it to be extrapolated to the micro or quantum level leaves itself open to the suggestion that it does not match experiment and is could be considered to be not a firm theoretical basis. 

6	In order to explain the physical universe as astronomers observe it, theoretical astrophysicists and cosmologists have developed a theory that says the the universe is made up of 0.4% luminous matter (stars), 3.6% non luminous matter (gas and dust clouds), 23% dark matter (to make galaxies rotate faster) and 73% dark energy (to explain their (apparently) anomalous SNe1a intensity measurements). Despite decades of searching astronomers have not found any significant evidence for either dark matter or dark energy. Until such time as dark matter and dark energy are found, the theoreticians explanation of the observed universe is in error with the observed universe by a mere twenty-four times the mass of the observed universe. An error of 24 times the mass of the observed universe is surely the largest errors in the history of human endeavour. If you or anyone else knows a larger error, please let me know.  There is the possibility that the standard model for the structure of the universe will remain in error with experiment by 24 times the mass of the observed universe and it will be recorded as the greatest error in the history of human endeavour.

7	Having said the above, I note that you are developing a theory in which you suggest that an unmeasured energy density of 10^113 J.m^3, based upon extrapolations well away from observation, can match the universe’s observed energy density that is about 10^122 times lower. I restate, as have many others, experiment is reality and the only arbiter of a theory. If experimentalists measure the energy density of the observable universe as 10^-9 J/m^3, that should be the starting point for any theory. As mentioned above, some people think the standard model for the structure of the universe is in error by 24 times the mass of the observed universe. You run the risk that those people may think your New Aether theory is in error by 10^122 times the energy density of the universe. 

9	What would your reaction be if you took a printed copy of your bank balance statement to your bank only to be told that it was a theoretical amount and the actual amount in your bank account was only 4% of that statement. I doubt that you would be pleased. In the same manner, many members of the general public are not pleased with the standard model practitioners suggestion that there is 24 times as much mass in the universe as astronomers can measure. It does little more than convince many members of the general public that scientists can use mathematics to prove anything they like and why should they be believed? 

Then many scientists wonder why governments are cutting funding to many fields of science!

Cheers,

Vivian Robinson 

On 16/07/2015, at 5:21 PM, John Macken <john at macken.com> wrote:

> Hello All,
>  
> Attached is a copy of the paper that I submitted for the SPIE conference except that it is in a 2 column format which I prefer for informal circulation.  In particular, I would like to call your attention to section 2 of this paper starting on page 2 and finishing on page 4.  Many parts of this paper were inspired by this group, but particularly this section 2. The message has come through loud and clear that no one else believes that spacetime can have the energy density that I propose.  This section addresses that point.  I also like the quote contained in the first paragraph.  I think that it sets the stage for the rest of the paper. 
>  
> I will be traveling for a few days, so I might not be able to answer comments immediately.
>  
> John M.
> <SPIE-New Aether2015.pdf>_______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atviv at etpsemra.com.au
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150718/beeea6bb/attachment.htm>