Is the Universe / an electron a Black Hole?

That's just a silly way to say a unification cannot be accom[lished. Relabity does NOT PROOVE Aether, as Einstein had shown. What he didn't know was, that after hi death, QM can now prove a vacuum Aether - totally different all together

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Like I've said already, the Aether concept has no adjectives. You can consider the Quantum and or relativistic (Einsteinian) Aether, but this is not the Aether of the Aether Wave Theory. The AWT is using just gradient driven Newtonian mechanics, because the inertial gradient is considered as the fundamental unit of reality here. Like I've explained already, the relativity is biased by the same way, like the quantum mechanics. Only the geometry rules following from Newtonian theory on both cosmological, both Planck scales can reconcile both these theories seamlessly. The Aether is just random.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This is mostly the Occam's razor problem: if we can explain both relativity, both quantum mechanics by recursion of rather transparent Newtonian theory, why we should use the recursion of more complex theory, which relies on some not-understood-yet postulates? You cannot even say, which of six postulates of quantum mechanics are completelly consistent and which not. The quantum mechanics is ingenious guess of reality, but it's just a guess. We know, it's working well in certain extent, but we don't understand the most important thing: we don't understand WHY is it so. Briefly speaking, the quantum mechanics is just a qualified formal regression of reality, something like the epicycles model of Ptolemaic era. We know, this regression is working well, but we need another theory, to understand why is is s. In fact, we are inoring the same inertia concept in both Ptolemaic, both QM case. If so, why not to use the inertial theory directly?

Of course, you can develop the Aether theory based on ad-hoced quantum mechanics postulates, but you'll get into infinities troubles less or more latelly, because the quantum mechanics isn't completelly local theory, its validity scope is limited, as I demonstrated above. And such approach has nearly no advantage over other quantum field theories - you're just replaced the "field" word by "Aether" word. But the inertial approach makes easy to understand, the quantum field isn't massless, so it can bring a new level of intuitive understanding into problem.

So please, if you believe in Quantum Aether so much, don't bother me with it at the future - just try to develop your own testable predictions by using it. Nobody is prohibiting you to develop your own excelent Aether theory based on quantum mechanics. But don't ask me, after then, why your theory is or isn't working...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

''relativistic (Einsteinian) Aether, but this is not the Aether of the Aether Wave Theory''

Actually, the Einsteinean Aether was mostly based upon lumineferous phenomena. He prove that was of ether to be incorrect, and as you admited in your AWT post, you need the lumineferous qualities.

See your paradox?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Einstein's Aether is still used occasionally. But by my opinion, every theory, which is introducing ad-hoc postulates into formal model (no matter, they're comming from relativity or quantum theory or whatever else) is facing the consistency problems less or more lately. The Einstein's Aether is not so general, as the Aether of AWT, as it's using the constant speed of light and reference frame invariance postulates. So, no please - no Aether with some relativity or QM concepts hard-coded anymore. These concepts should follow from the Aether definition explicitelly. I'm not interested about some less or more particular math models available for publishing and grant obtaining, but for general understanding of concepts. I'm completelly free thinker, so I'm looking for as general view of reality, as possible - i.e. with no ad-hoc assumptions at all, if possible. The true ToE must be build up from scratch, i.e. without dependence on any other particular theory.

 

Is the Universe / an electron a Black Hole?
Of course!

 

Hi Physics Friends; I will be away for a while but will return to see how things are going in mid-January. Don't be too harsh with each other.

 

Frankly, I'm not very interested about ideas, but the reason of the ideas. By AWT every chaotic fluctuation or random opinion is just atemporal artifact. The causual gradient, i.e. the seamless connection to the other opinions is what makes from such idea an permanent part of touchable reality. Because we are highly causual creatures, we are condensed many generations of causual Aether phase transforms inside of our conciousness and the chaotic reality is unreachable for us. The causual space full of random fluctuations and/or opinions cannot spread the energy/information at the distance and it cannot interract with the observable reality at all. You're living inside of your multiverse and I cannot interract with you, to exchange the information the less.

Briefly speaking, without logical arguments - at least simple - we'll shout down each other mutually like blonde hens. This is not what the dialectic discussion is called. The science is not Bingo! game, the scientific discussion is not social club.

 

Not true. I have read through many if not, (all) of your posts Zeph.... And i a, ,pst impressed by your logic. I can give severalreasons why IF ANY doubt me.

 

(By the way... my fucking bulb has gone in the living room, so if there are any future errors, please so not mistake them as ignorant miscalculations in my luinguiatic order)

 

Bingo!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I love how complex you made my "of course".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So.. if I say "of course" don't you question whether this issue is actually more simple then it looks like? If I'm so sure about it, maybe it is a simpler issue that it looks like.

Here's a litle bit of "dialectic discussion". If we are not in a black hole and there's no universe outside ours, then what is outside? There must be something outside. Right?

 

Exactly... a white hole...

 

Exactly. A white rabbit.

 

And you all laugh at my hyperdimensional magneto-gravitic fairies. Hmmphh.

 

No... I never laughed, so please take that back. I just couldn't understand at first'

 

Ok. Moral indignation retracted.

 

Cheers.

 

Subject exhausted.