[geocentrism] Re: Aether effects
- From: "Martin G. Selbrede" <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:26:51 -0500
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:
