The Aether, Black Holes and the Standard Model (Chapman)

The following post was made originally be Chapman in the Always On Thread

The topic of “The Aether” recently popped up in the thread about the EM Drive. I have much to say on the topic, but I did not want to divert that thread from it’s primary topic, so I will just post a few thoughts and questions here, in the Open Thread, on the off chance anyone else may have any thoughts or insights to share…

To start things off, let me outline a seemingly unrelated problem I can not reconcile, involving General Relativity, The Standard Model, and Black Holes. I say “seemingly unrelated” because while the issue does not directly reference or involve the Aether, I believe The Aether to be the only viable answer.

So, here you go Kids; think on this…

General Relativity tells us all about Gravity Wells. I will not waste your time reviewing all the details – you either understand it, or you do not – but the key takeaway is that gravity actually warps space-time. From this concept we get Gravitational Lensing, Worm Holes… and Black Holes.

Black Holes are depicted with massive accretion discs, are modeled in binary star formations SUCKING the very life out of their nearby partners, and are reported to be the Gravatic foci at the heart of Galaxies.

With Black Holes, you have a sufficiently large mass so as to cause Gravity to completely warp space in on itself. Every straight line originating below the event horizon is bent back and terminates at the singularity. There is no way out, because there is no DIRECTION that points “out”. This idea is far more complex than simply looking at it as a matter of the escape velocity below the Event Horizon being greater than the speed of light, which is TRUE, as a statement, but the CAUSE is the Gravitational bending of space itself. Again, this is THE great insight of General Relativity.

On the other hand, the Standard Model is built upon the idea of Fermions, which are the material particles that serve as the actual building blocks of physical matter, and Bosons, which are particles/quasi-particles that mediate the transfer of the primary forces (EM, Weak Nuclear, Strong Nuclear, Mass, and Gravity) between those Fermions. For each force that works on observable matter, there is a class of boson which is being exchanged between those particles and actually conveying the attraction or repulsion effect of the force in question. The key take away here is that the Standard Model describes forces as being mediated by carrier particles being exchanged between interacting material particles.

So… Do you see where this is going???

Gravity is understood to be mediated by the Graviton. This particle has not yet been claimed to have been observed, but it’s existence is absolutely mandatory according to the physical mechanics upon which the Standard Model is based. And it’s existence is the basis of a whole universe of ideas and theories about Gravitic Propulsion, Worm Holes, Warp Drives, and Anti-Gravity devices.

But THINK about Black Holes for just a moment longer. As stated, below the event horizon space-time itself is physically warped back on itself. All vectors terminate at the singularity. It is a closed space. And THAT means that even GRAVITONS can not escape!

THERE IS NO PHYSICAL WAY FOR SINGULARITY GRAVITONS TO INTERACT WITH REAL-SPACE! There is no path by which the Singularity Gravitons can exchange with passing material particles outside of the event horizon. In short, once a black hole has formed, it will cease to have ANY gravitational influence with external matter. You could STAND 5 feet from the event horizon and feel NO EFFECT. You could not orbit around it, because there is no gravity well at all. This simple fact also means that they can not be the seeds at the heart of galaxies.

Not only would there be no light escaping, and no gravitational emanations, but because the Black Hole would be totally untethered from real-space, it would have no observable mass in real-space. It would no longer maintain “location” in real-space relative to it’s local point of origin. At the instant of it’s formation, the black hole would appear to zip away at high velocity, as it would no longer maintain whatever relative velocity it had as it was moving along with the common velocity it shared with the local neighborhood. It would actually be just stopping in terms of absolute space, but of course the rest of local space would still carry forward along its previous vector, and with whatever velocity it already had.

Just to simplify the idea, we can sum things up by saying that if Photons, just one sample of the boson class, can not escape the black hole, then NONE of the FAMILIES of bosons can either. ALL FORCES ARE DISRUPTED by the same mechanism.

Unless the Standard Model is wrong, and General Relativity is only a philosophy. Simply accepting the Aether would allow Black Holes to work as predicted, and reportedly observed. In fact, with an Aether, black holes would exhibit MORE gravity than the same mass in real-space!

CONCLUSION: Contrary to the current Scientific Theories supporting The Standard Model, FORCES can not be interactions between material particles being mediated directly between those particles by a subordinate set of carrier particles. The only workable answer is that there IS an Aether, and that the observed forces are interactions between material particles and The Aether, or interactions between particles via waveforms within the Aether.

1. EM is mediated by Photons, which are just coherent waves through the Aether.

2. MASS is just an Impedance effect resulting from material particles moving through the Aether, and is actually responsible for the formation of Photons.

3. Gravity is the result of non-coherent waves in the Aether, which drive all material particles towards each other, exactly as is observed by boats in open water.

4. Weak nuclear force is perfectly reasonable EM induced activity on the quark scale.

5. Strong nuclear force is the result of a physical “flow” within the Aether that surrounds all rotating particles, and creates what amounts to a “micro-quasar”. Also, there are no blue, red, and green quarks. Quarks join up in threes because each must align at 90 degrees to each of it’s neighbors in order to have their axial flow not repel.

Grand Unification becomes simple mechanics once you accept the existence of The Aether.

And for the record – Matter and Anti-Matter do NOT annihilate! Get THAT ONE straight, and most of the other mysteries become obvious also…

  • Charles

    .
    What’s with Stoyan Sarg and his BSM – SG?. I’m not bright enough to figure it out?
    .

    • Chapman

      His BSM (Basic Structure of Matter) theory IS an Aether theory.

      His whole point is that “space” is not, and CAN NOT BE a classical vacuum, such being defined as “an area with nothing in it”.

      QM begrudgingly admits to a Quantum Foam, which is a scale at which particles condense briefly, in pairs, from the universal “fields of force” that span the universe, before fading back out of existence – and basically only sticking around in THIS reality if they are disturbed while “here” and their process is interrupted.

      I ADMIT!!! This is a VERY simplistic and imprecise description of the deep physics of the QM model, but it IS the concept. Matter does not “exist” now as a primordial substance that has history. Matter “pops” into existence from the energy realms. The physical population of particles we call “matter” are only the current occupants of local space. They came from nothing, and will return to nothing. And the VACUUM of space REALLY IS JUST EMPTY SPACE.

      The contrast between QM and Any of the many Aether theories, is best reduced down to one idea, which one can credit to Ridley Scott. Yes, THAT Ridley Scott!

      “In space, no-one can hear you scream”.
      To that we simply add,
      “But even in space, you can STILL take a baseball to the crotch”.

      The critical concept here is that in a vacuum, there can be no waves, because it takes a medium for a wave to propagate through. Sound is a waveform, and in space there is nothing to CARRY sound between Screamer and passive observer. As a result, the only interaction between two objects is via a force being mediated by yet another, smaller, object being exchanged between them. This is the basis of the Standard Model classification of Fermions (the objects) and Bosons (the “Others”). And then QM goes on to insist that ALL these particles are just static “kinks” in energy fields, and that they form, and dissolve, constantly. And better yet, where there is NOW a particular particle, like say a Higgs Boson, that boson may spontaneously dissolve, and the energy may then miraculously REFORM itself into a couple of Quarks, or a couple OTHER bosons, and then They may dissolve to pure energy again and then reform into yet a third entity.

      Aether theory, on the other hand, says that ALL those particles are REAL. As real as you and I, and the Sun and the Moon… and baseballs. AND, that all those particles are just composite clumps of smaller particles, and those are made up of a collection of even SMALLER particles, all the way down to the Planck Scale. At 10^-35 meters, space is a real liquid mass of SOMETHING. Waves propagate THROUGH that liquid, and bits of the liquid can solidify and start the hierarchical sequence of particle constructions.

      And THIS is a key idea – that every particle IN that liquid is interacting WITH the liquid it is floating in. The liquid forms a meniscus upon the SURFACE of those particles, like the rim of water climbing the inside of a glass of water on your counter. This creates a particular type of drag, where the energy of the motion of a particle THROUGH the liquid is being STORED by the liquid around the particle, and returned to the particle on passing. This results in what WE see as MASS. It is exactly the same function we see on a larger scale as Impedance in electronics, which is different from Resistance. Resistance is energy lost. Impedance is Energy applied, transferred, and returned. This can ONLY happen if there is a STUFF that the particle is moving THROUGH.

      Anyway, THAT is what Sarg is talking about. That forces, like Gravity, Mass, and Radiation, are just the result of what we see as “Matter” interacting with the fluid it floats in, and that THAT liquid is a grid-work of Planck level primary particles that serve as the canvas that the perceptible “portrait of reality” is painted on. But do not mistake this with some “holographic universe” theory. The Aether is a REAL thing. A real liquid. And particles may build up to ever bigger constructs, like a pearl forming in an Oyster, but just as that pearl is STILL made up of a bunch of calcium and other atoms, so too those particle constructs are just collections of smaller bits, right back down to the Planck scale. And the total AMOUNT of those particles, way down there, never changes that we can see. God does not constantly work on creation. He is not constantly “fiddling” and adding NEW stuff to the universe. What is, is. What was made, was made, and is HERE, and is just swirling around, combining and recombining, exchanging energy by waves, direct collision, and alignment. That’s it.

      And it is all driven by one single force, which we see in OUR scale, as being the electromagnetic force. All the other forces are just “effects” that we observe due to that force playing out on all those levels of scale from the Planck up.

      Now you can see why Aether theorists see the idea of QM finding a grand unified theory as a joke. The forces are unified BECAUSE of the Aether, which is the one thing in ALL of the universe that they ADAMANTLY insist does not, and can not exist. These guys believe that superposition allows, through probability, that a pink unicorn CAN spontaneously manifest itself right in the Oval Office on a particular Sunday morning, but the idea that there is a “there” there, and space is REAL…. well, that just makes their heads explode.

  • Chapman

    Well, there are 377 papers there, and a few of them are a little deep, so I will need time to assimilate them all.

    I have only made it through a couple hundred so far, so let me get back at you after diner when I am done…

    • Chapman

      BAZINGA!!!
      🙂

      _____________________________

      That is a HELL of a resource! It will take me MONTHS to sort through, but I am scanning the titles to find the papers of highest interest to chew on.

      Thank you for a great link to papers that harmonize with the base tones of my own internal science-perspective melody.

  • Chapman

    So now I hear you thinking, “So, what’s his Angle?”

    Well, now we have to think of reflection angles versus thrust vectors. As you know, the angle at which a traveling object approaches a surface, called the angle of incidence, is the same as the angle it will reflect OFF the surface. If it hits head-on, it will bounce away straight back. But if it strikes a glancing blow at 20 degrees, it leaves at 20 degrees. In each incident, the the traveling body has a momentum that has a direct component and a lateral component, in relation to the reflecting surface. The lateral forces imparted to the surface are equal, but opposite, and cancel out, while the direct forces add together and “push” the surface away. But that push is ALWAYS exactly perpendicular to the surface, and has NO relation to the angle of the path of the reflected object, other than in the MAGNITUDE of the force absorbed.

    If YOU were the surface, you would interpret a massive hailstorm of impacts as being bombarded head-on by a large number of “balls” of different size and mass. You would not perceive any ANGLE component in the reflected bodies. They would all appear to come straight at you, but they would seem to range from little rubber balls from a JACKS set, to tennis balls, to base balls, to billiard balls, each hitting you with different force. In all cases, every collision sets you STRAIGHT BACK. The vector of imparted force is always perpendicular to the plane of the surface impacted.

    The MAGNITUDE of that force is determined by the angle of the ball, and what percentage of its momentum is along that perpendicular line.

    This is a critical concept. It does not matter what direction the ball was moving, the direction of the resulting collision imparts force on the reflecting body that is only determined by the orientation of the surface of that body. The direction of the ball only determines the MAGNITUDE of that imparted force.

    We have to POUND that idea into our heads, because it is easy to look at a photon traveling right to left, and see that leftward momentum as being the energy that can be transferred, but this simply is not the case. The dynamics of INDIVIDUAL reflections are fixed by the geometry between the photon and the surface, in a frame of reference that ONLY involves the relative angle between THEM at the point of contact, and are not limited by OUR perception of which “direction” the photon appears to be travelling.

    The side wall of the thrust chamber is angled at, say, 5 degrees to the x axis. This means the angle between the side walls is 10 degrees, and results in a narrowing of the wave guide, and makes for a smaller end plate at the far end. A photon traveling to the right, and glancing off the side wall, imparts a force that is always angled toward the small end. And simple physics tell us that a photon traveling to the left, retracing that exact path BACKWARDS, STILL imparts the identical force on the wall towards the small end. Regardless of the perceived “direction” of the photon’s travel on the x axis of the thruster, ALL sidewall reflections result in some component of thrust being transferred to the body of the thruster in the direction of the small end.

    I will stop for a bit and let you ponder this. There is much more, but this needs to simmer a bit. Work it out and confirm it for yourself, in your own mind. It is NOT the whole picture, but it IS foundational, and easy to lose grip on when things get complicated, once we start actually calculating a photons full “tour” through the thruster.

    • Chapman

      From any starting point, we can see that the refection angle against the side walls, as a photon travels towards the small end, becomes closer to perpendicular TO the next side wall. The angle is slowly shifted, until the next reflection is at 90 degrees, which will reverse the photon and have it retrace it’s path back down to the large end. If properly designed, photons will never REACH the small end plate. The tapered wave guide will act like a Jacob’s Ladder, and photons will rush down the wave guide towards the small end, bouncing from side wall to side wall, in ever steeper increments, until forward motion (I said MOTION, NOT momentum) relative to the x axis is entirely lost, and the photons turns an about face, and start the long path back to the large end plate.

      The NUMBER of reflections across the chamber body, from side to side, for any single cycle is the product of the angle of the side walls relative to each other.

      When the photon gets BACK to the large end plate, there is only a single reflection turning the photon back down the wave guide, and that reflection is NEVER at a full 90 degree approach to the plate. The final reflection off a sidewall will have the photon reflecting off the large end plate at a shallow angle and across to the other sidewall, to begin the process again. The shallow angle of the reflection at the large end plate means there is not even a full quanta of energy imparted negatively on the thruster’s x axis.

      This effect is multiplied in direct proportion to the number of photons. The greater the Q factor, the more reflections you get from each photon you spent your energy budget creating, and the lower the incidence of random absorption, which just pumps heat into the thruster walls without the benefit of coherent thrust generation.

      At this point, it should be obvious that, BECAUSE it is the relative angles of the side walls to each other that creates the thrust, the cross sectional distance BETWEEN the walls at any point is, like the difference between end plate sizes, is only a consequence of the geometry of maintaining a relative angle the full length of the wave guide, and in no way contributes to the generation of thrust. It just makes the thruster footprint large and cumbersome. But we see two things.

      First, the effective length of the wave guide is limited to the angle of the walls and the distance a photon travels “down” the wave guide before being turned back on itself. There is no functional need for the wave guide to be LONGER than that distance.

      Second, there is no need to just allow the side walls to slowly grow farther apart in respect to the direction of the large plate. At any point, the side walls can constrict abruptly, reducing, and resetting, the sidewall separation distance, while not effect the relative angle BETWEEN the side walls. The result is a wall shape that is more a saw tooth. Imagine the angled annular teeth an a hose bib. THAT would be a workable inner surface geometry that compacts the overall thruster diameter, and combining that modification with limiting the wave guide length to the EFFECTIVE WORKING LENGTH of the photon tracks would greatly increase the thrust/volume metric of the thruster system. It would not increase the thrust itself, nor use less power for the derived thrust, but it would increase efficiency relative to the volume the thruster occupies.

      • Chapman

        All this is well and good. Happy days. But…

        I see a problem.

        It is deep in the mathematical weeds, and I am working to resolve it. But I will not state it here for a simple reason.

        I approached this topic based on a simple assumption – that being that it is “reported” that thrust has been observed, and that no clear understanding of the mechanism exist. And when you look into it, the theories proposed all involve theoretical radiations, or misinterpretations of velocity and mass rules. Some theories totally ignore the actual mechanics of the photons themselves, and that just boggles my mind.

        BUT, nevertheless, I was working with the assumption that the thrust is real, and pursuing justification with an undeniable confirmation bias. That is, that there IS a way that the EM Drive produces thrust. From an agnostic perspective, it is entirely true that the whole thing may well be false! So, I looked at it with a certainty that there WAS a solution, and first had to impose filters in order to quickly weed out all the ideas that could NOT be the answer, and then delve deeper into the potential causes that could not be immediately eliminated.

        This warped my objective view.

        So, here you have seen the mechanism I conclude COULD produce thrust, and I find it to be the most likely direction toward the solution, IF indeed there is a solution.

        And I have also “chummed the water” by announcing that I know of a flaw, so you will look at this solution NOT trying to accept it as perfect and not being critical in your own analysis, but LOOKING FOR THAT FLAW! It is like a “Where’s Waldo” poster. Can you spot Waldo?

        I assure you that MY flaw is real. I am not sending you down a rabbit hole. But I want YOUR mind to be able to:
        1. Fully follow the details of the proposed action,
        2. Fully understand the thought process that lead me to this conclusion,
        3. Look critically for errors, without thinking there are none to find
        4. Identify OTHER errors that I do NOT see because of my own mind being locked in the train of thought it has adopted.

        The problem YOU find may well NOT be the one I am already wrestling with, and just might be an unconditional negative proof, which will save me the effort of resolving the minor glitch I am working on.

  • Chapman

    I am aware that this is an old question. And it is the fact that it IS an old question that STILL has no satisfactory answer that makes it stand out as a hint that something is wrong with our perspective on the issue.

    Every answer I find proposed out there really just boils down to “this mysterious contradiction is simply caused by this OTHER, even MORE mysterious and convoluted theory”. They will then go into a bunch of gobbledygook and doublespeak, all dressed up to LOOK like they are actually saying something, or passing on some insight, but in reality it is just an endless echo chamber of the same keywords and physics catch phrases, who’s substance is such that one has to carefully analyze the content in order to see that there simply is no substance at all.

    All these answers address one mystery by invoking the concept of an even greater mystery that must just be accepted, and memorized, but is beyond actual intuitive comprehension. These answers are no answers at all, just the introduction of additional unknowns, in an endlessly expanding backward cone of chaos and complexity. That is NOT how the real world manifests. Cause and effect results in ever increasing complexity as the scale factor increases, and as a result we see a reduction in the complexity of structures and forces as we peer BACKWARD down that sequence.

    In short, things do not become MORE complicated the deeper you peer. They become simpler, as functions, and we marvel at the way these simple functions create a multitude of diverse effects on the next order of scale.

    Aether theory, on the other hand, does exactly that. And it is to that end that I presented the question! Using this simple question as a filter, which theory, SM/QM or Aether, meet the criteria of demonstrating proper reduction of complexity/chaos?

    • greggoble

      “… they become simpler.”

      This reminds me of the works of Pharis Edward Williams ‘The Dynamic Theory’ and his U.S. DoD LENR Patent. He approached the contradictions you present with the same mindset. I spent weeks exploring Physics and Beyond… a great experience.

      Memorial and Thoughts of a Man with Great Ideas-Pharis Williams”
      http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1248828

      Abstract

      Pharis Edward Williams was from Missouri. During his lifetime, he possessed an amazing ability to conceive original technical ideas. He raised questions that others would ignore. This created a ‘new’ perspective that would lead him to increasing knowledge and experience while in the Navy as well as in research laboratories. His Master of Nuclear Physics dissertation demonstrated this prevalent view. He proposed generalizations of the classical Thermodynamic Laws leading to the fundamental principles of what he termed ‘The Dynamic Theory’.

      In this theory, an important role is played by identifying an integrating factor that makes the energy exchange with the environment a total differential and leads to the definition of a mechanical entropy. Equilibrium and stability conditions for dynamic systems are derived and together with the principle of increasing entropy provide a geometrical structure from which the theories of relativity, Maxwell’s electromagnetism, and quantum effects may be derived. By applying simplifying or restrictive assumptions to the main body of the theory, Pharis shows that the major fields of physics are contained within the extensions of this theory. In these extensions, new field quantities appear to become important for systems and technical disciplines.

      Thus, the Dynamic Theory that he created would unify the various branches of physics into one theoretical structure. Only the future can tell what will be the impact of Pharis’ dynamic theory contributions and how engineers and scientists can gain and find new insights.

      Also of interest…

      Welcome to Physics and Beyond: A website dedicated to the work, theories and publications of Pharis E. Williams.
      http://www.physicsandbeyond.com

      His LENR patent

      Deuterium Reactor US 20130235963 A1
      http://www.google.com/patents/US20130235963
      Publication date: Sep 12, 2013 – Priority date: Mar 12, 2012
      $25,000 was received in 2008 from NSWC, Indian Head Division, to design experiments, review reports, and analyze data. The experiments verified heating using powered/granulated fuel.
      Inventor: Pharis Edward Williams

      ABSTRACT

      The Deuterium Reactor is a fusion reactor whose design is based upon a non-singular electrostatic required by the quantization of electric charge. This potential allows for a significant reduction in the fusion barrier of deuterium nuclei when these nuclei are held in close proximity, as within a crystal, and preconditioned using a magnetic field. This manner of fusion barrier reduction produces direct fusion of two deuterium nuclei into a helium nucleus without attendant hazardous radiation of classical fusion reactors. The energy released in the deuterium reactor may be used in different ways for different applications and its use will result in a significant reduction in fossil fuel use, a significant reduction in radioactive waste by replacing fission reactors, and a significant impact upon the world economy.

      gbgoblenote – As a United States Department of Defense (DoD) Energetics Center, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Division is a critical component of the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Warfare Center (WFC) Enterprise. One of the WFC’s nine Divisions, Indian Head’s mission is to research, develop, test, evaluate, and produce energetics and energetic systems for US fighting forces.

      Energetics are explosives, propellants, pyrotechnics, reactive materials, related chemicals and fuels and their application in propulsion systems and ordnance.

      As the largest DoD full spectrum energetics facility and leader in the Navy’s energetics enterprise, NSWC Indian Head employs a workforce of more than 1,400, of which more than 850 are scientists, engineers, and technicians dedicated to developing and sustaining explosives, propellants, pyrotechnics, high-energy chemicals and their application to warfighting systems. In addition, NSWC Indian Head has the largest concentration of PhDs working in Energetics in the WFC, including the highest number of synthesis chemists, detonation physicists, and formulation scientists dedicated to the energetics National competency.

  • Chapman

    Sorry to disappoint on the matter. I am not disparaging the usefullness of the device, as a piece of tech. Their problem was one of manufacturing standards, and marketing. They simply should have had SOME level of quality control on the manufacturing side, and the lack thereof came back to sink them, and there was no need for them to advertise that it was a breakthrough in science, and a physics phenomenon.

    I can say without any hesitation that I can make you a little black box, about twice the size of a cigarette pack, that has only a single 2025 button cell within, and a single micro-USB wire coming from it – and you can place that box next to the register behind the bar at your local tavern, allowing folks to plug their cell phones in for a few hours at a time, and the device will consistently provide a demonstrable charge to those phones every time, for a LONG time.

    Steorn demonstrated the classic problem of a Valid concept, poorly executed.

  • greggoble

    Thanks Chapman.
    I’m a layman, an amateur scientific research investigative journalist; interested in LENR and all related arts of science. Your presentation of these subject matters fits comfortably like a well worn shoe… easy to follow… engaging. Many of the comments, and links, have led to hours of personal education.

    You say you enjoy learning something new every day… so do I. My grandma used to say, “So you want to learn something new every day. Well, to do that two things are absolutely essential. You have to be Ignorant and Smart”.

    You are more knowledgable than I am on the subject of the Aether and associated ramifications, you may have heard this quote…

    “We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities. -In this sense- -Therefore- There exists an ether.” – Albert Einstein

    gbgoblenote –

    LENR and the Aether – ‘Heavy Electron’ -‘Mu-meson’ Vacuum Field – Electron Proton ‘Creation’

    Dr. Harold Aspden is of particular interest. A brilliant man, he successfully predicted the mass of the proton and was a pioneer of efficient thermal electric conversion devices. He was the first to be issued a U.S. patent with ‘cold fusion’ contained in the text of the application. A further example of his brilliance is his theoretical papers on Aether Science. This list is of ten Harold Aspden patents granted, applied, or cited that concern “Cold Fusion” LENR and the Aether. – end quote

    That’s from a Cold Fusion Now article I wrote way back in June of 2013. The article has links to the works and patents of Harold Aspden and other Aether theorists.

    “Aether the Theory of Relativity and LENR Energy” http://coldfusionnow.org/aether-the-theory-of-relativity-and-lenr-energy/

    During an Address delivered on May 5th, 1920, at the University of Leyden

    A theoretical physicist once said,

    “As to the part which the new ether is to play in the physics of the future we are not yet clear. We know that it determines the metrical relations in the space-time continuum, e.g. the configurative possibilities of solid bodies as well as the gravitational fields; but we do not know whether it has an essential share in the structure of the electrical elementary particles constituting matter. Nor do we know whether it is only in the proximity of ponderable masses that its structure differs essentially from that of the Lorentzian ether; whether the geometry of spaces of cosmic extent is approximately Euclidean. But we can assert by reason of the relativistic equations of gravitation that there must be a departure from Euclidean relations, with spaces of cosmic order of magnitude, if there exists a positive mean density, no matter how small, of the matter in the universe. In this case the universe must of necessity be spatially unbounded and of finite magnitude, its magnitude being determined by the value of that mean density.

    If we consider the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field from the standpoint of the ether hypothesis, we find a remarkable difference between the two. There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational potentials; for these confer upon space its metrical qualities, without which it cannot be imagined at all. The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existence of space. On the other hand a part of space may very well be imagined without an electromagnetic field; thus in contrast with the gravitational field, the electromagnetic field seems to be only secondarily linked to the ether, the formal nature of the electromagnetic field being as yet in no way determined by that of gravitational ether. From the present state of theory it looks as if the electromagnetic field, as opposed to the gravitational field, rests upon an entirely new formal motif, as though nature might just as well have endowed the gravitational ether with fields of quite another type, for example, with fields of a scalar potential, instead of fields of the electromagnetic type.

    Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or — as they might also be called — space and matter.

    Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together as one unified conformation. Then for the first time the epoch of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a satisfactory conclusion. The contrast between ether and matter would fade away, and, through the general theory of relativity, the whole of physics would become a complete system of thought, like geometry, kinematics, and the theory of gravitation.”

    Albert Einstein

    • Chapman

      Mr. Goble,

      I can not thank ENOUGH for bringing this specific address back to the forefront of our attention.

      It is amazing to read these thoughts directly from the man himself. To THINK that this presentation was from 100 years ago. Anyone with even the SLIGHTEST understanding of Physics, Mechanics, and Geometry can have no doubt regarding what he is saying. And yet, over the years his words have been distorted by others in support of their own theories.

      The value of the deep nature and profound ramifications of his insights have been largely ignored, as his broader perspectives have been distorted and reduced to a few childish axioms and diagrams that are, themselves, relegated to a tool-set of simple PROOFS, rather than the insightful and instructional analysis that they were, and still are. I dare say that most of what I see proclaimed to be “Einstein said” turns out to have little in common with the man’s actual words, and are hardly compatible with the insights he shared while outlining his theories.

      It is not the conclusions that Mr. Einstein arrived at that are his greatest contribution. It is the manner in which he analyzed the world around him. He did not teach us a few useful facts – he demonstrated how to THINK about reality in order to EXTRACT those facts.

      So again, THANK YOU for this wonderful reference.

  • Chapman

    As far as I was every able to determine, the Orbo looked like a variant on the basic Joule Thief design.

    Sucking every possible teeny weeny potential out of ANY energy source can look like magic when you can draw on latent chemical reactions in seemingly dead batteries and possibly environmental RF energy and store/stack that energy in pulses to drive it up to a brief usable potential.

    The issues they had with the circuitry leads me to believe that is what the Orbo was.

    Joule Thieves are impressive as hell, just like a levitron, but neither are demonstrations of “alternative physics”

  • Ciaranjay

    Hi Chapman
    If you are smart and curious (I think you are) then this is a great time to be alive.
    I am not sure about aether but I agree that (IMO) the underlying explanation will come down to geometry (or a related branch such as topology).
    You may find this discussion of interest.
    It has an interesting critique of the algebraic approach in physics.
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-defense-of-the-reality-of-time/

    • Chapman

      I LIKE this guy’s way of thinking!

      Thank you for directing me to him. I will dive deeper into his work. He makes straightforward arguments, based on sound physics, that points out much of what I have tried to explain to folks. When you talk about “unconventional” there is a fine line between saying you believed in the existence of the coelacanth vs “I just had lunch with Bigfoot”. In physics, there are many issues that seem totally abstract and contrary to known laws, but really stem from just a single misconception, or applying what is, in itself, a perfectly sound and reasonable and well-documented principal too broadly.

      Rethinking the SCOPE of known principals, and identifying the exceptions that must be recognized, is not the same as denying EVERYTHING WE THINK WE KNOW and insisting that all of science is fundamentally wrong. The problem is that SOME oversights create misconceptions that get amplified over time, as every subsequent theory tries to accommodate the original error. Eventually you get a system rife with errors, but the actual seed of that tree-of-errors is a single, tiny concept someone rushed to embrace without due consideration, or it was adopted because it was the best choice at the time, and then folks are just naturally hesitant to go back and address the matter later, when the contradiction becomes obvious.

      This Guy is just showing how REASONABLY one can come to a few profound conclusions that seem, on the surface, to be outrageous or unconventional.

      I appreciate you bringing him to my attention. I look forward to reading his works.

  • Chapman

    Thanks to the explicit details on the mechanics of the thrust of the EM Drive outlined in the fine paper referenced by our friend radvar in the post above, I see no reason to expect the action of the EM Drive to differ under either condition.

    Basically, the Aether Theory describes Photons as pure waves that nonetheless transfer energy/mass/momentum. The EM Drive would work weather that Photon was an actual particle, or a wave with all the EFFECTS of a particle.

    As long as it does not require superposition or “extra-dimensional quasi-particle tunneling” or such nonsense, then I see no contradictions.

    • Frederic Maillard

      Thanks for your reply.
      My post and Radvar’s have crossed.

  • radvar

    Once again, a discussion of EM that fails to address Shawyer’s explanation, based on special relativity.

    https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf

    Neither refuted nor confirmed, just completely ignored.

    Space and time are connected. Time is weird and hard to think about. Aether is just another place for billiard balls to interact.

    • Chapman

      Thank You for that EXCELLENT link!!!

      I was aware of the general principles behind the EM Drive, but that paper is the best in-depth description of the fine details and mechanics of the thrust production in readable terms.

      That one is so good I downloaded the paper and put it in my Science Reference Library folder I maintain on my external drive.

      Seriously, THANK YOU!

      May I suggest you copy your post over in Mr. Black’s thread on the EM Drive? It would be a welcome reference for those discussing the drive in detail there. ( not to say it is out of place here, but I would hate for them to miss it )

      • radvar

        Well, thanks for the thanks. I’m not sure which thread you are referring to.
        I just wish someone would honestly work through Shawyer’s math and try to knock it down in his own terms. The most engagement I’ve ever received was a general criticism about Shawyer’s formulations not following “well known principles” (i.e., the further sailing ships are from land, the more their masts shorten).

        • Chapman
        • Chapman

          Oh boy… You really have me thinking more about this drive than I intended! The wheels are churning away here.

          I hope YOU sleep well, because I can tell that I am going to be up all night thinking this through…

          Fig 2.4 is really instructive, even though it is simple enough on face value. It appears to have been just the right presentation to trigger a “target lock” in my brain. Now I will get no rest until I have absorbed it and fully OWN it.

          I certainly hope you are happy…

        • Chapman

          HAAAA!!!!!! I’ve GOT IT!!!

          30 minutes! Thank GOD – I thought I was in for an all-nighter!

          RADVAR, YOU ROCK!
          Any day I can go to bed feeling that “I learned something today” is a winner.

          That paper worked MAGIC on my gray matter. Previously, I understood the CONCEPT of the EM Drive, and it seemed to be promising, but now I FULLY understand the mechanics of it, and how the thrust is actually being produced. Not MATH, but the real, hard, physical mechanics of the thing. I dare say I could build one if I had a workshop.

          Just plot the cavity on an X and Y axis, analyze the sidewall deflection angles of photons propagating within the wave-guide as to the raw force transferred by each deflection due to that angle, as well as the disparity between the NUMBER of deflections occurring for any given photon traveling “up” or “down” the tapered wave-guide, then separate the X and Y component vectors of all X+ vs X- deflections, and the result is equalization of force on the Y axis, but thrust along the x axis toward the narrow end.

          SR tells us this is NOT like a guy standing in a bucket trying to lift himself by the handle, because Light travels at the Speed of Light and is totally independent of it’s source. The photons could just as well be beamed at the deflector plate from a ground based laser, because the photons are not PART of the local structure either way.

          Having the bell of the thruster tuned to be a resonant cavity allows constant “pumping up” of the photons that are doing the work and surrendering energy with each deflection, rather than increasing the production load on the magnatron.

          Ultimately, the thrust velocity, for force/mass/acceleration purposes IS the speed of light, and thrust will drop off as relative velocity increases, just as with an ION drive, or any rocket using chemical propellants. SR and GR are all smiles with this. No laws of physics are even being challenged, let alone broken.

          In short, It’s Freakin’ BEAUTIFUL!

          And it is nowhere NEAR as complicated as the workings of the Automatic Transmission in my pick-up truck!

          • radvar

            I am VERY HAPPY, thank you for sharing!

            I was using the metaphor of “it’s not like a guy trying to throw rocks out of a rowboat, and hitting the back of the row boat”.

            This statement of yours is excellent:

            “SR tells us this is NOT like a guy standing in a bucket trying to lift himself by the handle, because Light travels at the Speed of Light and is totally independent of it’s source. The photons could just as well be beamed at the deflector plate from a ground based laser, because the photons are not PART of the local structure either way.”

            It really is kind of thrilling to be able to even partly grasp Shawyer’s explanation. Not only does it make my mind boggle, it opens it up to the possibility that there are realities literally beyond imagination.

            • radvar

              More and deeper boggles:

              With the EM I have also tried working with the metaphor of “pushing against the speed of light” which I think is correct in some way, however completely non-intuitive in a visual sense. Perhaps you can connect that with your perception of the

              “disparity between the NUMBER of deflections occurring for any given photon traveling “up” or “down” the tapered wave-guide, then separate the X and Y component vectors of all X+ vs X- deflections, and the result is equalization of force on the Y axis, but thrust along the x axis toward the narrow end.”

              • radvar

                At a deeper level it gets down to the actual way that space and time are connected. And there the challenging part is time, because we like time to be this nice flat linear thing that allows action in our 3 (or higher) dimensional frameworks.

                Which leads to partial model of time that I find myself delving into more lately, in which the “present” is like a “bow wave” moving from the past into the future, and in that “bow wave” there is a “leading edge”.

                Going more woo: the “leading edge” is where the “quantum mechanics observer” stands, causing, in a very very short time interval, the psi function of fluid future possibilities to collapse into a more rigid state that emerges out of the trailing edge of the “bow wave” of the present and becomes “the past”.

                And then fully woo: the “QM observer” is inseparable from the everyday human experience of pure awareness. Thus consciousness rides the leading edge of the bow wave of the present, causing reality to emerge from the possibilities of the future.

                Does this mean that consciousness actually manifests reality in addition to observing it? Hard to tell on a practical basis, because pure consciousness would then also be “manifesting” the way the neurological mind operates (choosing which “cow path” to follow), and so people end up experiencing what they expect to experience. Plus we’re having to share local reality with everyone else who is manifesting in it, meaning the emerging future would seem to have to respond to the influence of many “manifesters”.

                But then something like Shawyer’s EM explanation comes along, and makes you wonder…

                • Chapman

                  I am still digesting my new insights on the EM Drive. Your description of “now” as a bow wave sounds compelling, and well worth some contemplation, but you will have to wait a bit for my feedback.

                  Later, I will make some herbal tea, and light a few incense, and try to meditate a bit on the idea.

                  I will get back to you on it, but I do not want to babble without careful contemplation.

                  I am not putting off discussing it due to lack of interest, mind you, but out of RESPECT for your thoughts, and giving them due consideration.

                • radvar

                  Thanks. No rush. It was off topic and opportunistic on my part. Half the battle is learning how to express stuff to myself in a way that I would feel ok about sharing with others. I saw an opening and took it 🙂

                • Chapman

                  A simply Wonderful article linked by ciaranjay above:

                  https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.quantamagazine.org%2Fa-defense-of-the-reality-of-time%2F%3ApVMh_iKqDXT5KA1bM_bc18tf-AA&cuid=2168707

                  Exactly what you were talking about! How “Timely”… (pun intended)

                • radvar

                  Nice, I bookmarked that and will give it a read. Grazie!

    • Chapman

      You know, it is funny you use the “billiard ball” metaphor, considering Billiards Geometry gives a good insight into the workings of the drive Shawyer describes!

    • Engineer48

      Hi Radvar,

      See if you can understand the attached.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3f49135872ddd1d13b8539d4d9627ed2555c9e8ac17965b9dd8c7c5b6ce93b17.png

      Billiard ball example is not correct as photons don’t slow down on losing momentum to matter. They Red shift.

      • Chapman

        I see the implications immediately.

        The energy transfer from photon to thruster body RESULTS in momentum gain by the thruster, but the response on the photon, since it’s mass and velocity are fixed, is a loss of frequency. A redshift. Frequency is the only dynamic variable in the photons existence, so to speak.

        As a result, the overall thrust mechanism still functions as predicted, but tuning the chamber to a resonant frequency is problematic because the population of photons within the chamber will not remain of uniform frequency.

        Primary functions will be as predicted, but power gain via the Q factor becomes muddled.

        Interesting…

        • Engineer48

          Hi Chapman,

          The higher the Q, the longer the photons live as per cycle energy loss is lower, the more end plate absorption and re radiation events / bounces / reflections that will happen, each farming a small amount of photon momentum that is xfered to thruster mass.

          For the thruster mass A = F/M with F = dP/dT and dV = dP/M.
          For the photons dWavelength = Planck’s constant / dP.

          CofM is conserved, just not in a way we are accustomed to.

          • Chapman

            Trust me, I got it. And your diagram was a welcome bit of additional info. I REALLY love diagrams and documents that convey a maximum of info with a minimum of clutter!

            Until yesterday I thought I understood the EM Drive, but I was too buried in the physics to really grasp the simple beauty of the geometry.

            I am still giggling a little with the realization that it is really just a compact, self-contained solar sail! It all comes down to photon deflection “events” and surface area – with some clever physical design tweaks that creates the lopsided balance of force.

            And the BEST thing, is that 1 hour after “getting it” I was already able to see the broader potential. This EM Drive is only a test bed that demonstrates the vary basic VALIDITY of the force potential, but is SO limited in performance that it equates to nothing more than an Abacus sitting next to a Supercomputer, in so far as the sheer scope of predictable development in a very short time.

            This thing simply is not designed to “get the mostest for the leastest”. It is just a concept demo.

            • Brokeeper

              I love show-and-tell to help clarify my lack of high physics knowledge.

          • menos50

            Plank’s Constant hase been proven invalid because it uses Blackbody theory , which has been proven to be invalid because it embodies the use of Carbon within the blackbody and therefore you are getting the resultant of the Carbon , not the true energy of the injected substance.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-Luq0fOJK8

            • Engineer48

              Hi Menos,

              Have read nothing to say photon momentum (p) = Planck’s Constant / photon wavelength is not valid. Are you also saying that when a photon loses momentum is it not red shifted, ie it’s wavelength doesn’t increase?

              Would enjoy reading any material that proves the above is not correct.

              Can also define photon momentum = photon energy (e) / c.

              • menos50

                The posted video explains the failure of the constant, based on the incomplete blackbody model. That is a fact regardless of whether there is a red shift of a subject photon.
                IMHO, we would be so much futher advanced in our understanding if Maxwell’s work had not been segregated and the aether concepts abandoned for lack of understanding by those who picked up his work.

      • radvar

        Thanks for the attention to this. Seems that it will take a couple more passes to sink in, however, I’m very pleased that others have engaged in a meaningful way.

        • radvar

          Wikedpedia:

          • Chapman

            pssst…

            Vg is nonsense. All “WOO”. Whats happening has nothing to do with “Group Velocity”.

            To achieve enlightenment, one must first strive to think like a photon; BE the photon…

            • Chapman

              Just to clarify my intention, consider this:

              Photons do not interact like particles of matter. They do not compress and act according to fluid dynamic rules with regards to volume, pressure, and nozzle velocity. And beams of light do not clash and zing like light sabers.

              Photons are solitary creatures, who ignore their own kind with an appearance of utter disregard.

              The mechanism of the EM Drive is not the product of MANY photons working TOGETHER, in any way. It is the GROSS effects of many photons acting independently. The total product is thus only understandable as the direct result of the actions/forces of a single proton, multiplied by the total photon population number.

              Justifying the workings of the EM Drive requires showing how it functions with ONE SINGLE PHOTON. Then, mathematically you can extrapolate the total force logically produced by any given number of photons in the chamber, or input power.

              Any theory that attempts to explain the EM Drive and starts out theorizing about group effects, radiation pressure resulting from reduction in wave guide cross section, or alteration of the photon velocities, is already lost in the WOOds.

              Show me how ONE photon creates thrust in the chamber. THEN you are on track to understanding the EM Drive.

              You need to focus on the “energy functions” of the photon, and the physics of a reflection, as well as a reflection OF a reflection. AND you need to review everything you know about solar sails.

              • radvar

                I will ponder that.

                • Chapman

                  Do not let yourself be distracted by the difference in the width of the end plates. Instead, ask yourself WHY the end plates are different lengths. There is a geometry answer, I promise. I am not just trying to sound profound. The answer will smack you in the head when you see it, and the ramifications will make more sense to you if you sneak up on it on your own!

                  As I said, I am not holding out on you. I am trying NOT to rob you of the supreme sense of satisfaction you WILL have when you see the utterly and stupidly answer to the thrust question. And I assure you that it is no more involved than a good Sudoku puzzle. You don’t need complicated physics, or advanced math. Just LOOK at the problem, scribble some diagrams on a few napkins, and stare at a blank wall for a while. It will come to you, and you will say “Oh… THAT’S what he was hinting at!!!”

                • radvar

                  I appreciate the challenge, however, I’m going to go meta at this point.
                  1) What if I’m not that smart, or have other priorities, or am highly distractable?
                  2) What if the person with the next piece of the puzzle comes along only once and fails to see the clue he or she needs?
                  3) What if this is real knowledge development that has real world, real time impact?
                  4) What if your understanding is never revealed?
                  5) What if your understanding is flawed?

                • Chapman

                  After much analysis, and deep consideration of the physics behind the EM Drive, I have determined that Thrust is generated via…

                  wait for it………
                  (drum roll, please…)

                  Bose-Einstein Condensates, generated due to the exponential increase in radiation cross-pressure, resulting from the compression of the virtual photon beam, and thus reducing the photons into a previously unanticipated metallic phase, which exhibit the properties of a superconductor while oscillating in a 7th dimension, which sits at right angles to x-axis of the thruster body.

                  This, due to the quantum entanglement of the escaped “travelling” photons with the static photons locked in the BEC in the our THREE dimensional space, results in the collective mass of the thruster body being pushed towards the little end.

                  I really do not understand why EVERYONE does not see this. It is so simple that it seems hardly worth mentioning.

                • Chapman
                • Chapman

                  In all seriousness, I can walk you through a LONG, but rather straightforward sequence of questions, answers, and conclusions that make it perfectly clear that the thrust is produced strictly as a result of the angle of the sidewalls.

                  The thrust is an imbalance in the transfer of momentum between the photons and the various internal walls of the thruster body. We all get that. But everyone is fixated on the difference in size of the end plates. They look at the thruster geometry, and they see the side wall placement as a necessary consequence of connecting two “end plates” of differing length. But it is precisely that “Big End” vs the “Little end” asymmetry that draws the attention, stops any further analysis, and ultimately distracts one from seeing the obvious issues with “end plate ratio” as a force multiplier, because that ratio has already been accepted as the cause of the thrust. From that point on, every time you try to plug in a solution that does not work, it is simply “not the reason the end size makes it move”. But no CORRECT answer can ever BE found, because you are locked into looking in the wrong direction.

                  To reduce a LOT of modelling to the simplest statement possible, and to put the issue to bed once and for all, consider the following:

                  Photons in a reflective box, bouncing away just like inside your microwave, impart an equal force to all sides. The same holds true if you stretch the box into a rectangle.

                  But then we propose creating a distorted box, with one side being half the diameter of it’s opposite partner. If, upon flooding the box with photons, we observe ANY increase in the RATIO of force imparted to one of those sides in relation to the other, and we could point to it and say the ratio of force is PROPORTIONAL to the ratio of end-plate size, then a plate ratio of 2:1 would produce a noticeable net force of 1, toward the small end, as the symmetric component of the forces cancel out, and the IMBALANCE manifests as a lateral force along that axis. This would seem WONDERFUL, but if we take the idea to it’s natural extremes we see the problem.

                  If we further reduce the size of the small end to 1/3 of the large end, we would expect to see a thrust of “2”. And an end ratio of 5:1 would result in a thrust of “4”, and on and on we go. This means that an end ratio of 10,000:1 would produce a thrust of 9,999!, and if you then just did away with the small end entirely, and allowed the wave-guide to taper to a point, you would have an end plate ratio that is infinite, and that configuration would produce infinite thrust! Now, that thrust might be limited to the maximum potential of the input power, but it would be a 100% conversion of energy to momentum, constrained only by the limits of Einstein’s stated “e=mc^2”.

                  This clearly does not work, would not work, and can not work. End plate size ratio does not produce thrust. It is just a physical attribute resulting from setting the side walls of the reflection chamber NOT parallel, but at an angle to each other, creating a tapered overall shape.

                  It is the TAPER that creates the force, due to the sum of the angles and magnitudes of the forces imparted to the sidewalls by reflecting photons.

                  The function is as true for a single photon as it is for a heavy population, so I will continue with another post in a while with a straightforward explanation of what a photon DOES in that box, the mechanics of how it reflects, and what force, in each direction, it imparts on the different walls while doing so.

            • radvar

              Well, there’s the fact that if you’re a photon, you travel at the speed of light, so for you, time has slowed down to where it doesn’t pass at all, which means that you are essentially outside of time…

              • Chapman

                which is the cause of all that “divide by zero” math headache I said I was trying to avoid…

            • radvar

              I think you meant enLIGHTenment…

  • Max Nozin

    Well put. I’ve been following this alternative school of thought for few years and it definitely worth attention.
    There is an opinion that modern​ physics has been hijacked by the mathematicians and therefore deviated from traditional philosophical materialistic approach. Sure the universe is so complicated we will never fully understand it so let’s use plausible approximations instead.
    Only in the formulas it is acceptable to operate with such concepts like field, wave and charge without questioning the true nature of them. Aether allows to bring all that back into pure mechanics where no other energy exists apart from kinetic. Nothing pops out and comes back into parallel multi-dimensional universe. No ‘density of probability’ is needed to find a particle in Euclidian space.
    Light is a wave and like any wave its speed is limited by the properties of the Aether which is the medium where light wave propagates.
    Time is absolute and time travel is impossible but superluminal speeds are.
    Getting down to the root causes behind physical events will send research down the path to new discoveries unlike current situation in which we are constantly being sent on a rogue round trips by claims such as ‘distruction of information releases energy’ an so on.

    • Chapman

      HAH! You clearly get it! It is nice to hear from a fellow dissident… 🙂

      For years I followed conventional theory. When mainstream science seemed irrational I would mark it down to my own ignorance. Then came String Theory, and the idea that the sum of all positive integers is -1/12, and THAT was the straw that broke the camels back for me. REAL theoretical physics had been usurped by abstract mathematics, and any connection between theory and reality had been severed.

      Oddly enough, it took very little time or effort to look about and discover I was not alone, and that there was a WORLD of alternative theories out there that were far more plausible than the mainstream nonsense we see. And a good number of those theories did not require the donning of any Aluminium Headgear at all…

      • HA! I just learned about that sum of all positive integers supposedly equaling -1/12 thing. That got me to question whether the entire concept of infinity makes any sense, at all.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    An external observer never sees matter cross the event horizon because its infalling motion slows down so much from his point of view. To me, that would seem to resolve the paradox.

    A couple of years ago there was an interesting idea by Laura Mersini (https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.1837) that actually a true event horizon never forms: just before reaching a would-be horizon, the infalling matter experiences so large gravity gradient that it turns into intense outgoing Hawking radiation. In this picture, the black hole is not a stationary object, but a very dynamic process where matter collapses and then immediately explodes away as Hawking radiation. From the point of view of an external observer, however, the extreme gravitational redshift slows down the violent process so much that the hole has seemingly very long lifetime and (for a macroscopic hole) looks practically stationary and black. I like such picture because it avoids the notion of singularity. I think, however, that the picture can be neither proven nor disproven without having a theory of quantum gravity, i.e., without having a theory that prescribes exactly how to calculate the backreaction of Hawking radiation in a strong field regime. Mersini’s paper was turned down by referees, it only appeared as arxiv preprint.

    • Chapman

      I do not see how the perspective of an external observer resolves the question of how Gravitons emitted from a singularity can traverse the warped space-time below the event horizon in order to interact WITH that external observer. What the observer “sees” outside does nothing to un-warp the space within!

      Keep in mind that I am not arguing that black holes HAVE no external gravity well. I am pointing out that the Standard Model and General Relativity would RESULT in black holes without gravity wells. That is the point. Reality is not wrong, it is THEORY that is flawed.

      This is not a Special Relativity issue that deals with perceptions based upon an observers frame of reference. This is a question of the shape of space-time below the event horizon. What is seen outside of the event horizon is simply a consequence of the structure within, and that structure tells us much about the forces that form it.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        The mass never disappears from the view of the external observer (it just becomes so redshifted that it becomes effectively black), hence to him it’s no wonder that the gravity field also stays. Also, only a distant external observer is able to measure the hole’s mass from its asymptotic gravity field.

        I agree intuitively with you that GR+SM together with the stationarity assumption seems to yield the dilemma that you pointed out. But I would suggest questioning the stationarity assumption before GR or SM.

        • Chapman

          I follow your logic. For the record, it is my suspicion that the fault lies not in GR, but mainly in SM.

          Einstein never actually tried to prove there was no Aether, but would get aggravated when folks would invoke the Aether to argue against both SR and GR, so he basically said, “Shut up already about the damn Aether! It is not necessary or germane to the Time vs Perception issues I am trying to explain here!”. Other than Einstein’s conclusion that there is no absolute frame of reference (hense all measurements are relative), there is nothing he proposed that is in direct conflict with Aether theory.

          SM and QM, on the other hand, are completely bass-ackward from AT.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            ‘Reality’, ‘universe’s fabric’, ‘aether’, ‘vacuum’.. the names refer to the “stuff” that the universe is made of. The word aether is not used nowadays because it referred to the pre-Einsteinian non-Lorentz invariant concept of the vacuum which was shown by Michelson-Morley experiment to be invalid.

            That said, e.g. brane cosmology perhaps could be called an ‘aether’ description, in the sense that its universe is a massive 4-D object (the world brane) which moves in some higher-dimensional background spacetime.

            GR+SM teach that the “stuff that the universe is made of” is 1) Lorentz invariant, 2) curvable by masses, and 3) exhibits virtual particle effects such as vacuum polarisability. And cosmologists might add: 4) contains dark energy. By what name to call the stuff is a linguistic question.

  • Brokeeper

    But what is Aether? What are its properties, substance, and mechanism? Has it experimentally been proven to exist? Is it too finite to be measured and observed? Smaller than a vibrating string? Exists in a 12th deminsion? Or comes from a non-demension within another belief system, as a word – HEB 1:3? (Sorry for being unscientific).

    • Chapman

      The exact properties of The Aether is a subject of much debate.

      Because the idea was officially abandoned by the elites within the scientific community at the start of the 1900’s, and officially made “taboo” with the acceptance of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, little mainstream research or theory development has been done in Academia, and the idea that the original Aether concept is actually REAL has only gained strength in the independent community as mainstream science has had to resort to ever increasingly outlandish theories to patch over the inconsistencies and discrepancies that continue to show up.

      That being said, there are things we DO know. Plank solved the black body radiation problem by the introduction of an arbitrary constant. That is to say, he could not state WHY the constant corrected the emission spectrum distribution, but by limiting the top end of the POSSIBLE radiation energy spectrum he found that the remaining energy distribution calculations suddenly matched perfectly with observed measurements. The logical PHYSICAL correlation is that space is a liquid medium, and that the particles that make up that liquid have a density – that is, they are separated by – a single Plank width in 3 dimensional space. Waves can not propagate at a frequency that has individual particles being displaced by less than this distance, because no collision with neighboring particles, and subsequent waveform propagation, occurs.

      The Plank Length is in the range of 10^-35 meters! From YOU, down to a Proton, is only a scale of 10^-15. A primary particle of the Aether is subsequently 10^-20 further below the scale of the proton. The SCALE between a Quark and the Aether is much GREATER than the scale of Planet Earth to a single Proton.

      In all likelihood, the Aether is composed of Plank Scale Dipoles, each being a pair of bound Mono-poles bearing opposing fundamental charge. This is the charge that we directly recognize as the Electromagnetic Force, and which, via complex physical and mechanical interactions, generates secondary “effects” on the macro scale that we OBSERVE to be separate forces, simply due to our lack of insight as to the underlying nature of the mechanics we are observing.

      All material particles are born FROM these pairs, due to them becoming unbound. Every particle we observe is a construct of many constituent parts, all stemming from these broken pieces of the very fabric of space. Matter itself is just the broken bits clumped together. They are the “disorder”. Particles are bits of flotsam, bobbing on the waves within the Aether. But from the Plank Scale up, “Particles” are REAL. They combine, and separate, but they NEVER just POP magically out of probability-space.

      This whole concept is as FAR from the mysticism of string theory and modern quantum mechanics as you can get. “The Aether” is a Classical Physics model, and predates GTR, QM, QED, QCD, String Theory, and all the rest. It is based on the idea that stuff is real, that there really are only three dimensions, that stuff is “There” even if you ain’t lookin’, and that time marches ever onward.

      Aether Theory is “Physics for Muggles”, and we are HAPPY to leave “Magic” to Harry Potter and his confused, trouble making little friends at the academy…

      Lastly, you ask “Where did the Aether come from???”
      Gen 1:1? (maybe HE follows the KISS principle TOO!!!)

      • Mats002

        Strange – I woke up this morning thinking of light and matter as the funktion of waves and vortexes in a dipole aether.

        And now (a few hours later) read this article about the very same concept.

        Amazing! ^^

        • Chapman

          That is because it is “Intuitive”. Your subconscious models everything, in order to empower you with insight. It is the reason intelligence evolves. Ideas either make sense, or not, because they fit into the patterns your mind builds it’s model of reality and response around.

          Your own experience with the physical world leads you to a sense of “comfort” with solutions that easily conform with your subconscious understanding of physical mechanical interactions and cause and effect.

          We all come up with these same insights, and then some academic tells us that we are ignorant and uneducated, and they proceed to explain how everything we THOUGHT we knew is wrong. 4 years (and 1000 bottles of aspirin) later we graduate from University completely reprogrammed to ignore what we experience, and trust in the established dogma of the day.

          For the record – These are NOT my ideas, nor offered as MY great contribution to science. I stake no claim to the theories presented. I am a voracious consumer of scientific writings and publications, and I am inclined to pass along and expound upon the parts of what I read that makes sense to me, but these theories have been around for longer than I have walked on the Earth!

          • Brokeeper

            I think Mats002 has QM entanglement accross space with Chapman. 😉

            • Mats002

              That would violate this intuitive concept – wouldn’t it? 🙂

      • Brokeeper

        Perhaps simple to God who resides outside space and time. But very complex to us mortals caught up in this realm. “The foolishness of God is wiser than man”.
        We need to ask ourselves how did our consciousness come into being? Presto chango your here? Why isn’t it in another state or form? (ZEC 12:1)
        I suggest the creation was made so deeply infinitely small to entertain our gift of imagination and discovery as to keep us from being too self reliant and bored. Otherwise such geniuses as Hawkings would have perished long ago without meaning and purpose.

        • Chapman

          I sense a kindred spirit…. 🙂

          • Brokeeper

            🙂

    • Stephen

      Sometimes “words” can be a better way to describe or allude to unexplained phenomena in a free and more unconstrained way than using known formula and established data parameters.

      The unknown and unexplained is first glimpsed through feeling, emotion response and often first expressed in words. As scientists we try to explain them as far as we can with what we know through constrained formula and data. But data can also be misleading about the underlying truth.