[General] The New Aether

Thu Jul 23 02:07:02 PDT 2015

John M,

There are a few features that most scientists attempt to do correctly. One is to get the facts straight. Another is to reference statements that are not well known to workers in a field.   

I am male. I was born male and at a time Vivian was a reasonably common male name in some English speaking countries. I am not held responsible for females changing their spelling of a similarly pronounced name from Vivienne to Vivian over the past 70 years. A quick Google search would have revealed my gender. It is always best to check facts before publishing them. Failing that, try using a gender neutral title such as Doctor. You never know, if I didn't have  PhD, I could have been flattered.

Nowhere in my email did I make any demand on you. If you believe I have, please indicate where I used the word "demand" in my communication.  I am merely the messenger pointing out what some people could consider to be a theoretically invalid starting assumption. You have jumped to an incorrect conclusion. Again that is not a good scientific approach. 

You mentioned Everyone in this group including Vivian and Chandra has offered theoretical models which lack experimental proof. I will allow others to defend their own position. Please indicate where, in any of my papers, I have offered theoretical models that lack experimental proof. In all of my theoretical papers I have always shown that my theory matches all experimental evidence of which I was aware. I admit that I have made predictions that have not been tested experimentally. But that is not a model that lacks experimental proof. It is an opportunity for the work to be extended beyond current knowledge limit. If future experiments show that the prediction is not observed, that demonstrates inadequacies in the theory. If they match the prediction it is a further indication of the possible correctness of the work. Out of courtesy to others you should either point out where their models "lack experimental proof", or withdraw the comment.

John M, I invited you to participate in this discussion group because I thought your ideas on photons may have some validity and I wanted to hear them. Now that I have heard them, like John W, I can see some of the arguments you use, even though I don't agree with them. From the nature of your questions, highlighted below, I get the feeling that you do not understand either quantum electrodynamics (QED) or general relativity (GR). Not only that but you appear to be unwilling to listen to the viewpoints of others who do understand those topics. Both have been successful at matching experimental observation. That should suggest there is some merit in them and the viewpoints of their practitioners, e.g. John W, should be acknowledged. If you do want to replace QED and GR, it should be done with something more accurate. 

I further note your reference to black holes. As indicated in the paper reference I gave you, there is a set of calculations that match all observations that support GR but don't lead to the existence of black holes. That does not preclude the existence of massive objects, such as those found at the centres of many galaxies, which could be interpreted as black holes. That suggests that there could be no foundation for black holes, which puts a considerable dent in the 100% modulation level that you indicate gives rise to a black hole. 

John M, as I mentioned above, I am just the messenger for how many people think. Currently theoretical astrophysicist and cosmologists point out they need 24 times the mass/energy of the universe to explain the visible universe observed by astronomers. Many people think that means their theory is in error with observation by 24 times the mass of the observed universe. Just between you and me, any anyone else who reads this email, that is a very large error. Neither you nor anyone else has pointed out a larger error. There is some justification in concluding that is the largest error between theory and observation of any theory yet forwarded in the history of human endeavour. 

Having said that, your proposal is in error with observation by up to 24 x 10^122 times the energy density of the observed universe. I don't know if the (so called) dark energy or dark matter are included in your 4 x 10^113 J/m^3. However seeing that the energy density of the universe includes its mass equivalence through E = mc^2, it puts your theory at odds with observation by almost 10^124 times the mass of the observed universe to explain the observed universe. If at some time in the future the Guinness Book of Records, or some other historical publication, should decide to determine the greatest difference between theory and experiment ever published, they may find your article on "Energetic Spacetime:the New Aether " and record it as being in error by (up to) 10^124 times the observed mass of the universe. Without your proposed article appearing in print, that record will be held by the Big Bang standard model for the formation and structure of the universe, giving it an error of 24 times the mass of the observed universe. Personally I would not like to expose myself to that possibility. The Journal publishing it could always defend itself that it was published under the guise of "academic freedom". I am not sure editors of other journals would not then regard the journal in which the paper was published as leaning too far towards "fringe physics". 

As for getting the correct answer, it is easy to argue that, with 10^122 times more mass/energy to play with than is observed, as well as the introduction of concepts like rotars that do not have an experimental foundation, it would be a problem if you could not get the right answer.

I have no interest in commenting further on your work unless your comments are ordered, referenced and not just handwaving about demands that haven't been made. Also I am merely reflecting public opinion. If you don't like that opinion, take it up with the rest of the public, perhaps through the Science Editor of the New York Times. The NYT has occasionally commented on some aspects of modern physics. (Ellis G and Silk J, (2014); Scientific method: “Defend the integrity of physics”, Nature, 516, pp 321-323 (Summary in A Crisis at the Edge of Physics, New York Times). 

I have highlighted those sections on your email below to which I refer in the above.

Regards,

Vivian Robinson

On 23/07/2015, at 5:52 AM, John Macken <john at macken.com> wrote:

> Vivian and All.
>  
> I have been away and was not able to answer Vivian’s objections contained in her July 17 post dealing with my paper titled “Energetic Spacetime: the New Aether”.  On several of her points she demanded that I had to be able to show the experimental proof in order for a point to be valid.  I must admit that as I read this comment I wondered why this demand was being directed at me.  Everyone in this group including Vivian and Chandra has offered theoretical models which lack experimental proof.  In fact, most progress in physics happens when a theoretical prediction is made which initially lacks experimental proof.  The experimental proof then follows as the idea matures.  For example, general relativity was purely theoretical until the bending of light by the sun’s gravity was experimentally measured in 1919.  The experiment would not have been performed without the theoretical prediction. 
>  
> Another problem is that objections were registered without also addressing the arguments I gave to support my conclusions.  The central point was that there is no support for my contention that vacuum energy has energy density in excess to 10-9 J/m3. However, before addressing this point, I want to discuss the competition to my model of particles and forces.  The competition has the electrostatic force being transferred by virtual photons.  There is absolutely no experimental proof that virtual photons transfer the electrostatic force.  In fact, there are numerous reasons to doubt this.  For example: 1) How is attraction achieved? 2) How does an electric field achieve measurable energy density from “virtual” photons?  3) What exactly is a virtual photon? (size, wavelength, frequency, etc.)  4) How does a virtual photon locate a distant electron?  I could go on, but you get the point. 
>  
> Also, the competition says that the gravitational force is transferred by either the geometry of curved spacetime or by virtual gravitons. Both of these also have problems.  Curved spacetime is fine to explain a particle following a geodesic, but there is a real force when two masses are physically held apart.  Where does this force come from?  Curved spacetime does not explain the gravitational force.  In other words, there is no experimental proof that the geometry of spacetime can generate a force corresponding to the gravitational force. Also, gravitons have many of the same problems previously enumerated for virtual photons.  There is no experimental proof of gravitons.
>  
> My explanation of both the electrostatic force and gravity is based on the idea that vacuum energy is real.  The uncertainty principle implies that the distance between points varies by ± Planck length (Lp) and perfect clocks in flat spacetime can differ by ± Planck time (Tp).  This simple insight is the basis for the wave-based energy density of spacetime.  This energy density has been calculated and shown to be vastly different from the observable energy density which averages10-9 J/m3. It is also the basis of everything in the universe – all particles, fields and forces. No extra dimensions are needed.  How come when people freely propose extra dimensions there is no chorus demanding experimental proof?  However, when energetic spacetime is assumed, then objections are heard even though there is numerous reasons to believe that the vacuum has energy density.
>  
> Unlike virtual messenger particles transferring forces, this wave-based particle model has real predictions which were easy to prove correct.  For example, the first set of predictions were that both the electrostatic force and the gravitational force were the result of waves generated by fundamental particles at the particle’s Compton frequency.  When these forces were expressed in the natural units of the particles, they would reveal that gravity was a nonlinear effect that scaled with wave amplitude squared and electrostatic effects scaled with wave amplitude to the first power.  In other words, it should be possible to prove or disprove whether this model was correct by doing either a calculation or an experiment which tested this relationship.  In the paper Spacetime Based Foundation of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity equations 15 to 23 show that these predictions are correct.  I have subsequently generated other equations showing the close relationship between the gravitational force and the electrostatic force. This “foundation” paper was previously attached to my posts and is also available at http://onlyspacetime.com/QM-Foundation.pdf
>  
> Both the Newtonian gravitational equation and the Coulomb law equation have been experimentally verified.  Therefore, showing how there equations are related by a square is the same as doing an experiment. If you are looking for predictions which have not been experimentally verified, I have those also.  In chapter 9 of my book I discuss an electric field experiment  that should be possible but difficult. However, even then I am able to show that it is possible to verify the accuracy of the prediction with a thought experiment.  Suppose that it was possible to increase the intensity of a laser beam to arbitrarily large powers.  If the beam is focused to 1 wavelength in diameter, then the prediction is that it should be possible to reach a condition where the properties of spacetime would achieve 100% modulation of the vacuum energy density at the laser’s wavelength.  Spacetime should be incapable of transmitting more power than the predicted 100% modulation level through the focused spot.  Imagine that this experiment was performed by some advanced civilization.  At great expense, they would discover that this prediction was correct.  The 100% modulation level corresponds to the level that makes a black hole.  Once the black hole forms, no further light could be transmitted through this volume of spacetime – just as predicted.
>  
> Finally, the “New Aether” paper contains a new calculation which gives the “interactive” density ρi, energy density Ui, mass mi and energy ei encountered by a gravitational wave with angular frequency ω and reduced wavelength λ.  Ignoring the numerical constant k, these equations are very simple:
>  
> ρi = ω2/G
> Ui = Fp/λ2
> mi = Zs/ω
> ei = Fpλ
>  
> These are all explained in the aether paper.  I know that none of these will not be completely satisfying, but they are given because they imply that different frequencies encounter different amount of energy density.  Only Planck frequency encounters 10113 J/m3 energy density.  If you have no need for a higher frequency than the Compton frequency of the Higgs boson, then you need not concern yourself with energy density higher than about 1046J/m3.  This also happens to be the energy density of the Higgs field from QED.     
>  
> John M.
>  
>  
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Vivian Robinson
> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 2:25 PM
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> Subject: Re: [General] The New Aether
>  
> 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>
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150723/3b10e4b2/attachment.htm>