[geocentrism] Re: Aether effects

Neville,
I'm glad you brought up the issue of light. Light can travel miles through solid fused silica. The lattice structure of the silica and its proportions relative to the wavelength of light, and the virtual absence of the imaginary part of the refractive index of the silica and other absorptive defects and/or scattering domains in the molecular matrix, give rise to this circumstance. But there are several orders of magnitude difference between the wavelength of light, and the de Broglie wavelength of a proton or electron. For a lattice to be transparent to protons the way that silica is transparent to photons, the constituents of the lattice must be dimensionally scaled in proportion (or better). The putative maximon length scale, which is the Planck Length (about 10E-37 meters across), satisfies the criterion for being transparent to matter as conventionally understood and constituted.
Note that the difference between conventional LeSagean gravity models and a Markov-type aether is a question of the mean free path of the constituent particles. LeSagean gravity treats the ultramundane corpuscles as behaving as an ideal gas: the mean free path is much larger than the diameter of an ultramundane corpuscle. But if the mean free path is shorter than this amount, then each of the Lesage corpuscles is locked into a lattice position, with the pressure waves being distributed corpuscle-to-corpuscle acoustically, as Vigier described it. Such a Markov-type aether is essentially one species of LeSagean gravity with a specific boundary condition concerning particle mean free paths. As Vigier, de Broglie, and David Bohm noted, this recovers a classical deterministic physics at the subquantum domain. Because it IS the subquantum domain at which this activity occurs, the scales of the particles insure the interactions posited by Markov's work. The Planck Temperature, then, corresponds to the frequency of interaction between neighboring maximons in the lattice. The LeSagean effect is not harmed by kicking up the density to this point (otherwise, conservation of energy would be violated). This variant is tenable and should be assessed on the merits.
I think I've elsewhere noted that electromagnetic fields have been comprehensively modeled as mechanical stresses inside a crystalline lattice-type structure. Maxwell himself adopted such a background scaffold during the development of his EM theory, and then dropped it before final publication.
I think we differ on what the properties of the aether would be. Neither of us wants to be in the position of Lewis Carroll's Caterpillar, who says that words mean what he wants them to mean. Such an arbitrary approach would be profoundly unhelpful and unedifying. In that light, we should note then that I would NOT support any aether that has the obviously undesirable properties that you describe. However, much better physicists than you or I have established that such results need not be foregone conclusions: the failure of one model of aether doesn't tar all aether models with the same brush, it only condemns those that intrinsically possess the same flaw, and not those models that aren't subject to the objection. In that connection, you are right in an earlier comment that such an aether CAN account for the reactive impedance of so-called free space, and it's significant that this impedance is reactive, meaning it stores energy and returns it without loss -- the principle behind electromagnetic radiation energy transmission. IF the maximon-maximon interactions were inelastic, there'd be a sink for energy loss, as you propose. However, the interactions are elastic and energy- preserving (and, given Markov's notion of what a maximon is, this result is non-negotiable). I don't agree with Markov as to the nature of the particle, anymore than I agree with Wheeler that spacetime foam is a fluctuating sea of virtual particles popping into and out of existence. I'd oppose both models with a physically real (not virtual) particle, as LeSagean thinking does. As I noted in my 1994 work, the virtual model approach to spacetime foam got dealt a fatal blow by Redmount and Suen's research into the inherent instability of such foams (they always coalesce into wormholes and other topological monstrosities so frequently and irreversibly we'd long ago have detected thousands of such anomalies within our own solar system if spacetime foam weren't utterly inert and stable rather than virtual and fluctuating).
Keep in mind how modern physics deals with things like the Planck Density and the Planck Temperature. It treats the former as an initial state density of the universe just prior to the Big Bang exploding; it treats the latter as the temperature at that same initial state point. HOWEVER, the expressions used to determine these physical constants give NO evidence of being related solely to an initial state event, that has no current applicability. This "initial state" premise is wholly gratuitous -- the equations themselves, understand in their natural sense, reveal the CURRENT state within this universe. The significant factor is that these parameters relate to the current state of the subquantum domain, not the larger-scale structures comprised of matter as we know it that are embedded within that subquantum domain. It's not without reason that Vigier speaks of all matter as being embedded in what he called a causal subquantum thermostat. Note, also, that such an aether provides an excellent mechanism for handling superluminal (faster- than-light) interactions, as made vigorous by Vigier and Bohm in the 1970s: nonlocality is resolved using the Bohm quantum potential, without appeal to Copenhagen-style entanglement/ensemble weasel words. 

Therefore, bath water: toss.  Baby: keep.

Martin S




On Apr 23, 2007, at 2:05 PM, Dr. Neville Jones wrote:


Martin,

Thank you. Nice response.
I read your reply to the criticisms of North and Nieto a few years ago, in fact I think I still have a printed copy of it somewhere. Whilst I agree with your position regarding GR, I am not convinced by the Planck-particle liquid plenum aether idea, since this relies upon density and we have then gone full circle back to matter- matter interaction. Also, I see no reason why certain "fundamental" physical constants should be related to one another, this being an idea which, if carried far enough, would result in the conclusion that we should all be cooked to a crisp due to the temperature of the universe.
I do accept that the mathematical foundations of this novelty are sound, as you rightly allude to by saying that it was reviewed by Stephen Hawking, but I feel that this approach is, frankly, absurd. Rather than saying that objects would pass freely through it, my position is that not even light would pass through it (all radiative energy would be absorbed immediately by this enormous energy sink).
Furthermore, celestial objects do not exhibit uniform rectilinear motion, rather their velocities are constantly changing. 

My opinion, therefore, is that the plenum aether is a non-starter.

Best wishes,

Neville.


"Martin G. Selbrede" <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Neville,
Viscosity conventionally considered is a measure of a frictional coefficient (so-and-so centistokes, for example) related to resistance to change in displacement, or, in other words, it is velocity-dependent in its effect. Operationally, a workable aether only resists change in velocity (its coefficient and higher order terms are arrayed not with the first derivative of displacement with respect to time, but with the second).
It was calculation of these factors when analyzing a hypothetical liquid composed of maximon particles (maximon particles bear the Planck density) that led Markov to the proof that such a liquid comprises a "quasi-isotropic space" -- in other words, an aether composed of such ultra-dense particles functions like "empty space" as currently observed. Objects can travel through it freely without impediment, but the aether resists acceleration while conserving constant-velocity rectilinear motion. Newtonian macro observations are thus preserved in the classical limit, and his three laws of motion fall out of the properly normalized viscosity function. The key factor is the nature of the coupling at this scale -- THAT is what differs between matter-maximon interaction versus matter- matter interaction (from where we get our conventional notions of viscosity and its effects).
Markov published this work in the compendium "The Very Early Universe," containing the Proceedings of the Nuffield Workshop held in 1983; this volume was edited by Hawking, Sykos, and Gibbons. In other words, these research results passed the scrutiny of Stephen Hawking: there's nothing fishy with the physics. I cited this material in a 1994 article which I believe is available at www.geocentricity.com (I think Dr. Bouw identifies it as "A Response to Drs. Nieto and North" by Martin Selbrede -- you have to drill down a bit to find it).
In any event, we need to distinguish between conventional notions of viscosity, and viscosity related to Markov-compliant aethers. The terms are not equipollent, because different derivatives of the spatial displacement are affected, respectively, in the two cases. 

Martin
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it now. 

Martin G. Selbrede
Chief Scientist
Uni-Pixel Displays, Inc.
8708 Technology Forest Place, Suite 100
The Woodlands, TX 77381
281-825-4500 main line (281) 825-4507 direct line (281) 825-4599 fax (512) 422-4919 cell 
mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx / martin.selbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Other related posts: