ZPE_Logo
  
Search        
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 150 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Events
  • (July 7, 2017 - July 9, 2017) Energy Science & Technology Conference
  • (July 28, 2017 - July 29, 2017) COFE-9

  • Hot Links
    Aetherometry

    American Antigravity

    Chava Energy

    Closeminded Science

    EarthTech

    Energy Science

    Energy21

    Innoplaza

    Integrity Research Institute

    Interstellar Technologies

    JLN Labs

    KeelyNet

    New Energy Movement

    New Energy Times

    The Orion Proj.

    Panacea-BOCAF

    QVac_Eng

    RexResearch

    Science Hobbyist

    Tom Bearden's Page

    Unlimited electric energy

    USPTO

    Want to Know

    Other Info-Sources
    NE News Sites
    AER_Network
    Alternative Energy News
    KeelyNet_News
    NextEnergyNews
    PESWiki/News
    NE Discussion Groups
    Energetic Forum
    Energy2000
    Free_Energy
    Greenglow
    JLNLabs
    KeelyNet
    NuEnergy
    OverUnity
    Sarfatti_Physics
    Sweet-VTA
    Tapten
    Tomorrow-energy
    Vortex
    Magazine Sites
    Distributed Energy
    Electrifying Times
    ExtraOrdinary Technology
    IE Magazine
    New Energy Times

    Interesting Links

    Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
    SciTech Daily Review
    NEXUS Magazine
    radioioAmbient

    Why physicists must accept the aether back
    Posted on Monday, August 03, 2015 @ 22:59:11 EDT by vlad

    Science WGUGLINSKI writes: To:  Dr. Ludwik Kostro, University of Gdansk (author of the book “Einstein and the Ether”)
     

    Dear Dr. Kostro,

    I would like to explain something you did not understand: why Einstein did not succeed to bring  back the aether to Physics after 1916.

    As you know, in the 19th Century the physicists have supposed that the light moves by waves in the aether like the water waves move in the surface of a lake.  Such concept of aether is known as “luminiferous-eather”.


    By considering that light moves as an electromagnetic disturbance (waves) of a medium (aether), then the motion of the Earth about the Sun must have influence in the speed  of the light.  That’s why Michelson and Morley had built an interferometer so that to detect a difference in the speed of light.

    The experiment made by Michelson and Morley did not detect any difference in the speed of the light, and that that’s why the aether was banned definitively from the Physics by Einstein in 1905, and his stronger reasons for rejecting the aether were the following:

    1-  The experiment did not detect the aether

    2-  From experiments is known that light moves by transverse waves. But by considering that light is a propagation of longitudinal waves, the luminiferous-aether would have to have the tenacity of the steel, so that to be possible for the light to move by transverse waves.

    Nevertheless, we have to note that what the Michelson-Morley experiment did not detect was the luminiferous-aether.  And also the tenacity of the steel required for the propagation of transverse waves in a medium is regarding to the luminiferous-aether.   Therefore, the arguments  used by Einstein for rejecting the aether are applied to the luminiferous-aether only.

    In short, the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment does not imply in the rejection of the aether.  The negative result imply in the rejection of the luminiferous-aether.  The experiment does not imply in the rejection of a “non-luminiferous-aether”.

    In the paper “A Model of the Photon” published in my book “Quantum Ring Theory”  is proposed that the photon is composed by two corpuscles (particle and antiparticle), moving with helical trajectory (the zitterbewegung discovered by Schrodinger in the Dirac’s equation of the electron).
    http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Ring-Theory-Wladimir-Guglinski/dp/0972134948/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1438648660&sr=1-5&keywords=guglinski

    Such model of photon does not require a luminiferous-aether for its propagation, because the photon does does not move in the non-luminiferous-aether like waves in the surface of a lake.  The light is not a propagation of waves.

    In 2013 the European Physical Journal has published the paper “The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light” where the authors propose an idea similar to the photon proposed in my QRT.
    In spite of the authors do not consider a model of photon moving with helical trajectory, in the item 3 of the article (The vacuum permeability), they say:

    We propose a physical mechanism to produce the vacuum permeability from the elementary magnetism of the charged fermion pairs under a magnetic stress. Each charged efemeral fermion carries a magnetic moment proportional to the Bohr magneton.

    We assume the orbital moment and the spin of the pair to be zero. Since the fermion and the anti fermion have opposite electric charges, the pair carries twice the magnetic moment of one fermion
    ”.
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7#page-1

    So, while the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment does not imply in the rejection of the aether, on another hand other experiment published by the journal Nature in 2011 has detected the non-luminiferous-aether, since light cannot  be created from nothing:
    Moving mirrors make light from nothing
    http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110603/full/news.2011.346.html


    Dear Dr. Kostro,

    in your book ALBERT EINSTEIN’S NEW ETHER AND HIS GENERAL RELATIVITY you told us that after 2016 the own Einstein tried to bring back the aether to Physics again:
    http://www.mathem.pub.ro/proc/bsgp-10/K10-KOSTRO.PDF

    But even the own Einstein did not succeed to bring back the aether to Physics after 1916, because of two facts not understood by you, by Einstein, by Lorentz, and by John Stachel.  In the page 81 of your paper you say:

    At the same time, Einstein proclaimed once again that the ,,ether in the old sense does not exist”[7]. Therefore, we can say following John Stachel reviewing my book: ,,The ether he reintroduced differed fundamentally from the ether he had banished.”[8]

    The reasons of the failure of the Einstein’s attempt are the following:

    1-  Einstein had proposed a new structure for the aether.

    2-  However Einstein did not remove the main cause for the rejection of the aether:   the consideration that the light is a propagation of waves in the aether.

    3-  Therefore after 1916 Einstein continued to consider the concept of luminiferous-aether in his new attempts trying to bring back the aether.

    4- The concept of luminiferous-aether, as Einstein continued to consider after 1916, was already proved be wrong by the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

    5 – By keeping the concept of luminiferous-aether, it is impossible to bring back the aether to Physics, no matter what sort of structure for the aether can be proposed.  Einstein could propose billion of new structures for the aether, and all they would be unacceptable, because he was keeping the luminiferous concept of aether in his new proposals.

    6- The aether can be brought back to Physics only by considering a non-luminiferous aether.  And a non-luminiferous-aether requires a model of photon moving with helical trajectory, as proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.

    But there are another reasons why the physicists must bring back the aether to Physics, and the main of them is the following: the aether contributes for the properties of the matter, and it is impossible to conciliate the Quantum Mechanics with the behavior of the atoms, nuclei, and particles as quarks without considering the structure of the aether.
    For instance, it is impossible to conciliate the Schrodinger equation with the atom model existing in Quantum Mechanics, because Shrodinger developed his equation by considering a free electron, and therefore his equation cannot be applied to the atom model considered in Quantum Mechanics.  Such paradox was solved by an unacceptable way, as explained in the Book Description for my book “The Evolution of Physics: From Newton to Rossi's eCat”, published by Amazon.com:
    http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Physics-Newton-Rossis-eCat-ebook/dp/B00UDU8978/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1438648660&sr=1-1&keywords=guglinski

    I wrote that Book Description as a reply to the Nobel Prize in Physics Dr. Brian Josephson, who along a discussion with me was desperately trying an impossible enterprise:  to save the Quantum Mechanics without to bring back the aether to Physics.

    In the book Quantum Ring Theory it is proposed a new hydrogen atom where:

    1- the electron moves around the proton with helical trajectory

    2- the space (aether) around the proton is non-Euclidian  (different of the Euclidian space considered in Quantum Mechanics).

    3- when the electron moves in radial direction within the proton’s electrosphere (between two orbits), the electron moves with CONSTANT SPEED  (because of the non-Euclidian space).  The atom emits the photons when the electron jumps between two orbits (so, when the electron is moving in radial direction).  Therefore, as the electron moves with CONSTANT SPEED,  it behaves as a FREE electron.

    As said, it is impossible to conciliate the Schrodinger equation with the atom model of Quantum Mechanics, and the quantum physicists adopted the absurd postulate mentioned by Eisberg and Resnick in their book:

    ===================================================
    It must be emphasized that we arrive to (5-22) by considering an special case: the case of a free particle where P(x,y) =Vo , a constant. In this point it seems reasonable to argue that we have to hope that the wave equation of the quantum mechanics should have the same shape of (5-22) for the general case in which the potential energy V(x,t) actually varies as function of x and t (i.e., the force is not null); but we cannot prove that this is true. However, we can postulate that it is true. We do it, and so we take (5-22) as the wave equation of the quantum mechanics whose solutions Q(x,t) give us the wave functions that must be associated to the motion of a particle with mass m under the influence of forces which are described by the potential energy function V (x,t). The validity of the postulate must be judged from the comparison of its implications with the experiments, and we are going to do several of those comparisons later.”
    ===================================================

    The only way to explain the success of the Schrodinger equation is by considering the contribution of the aether within the electrosphere of the atoms, as shown in my book Quantum Ring Theory.

    Dr. Brian Josephson did not reply to my argument published in the Book Description in the Amazon.com.  Actually he has decided to run away from discussion, because he has realized that it is impossible to explain why Schrodinger equation works well if we try to explain it from the foundations of the Quantum Mechanics.

    I hope other scientists will understand that the paradoxes and unsolved puzzles in Quantum Mechanics will never be solved by simply running away of the discussions.

    Also, I hope other scientists will understand that the paradoxes and unsolved puzzles in Quantum Mechanics   will never be solved if the physicists continue to refuse to bring back the aether to Physics.
     

    Regards

    Wladimir Guglinski


     
    Login
    Nickname

    Password

    Security Code: Security Code
    Type Security Code

    Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

    Related Links
    · More about Science
    · News by vlad


    Most read story about Science:
    100 miles on 4 ounces of water?


    Article Rating
    Average Score: 2.75
    Votes: 4


    Please take a second and vote for this article:

    Excellent
    Very Good
    Good
    Regular
    Bad


    Options

     Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


    "Why physicists must accept the aether back" | Login/Create an Account | 1 comment | Search Discussion
    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

    No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

    Aether is comming back (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Saturday, August 08, 2015 @ 17:23:13 EDT
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    Wladimir Guglinski writes: Dear Dr. Claudio Nassif,

    congratulations for the publication of your papers concerning to a theory bringing back the aether, published in the most important journals of Physics worldwide:

    Deformed special relativity with an invariant minimum speed and its cosmological implications
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12043-008-0136-7

    Doubly Special Relativity with a minimum speed and the Uncertainty Principle
    https://www.scienceopen.com/document/vid/3d1fe249-83d3-4868-a690-4a9faeea9978?0

    Deformed special relativity with an energy barrier of a minimum speed
    http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021827181001652X

    Variation of the speed of light with temperature of the expanding universe
    http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.027703


    And enthusiastic congratulations because you are showing that several unsolved puzzles (impossible to be solved by the current theories developed from the concept of the Einstein’s empty space) are solved   thanks to  your theory based on existence of the aether.

    One could suppose the aether is coming back, because:
    a) your papers are showing that it is possible to solve the unsolved puzzles by considering the aether
    b) and also because many new experiments published in the last 4 years are suggesting the existence of the aether, as “Moving mirrors make light from nothing”:
    http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110603/full/news.2011.346.html

    Nevertheless, dear Dr. Nassif, I have to call your attention that your papers and the experiments published in the last 4 years cannot convince the community of physicists to accept the return of the aether if a fundamental question is not solved:  the concept of aether is incompatible with the current concept of light considered up to now in Modern Physics.
    Because:
    1- the wave-particle concept of light adopted in the Modern Physics requires a luminiferous-aether (where the light moves as a propagation of waves in such luminiferous-aether)

    2-  By considering the luminiferous-aether, the speed of the light must be influenced by the speed of the Earth about the Sun

    3- But the Michelson-Morley experiment has proved that the speed of the Earth does  not influence the speed of the light

    4- After 1916 Einstein tried to bring back the aether, by supposing that it would be possible its return by  proposing in the General Relativity an aether different of that he banned in 1905.  But his attempt made no sense, because the concept of light propagation in Modern Physics is via waves, and so the aether considered in his General Relativity continued to be luminiferous, and therefore dismissed by Michelson-Morley experiment.  Einstein did not eliminate the origin of the crisis between the aether and the Michelson-Morley experiment in his attempts after 1916, and this is the reason why the aether return was not accepted by the physicists. Only by changing the concept of light propagation would be possible to bring back the aether.  But Einstein did not do it.

    5- And therefore the concept of aether cannot be accepted by the community of physicists if the concept of light propagation in the aether continues to be the wave-particle duality.  In order to enable the return of the aether is indispensable to propose a new sort of light propagation, and this new model of light cannot be a propagation of waves in the aether.


    For understanding better what I mean to say, please see my letter to Dr. Ludwik Kostro, entitled “Why physicists must accept the aether back”:
    http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3640&mode=&order=0&thold=0

    A new model of light propagation in the aether is proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory, because in the book is proposed a model of photon composed by particle-antiparticle moving with helical trajectory, and so according to such a model of photon the propagation of light in the aether does not occur via waves.
    Quantum Ring Theory: Foundations for Cold Fusion
    http://www.bauuinstitute.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22:quantum-ring-theory-foundations-for-cold-fusion&catid=8&Itemid=103


    I hope you will realize, dear Dr. Nassif, that the acceptation of the aether’s return by the community of physicists depends on the changing of the model of light propagation in the aether, and so I hope you will realize that it is important to support such a model of light propagation via particle-antiparticle moving with helical trajectory.  The aether can be back only if the concept of light propagation be changed in Modern Physics.

    In my book Quantum Ring Theory published in 2006 is proposed what are the particles and antiparticles which compose the structure of the aether. But in 2015 I have introduced some new additional particles and their antiparticles, so that to eliminate an inconsistence of the model.  The new structure proposed in 2015 is published in Peswiki:

    Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism (2015)
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Aether_Structure_for_unification_between_gravity_and_electromagnetism_%282015%29

    Some of the particles of the aether are being detected by new experiments published in 2015:
    Evidence for photogenerated intermediate hole polarons in ZnO
    http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150422/ncomms7901/full/ncomms7901.html

    Discovery of a Weyl fermion semimetal and topological Fermi arcs
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6248/613.abstract


    Image:Monopole_and_antimonopole_for_repulsive_gravity.png [peswiki.com]



    Regarding the monopole and Anti-Monopole shown in the Science’s paper, it is interesting to note that as the Weyl and the anti-Weyl fermions have contrary electric charge, they have to meet together attracted by the Coulomb interaction, and vanish one each other.
    The same would have to occur with the particle and antiparticle which compose the model of photon proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory.  That’s why I proposed the existence of a particle (and its antiparticle) responsible for a repulsion between the particles and antiparticle which compose the structure of the aether. I have named them particle G(+) and antiparticle G(-).  By this way is avoided the collapse of the photon, and also the collapse of the particles and antiparticles which compose the aether filling the space.

    Among the several serious flaws of the current Standard Model which can be eliminated by bringing  back the aether, I would like to mention the rotation of the atomic nuclei in the ground state. In the beginning of 2015 I had a long discussion via email with the Nobel Prize in Physics Dr. Brian Josephson about such a matter, because according to the current Nuclear Physics the nuclei cannot have rotation in the ground state, since the even-even nuclei with equal number Z of protons and N neutrons must have non-null magnetic moment if they rotate in the ground state. In order to avoid the collapse of the Standard Model, Dr. Josephson said that the nuclei do not rotate in the ground state. See his review “Bad Physics” for my book “The Evolution of Physics- from Newton to Rossi’s eCat”, published in Amazon.com in 2015:
    http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Physics-Newton-Rossis-eCat-ebook/dp/B00UDU8978/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1439037144&sr=1-1&keywords=guglinski#customerReviews

    However new experiments are showing that atomic nuclei rotate at the ground state. Let us speak a little about the matter.

    According to the Standard Model the even-even nuclei with Z=N must have a spherical shape. The nuclear theorists have believed it along 80 years. Unlike, according to the new nuclear model proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory those nuclei have ellipsoidal shape.  As the even-even nuclei with Z=N have null electric quadrupole moment Q=0 , but as Q=0 requires a spherical shape, I had solved the puzzle by proposing an argument in the page 137 of my book QRT.

    In 2012 the journal Nature has published the paper “How atomic nuclei cluster”, describing new experiments which have detected that even-even nuclei with Z=N have ellipsoidal shape, as predicted in my book:
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html

    But the authors of the paper published in Nature faced in 2012 the same problem faced by me many years ago:  how to explain why those nuclei have null Q=0, in spite of they are ellipsoidal.  I sent an email to the journal Nature, and the nuclear theorist Dr. Martin Freer sent me a reply telling the solution for the puzzle.  His argument is the same proposed by me in the page 137 of my book.  He said:
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The nucleus is intrinsically deformed as shown, but has spin 0. Consequently, there is no preferred orientation in the laboratory frame and thus the experimental quadrupole is an average over all orientations and hence is zero. Experimentally is is possible to show that the deformation of the ground state is non zero by breaking the symmetry and rotating the nucleus.
    Martin

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    So, the argument proposed by Dr. Freer makes sense only by considering that even-even nuclei with Z=N rotate in the ground state.

    Other experiment suggesting that even-even nuclei rotate in the ground state is concerning the detection of the pear shape of the nucleus Ra224. Ahead we see Dr. Peter Butler, of the Liverpool University, giving an explanation for the shape of the Ra224, and we realize that he considers the rotation of the nucleus in the ground state.

    Image:PROF_BUTLER_showing_the_z-axis.jpg [peswiki.com]



    The existence of the z-axis of the nuclei (impossible according to the Standard Nuclear Physics), proposed by the physicists of the Liverpool University, is predicted in my new nuclear model published in my book QRT.
     

    According to the Standard Model the rotation of the even-even nuclei at the ground state is impossible because the concept of field adopted in the Quantum Electrodynamics-QED is incomplete, since the structure of the aether was not considered in the concept of field adopted in QED. This is shown in my paper “Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism (2015)”, already mentioned here.

    The incomplete concept of field adopted in the QED is also responsible for the fact that Rossi-Effect is impossible to occur (by considering the Standard Model), as I show in my paper “Cold fusion mystery finally deciphered”:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Cold_fusion_mystery_finally_deciphered

    As you may realize, Dr. Nassif, many puzzles impossible to be solved through the current Standard Model can be solved if the aether comes back to Physics.  However, as I said, there is only one way to bring it back:  is by changing the model of light propagation in the aether, by considering the model of photon with particle and antiparticle moving with helical trajectory.

    Regards
    Wladimir Guglinski



     

    All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
    Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.