[geocentrism] Re: Aether effects

Dear Neville,
One must keep the scale in mind. Let us assume (although I reject this assumption) that there is kinematic coupling between maximons and matter. This hypothetical concession tilts the scales quite far in favor of your approach. Since thermal energy is kinetic, we should be in a position to quantify the distribution of kinematic energy imparted to a fundamental particle. And here is where the thermal- buildup hypothesis falters. Assume an electron of classical radius 2.82 x 10E-15 meters, and the currently established value of the Planck Length 1.6 x 10E-35. Simple algebra reveals that within the volume of the electron, we would find no fewer than 5.5 x 10E60 maximons. Given the stochastic nature of their motion over the 2*pi steradians of 3-space, we would find that the NET motion imparted to the electron by these maximons sums to zero: for every maximon pushing the electron one way, there is another maximon pushing the other way to cancel it. Integrating over all maximons nets a zero total impartation of kinetic energy to the electron.
Given the Boltzmann expression for thermal energy (translational kinetic energy equals 1.5 times the temperature in Kelvin times the Boltzmann constant), when we say something "heats up," we mean to say its constituent parts have additional translational kinetic energy imparted to them. (The expression differs for solids, but the transmission coupling remains kinetic in nature.) There is no impartation of net kinetic energy to anything by a background maximon aether with a broadly stochastic distribution of kinetic energies: there are so many maximons per fundamental particle, each in random motion with respect to the others, that the net kinetic energy imparted (assuming full coupling occurs) is zero. (Not surprisingly, we find this definition used for the Dirac relativistic stochastic aethers as well: namely, that the net sum of aether particle velocities through any region within the aether must be zero.)
So, even under the most generous assumptions in favor of the "over- heating" hypothesis, there is no basis to conclude that such heating will occur.
Under the circumstance that maximons do NOT couple with matter, and that they interact elastically and not inelastically, the "over- heating" hypothesis really had zero initial traction from the get-go. I therefore suggested an approach favorable to the hypothesis. However, if a hypothesis cannot muster evidence in its favor under the most optimistic assumptions in its favor, it is probably seriously debilitated. 

Martin



On Apr 24, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Dr. Neville Jones wrote:


Martin,
A light photon has zero rest mass, but has a very small mass attributed to it when in motion, again from the quantum mechanical perspective. My view is that photons do not possess mass at all, but that the effects conventionally explained via photon momenta are more satisfactorily explained via radiation pressure. I therefore would not expect light to "heat up" when passing through hot glass or fluid, since there would be no mass to absorb this heat energy. A material object such as ourselves contain plenty of mass to absorb the heat held by the mass of each maximon and would therefore attain the same temperature rather quickly.
Hence, although I would agree with Dr. Bouw and Prof. Hanson regarding the heating of material objects under the LeSage idea, I would not expect this to be evidence for a young universe, simply because I think that the rate of heating would be phenomenally quick. 

Neville.


Martin Selbrede <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Neville,
Good questions. The analogy between matter waves on a Markov or Dirac aether and light within a transparent material extends to this question, and another forum member alluded to this in the few rounds prior to this as well. Light injected into a transparent medium that is itself in motion transverse to the light ray induces Fresnel drag, because the electromagnetic wave is actually undergoing interaction with the electrons in the lattice (akin, but not necessarily identical to, absorption/re-emission cascades). What we call a Fresnel drag when this happens with light would be a rotational or translational inertial drag with regard to a Markov- type aether.
Since I don't accept the quantum formalism either, my conclusion is that the Planck Length is the effect, not the cause, of the mean free distance between the maximon particles comprising the aether. This answers to the recovery of the classical regime at the subquantum level. I'm not interested in any form of QM other than the de Broglie-Bohm-Vigier version, because it alone avoids the mysticism inherent in Bohr's formulation while providing a sound foundation for causality -- and even here, I don't adopt that version wholesale, but use it as a starting point for reconstruction and full recovery of a classical regime.
In regard to temperature, the maximon lattice can't get any hotter than it is (it's at the Planck temperature, after all). Should matter get warm if embedded in such an aether? I'll consider that possibility if someone can show me that a light wave gets warmer after passing through hot glass, or gets cooler passing through cold glass. Otherwise, not. There is no coupling at the thermal level. This is also where I must respectfully depart from the published thoughts of Dr. Bouw and Prof. James Hanson, who believe that LeSagean flux passing through matter will cause it to heat up. They conclude from this prediction that the Earth must therefore be young -- if it, and other objects in the created order, were billions of years old, the alleged accumulated heat energy would have long ago vaporized them. While I'm a staunch young earth creationist, I find no validity in this argument -- it presupposes inelastic collisions obtain between LeSagean corpuscles and other entities. Thermal energy is a one-way degradation of energy due to such inelastic interactions -- but where the interactions are elastic, all the energy is accounted for and remains in the aether. The gravitational "push" that gives rise to mutual attractions under LeSage (I'm thinking of the integral form of the attenuation equations as derived by Hanson) arise out of differential flux densities due to shadowing, but there is no net exchange in energy between aether and bodies -- only a shift from potential to kinetic energy during the acceleration. All the energy is accounted for -- nothing degrades to heat. 

Martin



On Apr 23, 2007, at 5:39 PM, Dr. Neville Jones wrote:


Martin,

What physical entity would/could move freely through a 2ft lead wall?
Even taking the deBroglie-like concepts that you are advocating for the aether, how could such an aether carry anything along with it, since it must by definition be completely transparent?
I consider that there exists a certain minimum distance, which cannot be subdivided into any smaller unit. Call this the Planck length, L*, if you want, although I do not want to stake my colours to that mast just at the moment. However, my problem lies in the addition of mass into this aether "fabric," such that, simply because of the extremely small volume created via L*^3, we get a phenomenal density.
We are dealing with physical objects, rather than deBroglie wavelengths of electrons. The aether either carries physical objects along with it or it doesn't, but I think that going from Newtonian physics to quantum mechanics and then back again for the sake of mathematical "completeness" is nothing more than a mental exercise.
It is for this reason that, although I have read your comments on this, I still maintain that the introduction of mass into the aether "fabric" leads to absurd temperatures and pressures being predicted by LeSagean gravity. 

Neville.


"Martin G. Selbrede" <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your free account today. 

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: