Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Jason Wolfe: on 4/18/13 at 16:23pm UTC, wrote Is it possible for there to be dark matter ecologies, lifeforms and even...

Jason Wolfe: on 4/18/13 at 16:17pm UTC, wrote Does the Higgs particle turn physics into alchemy? If matter is caused by...

Anonymous: on 3/12/13 at 20:09pm UTC, wrote Hi Wilhelmus, Things like consciousness and the soul are easier to make...

Wilhelmus de Wilde: on 3/8/13 at 15:40pm UTC, wrote Hi Jason, we are in the same kind of interpretation of our "spirit". In ...

Jason Wolfe: on 3/8/13 at 4:53am UTC, wrote I have an opinion. As a spiritualist by faith - I believe in the existence...

Scott Odierno: on 2/1/13 at 12:34pm UTC, wrote Hi Jason, this does no relate to you post as I am completely lost with the...

Jason Wolfe: on 11/22/12 at 0:15am UTC, wrote Gravity Generator Experiment Tonight! It's a very busy night where I work....

Jason Wolfe: on 10/5/12 at 17:53pm UTC, wrote Hi Stephen, Thank you for taking the time to read my essay. I think you...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "State latency is an explanation for the results of Stern Gerlach experiment..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "Isn't symmetry simply closely related to redundancy even if physicist may..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Robert Rise: "Meet many types of women on ihookup. Some dates better than others. It is..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Steve Dufourny: "FQXI you too I need your help, come all too we have a work to do there..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "lol REVOLUTION SPHERISATION everywhere at all scales,REVOLUTION..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 24, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: The Aether Medium Is Made of Waves by Jason Mark Wolfe [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 12:58 GMT
Essay Abstract

There are technological breakthroughs that cannot occur without a better understanding of the aether medium. The right kind of medium will make it easier to understand quantum mechanics and general relativity. An aether medium made of waves will quickly lead to a correct and practical theory of quantum gravity.

Author Bio

Jason Mark Wolfe in an electronics technician working at Tektronix Inc. He received his BS in Electronics Engineering Technology from DeVry University in 2005, and a BS in Physics from Worcester Polytechnic Institute in 1993.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 04:21 GMT
Hi Jason,

nicely written, easy to read essay and I really like your various diagrams.

I'm afraid I disagree with your conclusion that everything exists because of the aether medium. I think we have the appearance of existing things requiring sensory data and its transmission through a medium of some kind but that the source objects are independently existing and changing. That doesn't detract from the fact that you have done a good job of presenting your point of view.

By the way,

You wrote (* emphasis added by me): "Does it seem strange that particles can *believe* like waves? Well, it depends what people teach you about particles. In classical mechanics, a professor will draw a Cartesian coordinate system on the chalkboard, and then add a bunch of dots which represent particles. Now does it seem strange that particles can behave like waves?..." Sorry for spotting it but it jumped out at me like a badly concealed subliminal message, though I think its really just a typo.

Hope you get lots of readers and good feedback. Good luck.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 07:36 GMT
Hi Georgina,

Yes, that was a typo. It should have been "behave". You are a keen observer of detail. Thank you.

I thought of you when I conceived of the idea. You and others have favored a universe in which source objects exist independent of their image. There is something philosophically pleasing about that. I believe that scientific progress is held back by the fear of letting go of a limiting paradigm. In a way, I am suggesting that nothing is real, it's all a trick of light of the aether medium. At first, the idea terrified me. To tell you the truth, I had to trust in ... to be able to let go of solid ground. I had to let go of the idea that objects are physically real. It's all just a trick of light of the aether. And it's OK.

Bookmark and Share


Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 07:58 GMT
Yes Jason, its a fine thought till you hit the ground : )

I'm only going half way.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 08:38 GMT
OK yes, virtual photons and electrical charges do make the ground very hard. But the ground is made of molecules made of atoms made of protons/neutrons/electrons made of quantum particles. Quantum particles are described by wave-functions. Why would we need wave functions if they weren't a phenomenon of nature. All I did was insert an ontological component called an aether wave. Wave-functions describe aether waves. And that hard ground that breaks our fall is just a bunch of aether waves.

Bookmark and Share



Vijay Mohan Gupta wrote on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 14:02 GMT
Hi Jason,

My view on Ether

Arguments on ether may begin with carryover of Pre-Newtonian concept of space as extension of matter. Cartesian physics considered everything extended to be corporeal, thus rejecting the idea of empty space. Observation of interference and diffraction of light made some theoretician to relate light with sound. In parallel to this, conservation of energy...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 20:45 GMT
Hi Vijay,

It is my view that Michelson-Morley, Newton and others completely misunderstood the aether medium. It's really not surprising, after all they didn't know about quantum mechanics or relativity.

"For space to act as a medium for propagation of light a host of properties shall be assigned to space. "

That is the usefulness of it. The aether includes permittivity, permeability, c, and h, the physics constants, as characteristics.

The aether doesn't have to be anything complicated. In fact it is very simple. It has to satisfy the postulates of SR. So this is the idea I came up with. Calculate all of the wavelength-frequency pairs that satisfy



and you have you aether medium. These waves behave like a wave-function for the quantum vacuum and for flat space-time.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 21:27 GMT
The progression of time is caused by the frequencies of aether waves. The existence of distance is caused by the wavelengths of the aether medium. Space and time are a continuum made of 3D wave-fronts of aether waves that obey



It is really that simple.

Bookmark and Share



Author Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 21:59 GMT
Photons are just excitations of aether waves. Without photons/EM radiation, all you have is the quantum vacuum.

Gravity and equivalent acceleration causes time dilation, gravitational time dilation. When light illuminates curved space-time, the aether medium of a gravity field, it redshifts or blueshifts the light. Acceleration is coupled with redshift/blueshift/frequency shift. If the physics community ever decides it wants to build opto-electronic acceleration field generators, all you do is generate, repeatedly, an EM frequency shift or linear frequency chirp of the form,

,

where



is as large as possible. Then refine your method. This will reveal a whole new area of phenomena permitted by nature. Propulsion is one obvious application. Experiments will teach how to construct the math.

Bookmark and Share



Author Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 4, 2012 @ 01:30 GMT
I wanted to come up with a gravity drive/acceleration field generator by connecting quantum mechanics and special relativity together in some very simple way that could be experimentally verified. Instead of going for a mathematical model, I went with an intuitive model based upon what I thought was the simplest building block of nature. In my estimation, the building blocks are waves that, first and foremost, support the characteristics of light. The speed of light, c, keeps showing up in physics equations in QM, SR and GR. If the ontological building blocks of the laws of physics were LEGO, then the simplest ontological component would be one Lego brick. I think that the simplest building block of our laws of physics is a wave, described as a quantum wave, that when energized, it becomes a photon.

I think that wave-functions can become more complicated than nature really intended. So I will say that wave-functions describe waves of the aether medium, but that sometimes we over-complicate our description of aether waves.

Aether waves are an ontological phenomena of nature. Everything is made of these waves. Aether waves are the complete set of waves that obey

.

This assures that everything that is made of these waves is compliant to the postulates of special relativity.

The whole reason for this paper was to identify an ontological cause for gravity. An aether medium made of waves gives you a threads out of which the fabric of space-time is woven. Distance between two points in space-time is made of all of the wavelengths of the set of waves. Distance is made of wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. Aether waves are a set of frequency/wavelength pairs. So distance in flat space-time is just the wavelengths of that set of waves. When a photon goes by, it is just an excitation of these aether waves.

What is the progression of time? We define one second with an atomic clock that is 9.1 billion periods of a Cesium atom radiation emission. Nature has a whole spectrum of frequencies with which to produce the progression of time.

How does nature produce gravity? It's a curvature of space-time. But space-time is made of waves, right? Gravitational redshift is the illumination of the curvature of space-time, along the radial axis of a gravitating body. That is our hint, our clue for creating a gravity drive.

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 18:26 GMT
Jason

"a particle with mass is the smallest possible frame", "It's all about c = f.lambda." Your wonderfully crisp, direct and refreshing approach is a breath of fresh air, and, more importantly, IMHO increasingly physically accurate and apt.

I do hope, and it does seem, that some of our past discussions have helped evolve your views, at least for whatever reason the fundamental kinetics are now highly consistent. You express things in your own inimitable style, but, when describing the truth, there may be a billion different ways of expressing the same truth. I think yours is as clear as they come.

A tiny typo Georgina didn't spot; On P5 I think you meant; 'curving OR contracting'. Of course 'and' would do just as well, and assume you agree 'dilating' as well as 'contracting'.

I look forward with great interest to how much sense you can make of my own essay, which takes the concepts rather further, possibly to the edge of human comprehension, particularly considering c=f.Lambda on various transformations and viewed from various frames.

The simple fact then is; If c is constant locally on transformation both f and lambda must change equally. I suggest that simple statement is as pregnant as any phrase we have ever heard. Wavelength change is indeed time dilation and length contraction due to temporal evolution of interaction, a la Christian Doppler.

You're certainly a high scorer for me. Best of luck.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
post approved

Author Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 23:29 GMT
Hi Peter,

I was influenced by your perspective, or at least I think we share a very similar point of view.

"The simple fact then is; If c is constant locally on transformation both f and lambda must change equally. I suggest that simple statement is as pregnant as any phrase we have ever heard. Wavelength change is indeed time dilation and length contraction due to temporal evolution of interaction, a la Christian Doppler. "

I completely agree, in fact I thought this was self evident. Trying to explain this to physics educated rocks on sciforum.com has been incredibly frustrating. I would try to explain that the invariance of the speed of light, for all reference frames, is an extremely significant observation; as if the laws of physics were shouting, "It's about properties of light!!!!!!" But I got whacked for trying to use the mathematical " inertial reference frames" as ontological object.

I wanted to express great appreciation for reading my resume and finding something positive about it. Yes, I will read your resume as well. As for grammatical errors, yes, I admit that MS Word is not a reliable grammar checker.

Bookmark and Share



Author Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 01:44 GMT
Peter,

I hope you won't mind if I share the Grand Design with you; a simple version. Aether waves are the ontological building blocks of our universe. All the properties of light (permitivity, permeability, etc.) are built into them. They were inspired by wave-functions of the form,



and the two postulates of special relativity.

#1. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.

#2. The speed of light in free space has the same value C in all inertial frames of reference.

These postulates are hard to explain ontologically, but there is a way. One has to assume that the laws of physics are implemented by the set of (aether) waves that obey,



Inertial frames are a mathematical tool that allows you to set up a coordinate system; but I will refer to them in the ontological sense when I say: inertial reference frames are made of those same aether waves. Particles with mass are the smallest physical objects that can be described with inertial frames. Whatever equations and descriptions are used to describe particles of the Standard Model, those equations describe one or more aether waves. Quarks, gluons, protons, neutrons, hadrons, electrons, leptons all have a unique spectral signature, a range of aether medium frequencies. When those particles are annihilated by their antiparticle, the spectral signature is released as gamma rays. It is this spectral signature that establishes that particle's relationship to its inertial frame's clock (progression of time). This is the simplest way that Standard Model particles can obey the postulates of relativity; they are made out of aether waves which satisfy c = wavelength*frequency.

We experience inertia because the composition of frequencies that make up our particles, they have to frequency shift from one set of aether wave frequencies to another set of aether wave frequencies. We experience this as a force that disturbs inertia.

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 04:12 GMT
Hello Jason

I enjoyed reading your paper. Your enthusiastic defense of the aether is spot on. Einstein did physics no favors by deflecting the concept with his too-clever assumptions in SR, sabotaging all the excellent speculation about the aether from Fresnel to Lorentz, Hertz and others. SR 'works' because mathematics allows alternate formulations of what is taking place. I question this banishing of the aether in my present fqxi essay as well as in my 2005 paper Beautiful Universe referenced therein.

Your concept of a sort of Fourier-like universal wave aether is compelling and you make a good case for it. While I would say that the aether is the carrier and transmitter of waves, I would not go so far as to say that the aether itself is made of waves. Waves of what? And what about dark energy - what compels this expansion?

You may be on the right track that important aspects of matter (but I do not think all) can be described by waves. You may enjoy perusing the far more detailed analysis of this idea, and the mathematical simulations of this concept in my email-friend the late Gabriel LaFreniere's website Matter is made of waves . Sadly his website was taken down at his death this year, but the link is an archived 2011 version of his website. Gabriel expressed his indebtedness to the work of Milo Wolff whose name reminds of yours - another champion of matter as waves.

Good luck and best wishes,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 05:14 GMT
Hi Vladimir,

I am delighted that you enjoyed the paper. I am very pleased that you got the " Fourier-like universal wave aether " idea.

You asked an excellent question, "I would not go so far as to say that the aether itself is made of waves. Waves of what?"

What are these waves made of? I modeled the idea after wave-functions. In a way, these waves are made out of probability, which sounds evasive and hard to imagine. Waves of aether? What does that mean? Basically, aether is a type of empty space that supports the characteristics of light. The closest analogy I can think of is a virtual environment that has rules; the aether would implement that set of rules.

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 14:58 GMT
hi Jason

The word 'aether' or 'ether' or 'luminiferous aether' has had so many different physical concepts described by it I feel sorry I used it without explanation here! The ether declared nonexistent by Michelson and Morley and banished by Einstein was the sort of medium that carried e/m waves. Earlier Fresnel had a better idea - an matter "permeable" to ether. In other words everything is made of it. That is the sort of ether I describe in my Beautiful Universe Theory .

Please also read my fqxi paper to see what I think of probability waves!

I like your "a virtual environment that has rules; the aether would implement that set of rules.". Those roles are what we can test but we can only guess if our models and other conceptualizations are 'really' how Nature operates.

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 21:46 GMT
Hi Vladimir ,

I want to applaud your paper for "A proposal to reconstruct physics from simple physically realistic first principles is outlined using a Beautiful Universe model." The theoretical physics community should be looking for a simple physically realistic building block of some kind from which to construct the laws of physics.

As a very simple approach to answer this very question, I modeled the aether wave after the wave-function for a plane wave and the two postulates of special relativity. I said that aether waves don't have to be physically tangible for them to exist. They are allowed to be extremely subtle.

There is only one definition of an aether medium that makes any sense: it has to be a "light bearing aether". Whatever the true ontological medium really is, it enforces the invariance of the speed of light.

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Aug. 12, 2012 @ 03:54 GMT
Hi Jason

Thank you for the positive and encouraging remarks. The sort of physics I am attempting is trying to build from an assumed starting point, and do agree with you on its being light. But rather than just light-bearing I would say it is light itself. But for it to support gravity and create matter the 'light' will have to have some very special qualities as well. In my theory and as far as my limited knowledge of particle physics allows, I think the dielectric nodes I assumed will do most of the above. Or not! The aether is subtle indeed! Oh and I think one should bypass the requirement for constant light speed, as that conflicts with its slowing down in general relativity - as Einstein himself remarked! Let's all keep on at it - one day it will work!

Cheers

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 19:43 GMT
Hi Vladimir,

I'm not convinced that the speed of light, in a vacuum, can be changed locally because of general relativity. Is this experimentally verified?

Bookmark and Share


Author Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 23:28 GMT
Hi Vladimir,

I just mean that I expect the proper speed of light in a vacuum to reliably be c = 3x10^8 m/s. If the proper speed of light in a vacuum changes from this value, then the permitivity and permeability of free space will change as well. After all,



In other words, the proper speed of light in a vacuum is reliably constant.

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 11:19 GMT
Jason,

You bring an interesting point. Question: Have the permittivity and permeability been ever measured in other than Earth's gravitational field, say near Sea Level?

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jeff Baugher wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 02:28 GMT
Jason,

I do not understand how the wavelengths are the cause of distance as you state:"All of the AM wavelengths, from the Planck length to the diameter of the universe, together they cause distance to exist in nature." Do you mean we have no concept of distance without waves (which I agree with) or do you mean that waves somehow cause the 3 spatial dimensions which would not exist apart from them?

You might have a look at my paper here if you are looking for a a mathematical start for your hypothesis, since in the most basic level we do agree

Regards,

Jeff Baugher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 23:09 GMT
Hi Jeff,

I agree with your second statement, that aether waves cause the 3 spatial dimensions (and time) to exist, apart from which nothing would exist.

The physicics community is motivated by the desire to explain everything with a model. My motiviation is different. I started off with the assumption that gravity drives and acceleration field generators are allowed by nature. So I had to figure out what was the ontological nature of space itself. Afterall, general relativity is about curving space-time. If I'm trying to curve space-time, then I have to know what space-time is. Furthermore, I need some way to curve it without using ridiculous amounts of mass-energy. So basically, I took the two postulates of special relativity, I combined them with wave functions, and I created an aether medium that obeys SR and QM.

Since gravity causes light to freequency shift along the radii of the gravitating body, I decided to try it in reverse. The idea is to emit a linear EM frequency chirp, repeatedly. I hope that this will cause the immediate space-time to curve, thus inducing a gravity field.

For this to work, I have to overcome conservation of energy, but not violate it. Anyway, thank you for inquiring.

Jason Wolfe

Bookmark and Share


Jeff Baugher replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 05:19 GMT
Hi Jason,

The more I think about "I agree with your second statement, that aether waves cause the 3 spatial dimensions (and time) to exist, apart from which nothing would exist. ", I am not sure that there is any difference from the other case. It depends on what you mean by "nothing" exists without the waves. Lets assume that all waves are derivatives (changes) in the aether. If those changes go to zero, then there is no structure (matter or energy) and thus time and dimensions have no meaning. But is that really "nothing"?

I view matter as waves that travel as holes in the aether (versus a particle). If these waves derivatives, (changes of density and pressure) go to zero (change back up to the background pressure and density) then there is no structure, matter or energy and so no concept of space and time but I would not call this "nothing".

Your thoughts?

Regards,

Jeff

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 00:18 GMT
Hi Jeff,

"I view matter as waves that travel as holes in the aether (versus a particle). "

As holes? I am familiar with holes (and electrons) from solid state physics and semiconductor physics. Such a hole is an absence of an electron. But now I am puzzled by your idea that matter travels as a "hole" in the aether. I believe that de Broglie waves tell us that matter (electrons, protons, etc) are groups of aether waves that move together. When a particle meets its antiparticle, that which groups the aether waves (into a particle) cancels out. The result is that the energy stored in the particle is now released as a gamma ray burst.

I am perfectly OK with the idea that a hyperspace might coexist with out space-time. I believe that someday we might figure out how to build a spaceship that can travel through hyperspace thus traveling faster than light. In my interpretation,

space-time is made of waves that obey,



In contrast, hyperspace is made of waves that obey (the same equation but with c'>>c). The equation won't output.

The idea is that two universes, with different physics constants, can coexist without one universe being aware of the other. Hyperspace matter can pass right through us without our noticing it.

My point is that each universe has its own set of aether waves. Each set of aether waves has its own set of physics constants. If aether waves don't exist, then neither does the progression of time nor the existence of distance.

Bookmark and Share


Jeff Baugher replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 06:48 GMT
Mark,

I am with you on most of your explanations. Yes, similar to hole-flow theory but it isn't a complete absence of the aether, the amount remaining depends on the wavelength. Where GR utilizes observers comoving with positive density particles that make up a perfect fluid, I would use observers comoving with reduced density waves in a perfect fluid. It is a classical gauge theory of GR, sort of like a photographic negative of particles.

As for the hyperspace, what is this hypothesis required to account for that one simple aether universe can't?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 07:46 GMT
Hi Jeff,

I mentioned hyperspace for two reasons. First, I wanted to convey the idea that the fundamental building blocks of our universe, and others like it, are aether waves; the physics constants c and h are characteristics of those waves. Second, hyperspace is a fun idea that might even be true. Hyperspace is a way to beat relativity by traveling faster than light, without time travel or any of that impossible stuff. Sure you could travel fast enough, faster than light, to see your own light image jumping into hyperspace; but you can't stop it. You can't stop yourself from jumping into hyperspace.

If there were aether waves with a speed of light characteristic, then there would be no distance and no progression of time. Is it possible to make the aether waves of our space-time cease to exist inside of a 55 gallon drum? Or some suitable volume? I don't know.

Bookmark and Share


Jeff Baugher replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 03:48 GMT
James,

Ah, I see, you are looking if there are any openings in our physics which might allow for things which are currently considered impossible. I wouldn't call it hyperspace, but the concept of concentrating vacuum interests me since it might have some of the same characteristics you are looking for. I have no idea how it could be done but since it should change some of the parameters such as permeability and permissibility, travel might appear faster than light to an outside observer watching a traveler enter and exit such an area.

Jeff

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 16:52 GMT
Hi Jeff,

The only building blocks I am using are aether medium waves that obey



Mass is of course made of particles; each particle has a unique frequency signature or fingerprint. That way, when a particle and antiparticle annihilate each other, gamma rays are released. A particle is just a composition or cluster of aether waves, a cluster of aether waves frequencies. There is energy content that excites those aether waves across a range of frequencies.

Inertia is just the tendency of matter to continue to occupy the same set of aether waves as it moves through space. The reason that we feel acceleration and deceleration of an automobile, for example, is because when we slam on the breaks or apply the gas, we are forcing the particles of our body, of everything in the car, to change to another set of aether waves. Aether waves are things that extend across space. Inertia is when we travel along the same set of aether waves. We feel a force when we change to another set of aether waves.

Bookmark and Share


Jeff Baugher replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 09:18 GMT
Jason,

If I don't answer, please leave a note in my thread so that I get an email. Not a big fan of this forum format since it doesn't seem possible to subscribe to someone's thread.

You and I are thinking along the same lines. To me the easiest way to tackle this is through known errors in equations and once those are corrected to understand how we have been missing the wave equations within them. But first we need to understand why General Relativity can be so accurate in producing answers, but yet still be so incorrect. The only way I know to do this is to invert the equation so that instead of solid "particles" moving within a void, the stress energy tensor describes waves moving within a solid. From that point we can figure out wavelengths and how waves embody the characteristics of light such as the permitivity and permeability of free space, as you state and I agree with. Easy formula switch but the conceptual changes will take a while to intuitively understand, however without doing this first I think we are fighting an uphill battle.

I added a small sketch to my thread to help better explain what I mean, let me know what you think.

Jeff

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:57 GMT
Dear

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 01:16 GMT
Hi Hoang,

Thank you for taking the time to read my essay.

You asked: "Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?"

According to the famous equation E=mc^2, mass is just stored energy. This stored energy can be released in a particle-antiparticle annihilation event. When that occurs, both particles are converted to photons (gamma rays).

The mass of something, let's call it mass m, is the same on the Earth, the moon, in space, everywhere. What changes in the acceleration of gravity. The gravity on earth is 1g, so the force that a mass exerts on a scale is F=mg. On the moon, the acceleration of gravity is much less (approximately 1/6), so the force of gravity is F = (a/6)*m = ma/6.

Again, thank you for reading my essay.

Best wishes,

Jason Wolfe

Bookmark and Share



Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 17:02 GMT
Dear Jason,

I think the aether medium is made not only of waves (photons and neutrino) but also of charged particles. With this is possible to explain the electrical force and gravity. The structure of medium is found in the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter (my essay).

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 11:19 GMT
Hello. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

Thank you and good luck.

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Don Limuti wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 03:40 GMT
Hi Jason,

Glad to see you in another contest. I worked for Tektronix a few years back, in large screen CRTs.

Yes, the world does change.

I like your presentation, and would like it even better if you got rid of the Aether and have a type of wave that just connects masses without any substance in between.

However it still desirves a high rating.

Best of Luck,

Don L.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 23:07 GMT
Hi Don,

It's pretty amazing to meet someone else who worked at Tek. I hope you've moved on to bigger and better things.

The aether is meant to express that the vacuum of space and the geometry of space-time are "something", a medium of some kind, as opposed to the scientifically accepted "nothingness". The Michaelson & Morley experiment struck down "aether particles" and "aether winds" and paved the way to special relativity (which is accurate). SR and GR are very accurate mathematical descriptions of physics. But space and space-time are not made out of mathematics; they are made of some kind of medium which has properties. Such a "fundamental medium" is obviously not made of atoms or particles. In my view, this fundamental medium is made of that which wave-functions are meant to describe.

Thank you for looking at my paper. Good luck in the contest.

Jason Wolfe

Bookmark and Share



Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 16:44 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 07:50 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 08:08 GMT
Hi Jason,

I find what you write in the essay quite interesting. I've rated the paper quite highly. It may be worthwhile to consider your proposal of the origin of gravity further.

One might recast the olden concept of aether (as something with physical characteristics) into something more aligned with the concept of fields. Fields, as conceived by Faraday and Maxwell were not at all liked by Maxwell's mentor Lord Kelvin (William Thompson). He considered them entirely meta-physical. And maybe Lord Kelvin had a very valid point. Fields would seem to be an abstraction of something that complies with a structure and set of mathematical rules. What the fields represent physically is force and energy, i.e., the fields encode the relationships between the application of force and the existence and movement of energy.

With that in mind, the concept of aether seems to be an acknowledgement of the structure and rules governing the behavior and evolution of energy and force. My essay investigates some of those mathematical rules in regard to the origin of relativity and may have interesting parallels to ideas in your essay.

Thanks for your contribution,

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 17:53 GMT
Hi Stephen,

Thank you for taking the time to read my essay. I think you are om the right track in that you see the logical connection between fields (measurable) and the aether medium (the ontology). That makes you one of the most keen observers in the physics community.

I gave you a high score. I wish you luck in the contest.

Jason Wolfe

Bookmark and Share



Author Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Nov. 22, 2012 @ 00:15 GMT
Gravity Generator Experiment Tonight!

It's a very busy night where I work. However, I hope to have time to perform the frequency shifting experiment I've been talking about for the last couple of years. I'm going to test two frequency sweeps,

(1) 1GHz to 2GHz every microsecond,

(2) 100MHz to 2GHz every microsecond.

I'm using an arbitrary waveform generator to generate the frequency sweep. If you've ever looked at gravitational redshift, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

I'm going to try to generate that wave one million times per second. I hope to be able create a time dilation field and the associated gravity field. This is a direct assault on conservation of energy; I am looking for a loophole. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So where did the energy of the big bang come from? Well, I think that gravity is the anti-energy that, when combined with the energy of the big bang, nets to zero. So if my experiment works and I create a little bit of energy, that new energy will also have a gravity field to balance it to zero. This is known as the Zero Energy Universe hypothesis. You've all heard of particle-antiparticle creation/annihilation, right? I have this idea that there exists an Energy-anti-energy mechanism where gravity is the anti-energy.

I believe that the idea will work. However, I am less hopeful that my frequency sweep will have sufficient quality or ampltitude to produce a measureable change in the acceleration field measured by an electronic scale. We'll see what happens.

Bookmark and Share



Scott Odierno wrote on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 12:34 GMT
Hi Jason,

this does no relate to you post as I am completely lost with the subject. I am hoping you are the Jason Wolfe I was close to at WPI. We graduated in 1991 so your graduation date in 1993 surprises me but anyway thought I would try my luck. email me at muslimactuary@yahoo.com or find me on facebook (hassan scott). Would love to catch up...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Mar. 8, 2013 @ 04:53 GMT
I have an opinion. As a spiritualist by faith - I believe in the existence of the soul and spirit entities. I've been trying to figure out how to reconcile these things with the laws of physics, particularly quantum mechanics. Neurobiology seems to be able to explain a whole range of cognitive events and behaviors as just parts of the brain that interact with each other in this electrochemical...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Mar. 8, 2013 @ 15:40 GMT
Hi Jason, we are in the same kind of interpretation of our "spirit".

In my essay "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION" I have tried to glue together our physical knowledge of today with my own spiritual thoughts. Indeed we are just in the beginning of a quest that will evolve our "mind" properties and even be able to chanfe of time lines.

greetings (I await your post on my thread so that I am warned)

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 12, 2013 @ 20:09 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,

Things like consciousness and the soul are easier to make sense of when you solve the riddle of the Uncertainty principle. Why should science be able to predict which quantum state the particle will take, when it is the unseen hand that reserves the right to choose.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Apr. 18, 2013 @ 16:17 GMT
Does the Higgs particle turn physics into alchemy? If matter is caused by the Higgs field, and all matter/energy/fields are made of a growing list of fundamental particles, then particle physics must be turning into alchemy. By alchemy, I mean that strange and mysterious components transmute one into another to produce seemingly magical effects (like a Higgs field). With huge quantities of dark matter in the universe that cannot be accounted for by known standard model particles, one could imagine the existence of entire branches of new fundamental particles that make up forms of matter invisible to photons.

Perhaps the stories of UFO's shutting down nuclear missile silos are true encounters with dark matter lifeforms that coexist with us (dark as in dark matter).

Bookmark and Share



Author Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Apr. 18, 2013 @ 16:23 GMT
Is it possible for there to be dark matter ecologies, lifeforms and even civilizations that we share the earth with. They would constitute an alien civilization without any need for a warp drive. Could this explain the grays (the gray aliens)? Could this explain the stories of alien abductions?

Bookmark and Share



Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.