Ether model
- Thread starter Michael Anteski
- Start date
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Jesus, is that what they are charging for annual "membership" - of this internet "journal" with no readership?!
That is incredibly extortionate and absolutely confirms the predatory nature of the scam. It can only be designed to prey on the vulnerable: no one with their wits about them would sign up for that.
I do hope Michael is in a condition to manage his financial affairs.
Michael Anteski
Registered Senior Member
"Mathematics?" - The model I present is an ether model. Standard quantum physics uses mathematics in describing the dynamics being observed, but one cannot connect the two using math. It isn't only math that prevents connecting the two models. Standard quantum theory bases itself on the concept there is no ether, so any attempt to debate is impossible from the start, because it immediately becomes a case of apples and oranges. Neither side wants to yield anything there.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
The language of physics is mathematics
If you do not have mathematics in physics you have very very little.
“Ether Model of the universe, Quantum Entanglement…”
What do you mean by “quantum?” “entanglement?” Are you no disregarding the concept of quantum?
“represents radiated packets”
What do you mean by radiated? Packets?
“ of etheric energy”
What kind of energy? How much? Where does it originate?
“which have the same vibratory pattern.”
What is vibrating? What is the pattern?
“Elemental ether units are the only actual participants in this phenomenon”
What does you mean elemental? Unit? Are these fundamental?
“with the pair of quantum units”
Again I thought you were discarding the quantum concept?
“kinetically walled off like cool arms of a quiet, purring, universal ether mechanism.”
What??
Michael Anteski
Registered Senior Member
The elemental ether units inside the pair of entangled quantum units vibrate independently, of course, but taken together, inside the two similar quantum units, they form a similar vibratory pattern, a "sub quantal profile," which is unique to the two units in question. (In past posts, I describe how larger and larger sub-quantum, or "etheroidal," units are formed, as smaller units combine to form larger and larger units inside a quantum unit, according to how their sets of vibrations match up and combine.)
OK, in "past posts" do you also have an experiment?
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Sir. This is absolute nonsense. Bears no resemblance to modern physics whatsoever or historical or modern observations and the data these have yielded.
Models are supposed to represent a phenomena, simplify it.
A science theory is supposed to explain current data and make predictions.
Your idea does not do any of these things. You are using established terms and concepts like, energy, quantum and entanglement, then discarding the underlying mathematics.
It has ZERO to do with scientific enquiry.
You're telling us that you're the first physicist in 400 years to present a viable non-mathematical physical theory? Indeed, a theory that cannot be expressed mathematically?
How interesting.
How and when did you discover that your ether theory is immune to mathematical methods?
Does it? Please explain. I don't recall seeing that particular assumption in my quantum physics texts.
Ether units? Is your ether supposed to be a substance that things are made of, then? And this substance vibrates in a way that is not describable using a mathematical concept like frequency?
How do you describe entanglement without appealing to mathematics?
Better avoid that word "pattern". That almost sounds like something that would be right up mathematics' alley.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
I am bowing out. The "paper" is clearly garbage and the journal predatory. I hope he did not pay much.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Indeed. If you look back at this thread, which started back in 2017, you can see that this is a long-standing, er, hobby
of Michael's, which has little or nothing to do with physics. If he's who I think he is, his is 85 and a retired medical man. He is polite and harmless, i.e. does not infest other parts of the forum with junk, so we tend to tolerate him and leave him to it.Michael Anteski
Registered Senior Member
To try to reply as concisely as possible to your post -
My claim that mathematics as applied in physics could not be used in connection with my ether model would relate to how my ether model views the relationship between etheric forces and quantum forces.
In my model, vanishingly-rarified units of the ether (which first arose post-first-causally as Yin/Yang units) initiate all transmissions in physics. and their vibratory dynamic involves linkage of outward vibratory "nodes," occurring between one ether unit and another ether unit. This is a direct-contact, one unit-on-one identical type of unit, type of dynamic, and is always non-thermal and linear, or "cool."
These elemental-ether effects are transmitted within the ether to larger units, up to the size of quantum units, via vibratory effects in the ether, of smaller units on larger units ("etheroidal" units), to eventually reach the size-scale of quantum units. Quantum units as seen in a transmission arise from the effects of underlying ether forces, and operate in pathways that are in conjunction with the ether units, "following" them, but their dynamic differs from the ether dynamic. Here is where the two kinds of dynamics diverge, and why you could not just apply quantum math to an etheric system. The ether dynamic follows a pathway through the ether determined by focusing on variations in the ether, such as in quantum entanglement, where a pair of foci in the ether serve as "endpoints" of a transmission through the ether.
Any quantum units generated by an energy transmission would follow upon, and be associated with, the underlying ether dynamic, and would "follow" the ether pathway, but only partially. As overlying quantum units follow the pathway, they mechanically interact with other quantum units. Such interactions between the larger units would be non linear, and not "cool." This would represent the thermodynamic effect. Thermodynamics would not apply to etheric transmissions, because of how ether units interact, one unit to another unit, linearly and "coolly."
Anyway, it can be seen that in my ether model., quantum dynamics would not be directly correlated with its underlying ether dynamics, and math as used in quantum physics can't be used for the ether portion of energy transmissions.
My claim that mathematics as applied in physics could not be used in connection with my ether model would relate to how my ether model views the relationship between etheric forces and quantum forces.
In my model, vanishingly-rarified units of the ether (which first arose post-first-causally as Yin/Yang units) initiate all transmissions in physics. and their vibratory dynamic involves linkage of outward vibratory "nodes," occurring between one ether unit and another ether unit. This is a direct-contact, one unit-on-one identical type of unit, type of dynamic, and is always non-thermal and linear, or "cool."
These elemental-ether effects are transmitted within the ether to larger units, up to the size of quantum units, via vibratory effects in the ether, of smaller units on larger units ("etheroidal" units), to eventually reach the size-scale of quantum units. Quantum units as seen in a transmission arise from the effects of underlying ether forces, and operate in pathways that are in conjunction with the ether units, "following" them, but their dynamic differs from the ether dynamic. Here is where the two kinds of dynamics diverge, and why you could not just apply quantum math to an etheric system. The ether dynamic follows a pathway through the ether determined by focusing on variations in the ether, such as in quantum entanglement, where a pair of foci in the ether serve as "endpoints" of a transmission through the ether.
Any quantum units generated by an energy transmission would follow upon, and be associated with, the underlying ether dynamic, and would "follow" the ether pathway, but only partially. As overlying quantum units follow the pathway, they mechanically interact with other quantum units. Such interactions between the larger units would be non linear, and not "cool." This would represent the thermodynamic effect. Thermodynamics would not apply to etheric transmissions, because of how ether units interact, one unit to another unit, linearly and "coolly."
Anyway, it can be seen that in my ether model., quantum dynamics would not be directly correlated with its underlying ether dynamics, and math as used in quantum physics can't be used for the ether portion of energy transmissions.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
OK, is there any math of your own that can put some values to this idea?
If not, then this isn't a theory; it's just an idea. And an unfalsifiable one.
Michael Anteski
Registered Senior Member
It wouldn't be possible to apply math to the ether, at least at this stage of the theory. Applying math would require measurements of etheric impulses and comparing that to measurements of overlying quantum-scale transmissions that are observed, but we don't have any means with our technology to observe the ether.
The key to demonstrating my ether model would not involve math. It might be possible to set up a field test, using natural-occurring materials, following a test-procedure designed to detect previously-unknown naturally-occurring forces, and measuring their effects in an indirect way. The design of the procedure would be based on a predicted effect that would logically have to involve another (etheric) kind of energy.
As Dave has pointed out, that means you don't have a theory and you don't have a hypothesis.
And based on this type of word salad:
You got nuttin'
Michael:
At a minimum, your ether theory will have to be able to accurately reproduce all experimentally tested and confirmed results of regular quantum mechanics.
Can you show us any example of how to get from the postulates of your ether theory to an experimentally verified result? For example, can your ether theory correctly reproduce the results of a two-slit interference experiment involving photons or electrons? If so, can you please show me how it does that, or link me to a derivation of the interference pattern and/or its characteristics, starting from the postulates of your ether theory?
Unless and until you can demonstrate that your theory has some utility in making accurate predictions (or accurately describing quantitative experimental outcomes), I don't care to know any of the proposed "mechanisms" of your theory. You can postulate all the "fundamental" entities you like, but if your theory never connects with real-world evidence it is worthless. Do you understand this?
At a minimum, your ether theory will have to be able to accurately reproduce all experimentally tested and confirmed results of regular quantum mechanics.
Can you show us any example of how to get from the postulates of your ether theory to an experimentally verified result? For example, can your ether theory correctly reproduce the results of a two-slit interference experiment involving photons or electrons? If so, can you please show me how it does that, or link me to a derivation of the interference pattern and/or its characteristics, starting from the postulates of your ether theory?
Unless and until you can demonstrate that your theory has some utility in making accurate predictions (or accurately describing quantitative experimental outcomes), I don't care to know any of the proposed "mechanisms" of your theory. You can postulate all the "fundamental" entities you like, but if your theory never connects with real-world evidence it is worthless. Do you understand this?
Michael Anteski
Registered Senior Member
You're citing widely separate phenomena, such as, now, how photons act in the double-slit experiment and asking how my ether model would explain them, although conventional quantum theory has no clear explanation of the unpredictable behavior of these photons, itself.
My model would look at the photon experiment differently than quantum theory does. To make a long story short, my model proposes that during acts if creating the universe, photons were produced (created) from electrons (which were present already as part of the ether/etheroidal/quantum ambient (precreational) universe, along with protons and atoms) A creator could take just a single electron, make a slight alteration in it, and it would result in a new unit having the same velocity (speed of light) as the electron, but have slightly different other properties, such as interacting with quantum-atomic bodies, imparting a visible color spectrum otherwise not present. A single such "prototype photon" could then be projected into the early ether ambience, and the ether could then chain reactionally multiply them, until the universe became full of photons.
This kind of model could account for why photons have a not-straightforward type of dynamics, as seen in the double slit experiment.
This was just to give some idea of how far afield from conventional theory these questions can lead if you use this ether model.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
And there you have it, folks.
A creator is an unfalsiable assertion.
What experiment can you propose that, depending on its outcome, would prove or disprove this creator?
Michael:
Can your ether theory do any of those things?
On the contrary, conventional quantum theory can predict quantitatively where bright and dark interference fringes will form on a distant screen, when photons (or electrons) are passed through a double-slit apparatus. Conventional quantum theory is able to show how the spacing and width of the interference fringes depends on the slit separation and the slit width, for example. Moreover, conventional quantum theory is able to derive the specific intensity profile of the interference pattern.
Can your ether theory do any of those things?
Michael Anteski
Registered Senior Member
If, as you and standard-theory quantists theorize, the double slit experiment has no question marks, and the photons behave consistently, then why, if you shine a flashlight in a dark room, the part of the room where the light beam is pointing also gets illuminated to some degree? If the whole story about light transmission by photons is correct, how did photons arrive to the rear of the flashlight?
I submit that photons have a slight mutation compared with their parent electrons, which makes them to some degree dynamically unlike electrons, and that there are always photons in any dark or lit area, even after sunset.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Particles do not "mutate" an electron and photon are different things