 |
There are currently, 195 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Why physicists must accept the aether back
Posted on Monday, August 03, 2015 @ 22:59:11 UTC by vlad
|
|
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
|
| |
|
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.
| |
Average Score: 2.75
Votes: 4
| |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Aether is comming back (Score: 1)
by vlad on Saturday, August 08, 2015 @ 17:23:13 UTC
(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
 [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.
 [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 |
|
|
|
|
