Why physicists must accept the aether back
Date: Monday, August 03, 2015 @ 22:59:11 GMT Topic: Science
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 “luminiferouseather”.
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
luminiferousaether 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 MichelsonMorley experiment did not
detect was the luminiferousaether. And also the tenacity of the steel
required for the propagation of transverse waves in a medium is
regarding to the luminiferousaether. Therefore, the arguments used
by Einstein for rejecting the aether are applied to the
luminiferousaether only.
In short, the negative result of the
MichelsonMorley experiment does not imply in the rejection of the
aether. The negative result imply in the rejection of the
luminiferousaether. The experiment does not imply in the rejection of a
“nonluminiferousaether”.
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/QuantumRingTheoryWladimirGuglinski/dp/0972134948/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1438648660&sr=15&keywords=guglinski
Such
model of photon does not require a luminiferousaether for its
propagation, because the photon does does not move in the
nonluminiferousaether 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%2Fe2013305787#page1
So,
while the negative result of the MichelsonMorley 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
nonluminiferousaether, 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/bsgp10/K10KOSTRO.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 luminiferousaether in his new attempts trying
to bring back the aether.
4 The concept of luminiferousaether,
as Einstein continued to consider after 1916, was already proved be
wrong by the negative result of the MichelsonMorley experiment.
5
– By keeping the concept of luminiferousaether, 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
nonluminiferous aether. And a nonluminiferousaether 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/EvolutionPhysicsNewtonRossiseCatebook/dp/B00UDU8978/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1438648660&sr=11&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 nonEuclidian (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 nonEuclidian 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 (522) 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 (522)
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 (522) 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

