Aether Wave Theory - a new approach to the contemporary physics understanding

No, we're not. There is no 'inside' of particles. Besides, the notions of symmetry breaking SO(9,1) down to SO(3,1)xSO(6) has nothing to do with particles, it's about space-time topology. It'd be valid in GR too.

Have you bothered to learn what local and global symmetries are yet?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hadrons are complex particles composed of many virtual quarks. Any hadron may contain an indefinite number of virtual quarks, antiquarks and gluons which together contribute nothing to their quantum numbers. Such virtual quarks are called sea quarks. Your symmetries are involving the hidden dimensions inside of these particles.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I know, what the local symmetries are, but Lubos Motl is quite specific in this point: "The exact microscopic Lorentz symmetry is one of very many general and universal predictions of string theory." He may not be an expert in physics or climatology, but he's definitely an expert in string theory, who has developed whole one branch of it. Motl has a dozens of publications about string theory, you've none. And his stance is logical: no mathematically consistent theory can predict from c= const postulate the c ≠ const theorem by rigorous way.

This is simply the way, how the math is working. If you're claiming the opposite, then you can still be right, and the AWT considers this - but such conclusion cannot be derived from string theory postulates by logical way. To be able to say this you'll need a deeper insight, which isn't part of string theory, but the product of your imagination.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So that would be a no, you haven't looked it up.

And having some Lorentz symmetry doesn't mean you need it all. You don't know what it is so you don't understand what Motl says.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The questions, whether I can understand, what Motl is saying is completely irrelevant here, because it cannot be proven by you. The important is, my arguments aren't in logical contradiction with his claims, while you're still claiming the opposite and you're not authority regarding string theory by any way.

Of course, if we introduce another postulates and assumptions into every theory, we can achieve different results, but the modified theory will not remain the original theory furthermore. For example, if we introduce the spin loop concept into string theory, we can achieve the LQG theory predictions in certain extent - but such approach says nothing about original string theory and its predictability, which still remains defined by another postulate set.

For example, the AWT doesn't use the Lorentz symmetry postulate, so it can confirm it as a theorem or refute it, depending on conditions. The string theory uses the Lorentz symmetry as a postulate, so its predictions are strictly determined by this postulate. Only consistent thinking can lead to testable predictions.

 

I've provided links and explainations. Calabi Yaus are central to string theory. They involve breaking the holonomy of space-time from SO(9,1) to SO(3,1)xSO(6) to SO(3,1)xSU(3). If Motl accepts the notion of compact spaces then he accepts the breaking of total Lorentz symmetry of space-time.

This isn't the same as saying "Lorentz symmetry doesn't exist".

But you don't know that, because you don't understand it. And as usual, you aren't man enough to accept it.

Learnt what a local symmetry is yet? You even had some free time to do so due to your suspension from these forums for a few days. I guess you squandered it.

And it's funny you say I'm not an authority on string theory while you claim to know more about it. You're not even an authority on basic physics.

 

Unfortunatelly he doesn't by pronounced way:

"Also, there are the constantly repeated claims that Lorentz symmetry violation is predicted by string theory. It is certainly not predicted by any of the 10^{500} vacua that are often referred to when someone talks about the landscape. There are many such vacua but all of them uniformly agree about some extremely strong predictions such as the exact microscopic Lorentz symmetry. All constructions in string theory that are fully stringy as well as realistic preserve Lorentz symmetry.

The phenomenologists who write about Lorentz violation only use some string-inspired tools and words but they are not taking all of them into account and they are not doing full-fledged string theory.

The exact microscopic Lorentz symmetry is one of very many general and universal predictions of string theory. In string theory, it is a derivable fact and thus a prediction, not an assumption. So far it is passing all the tests."

By my opinion, no mathematically exact theory can derive by using of Lorentz symmetry postulate exactly the opposite as one of its theorems by rigorous way. Here's no explicit difference between "local" and "global" scope of Lorentz symmetry and this difference isn't contained in string theory postulates, so you cannot use it in rigor based math theory.

The fact, you me or Motl "doesn't understand something" plays no role in matter of fact discussion and arguments expressed above, so your stance isn't relevant to point of discussion at all - it's just an naive atempt to manipulate the readers psychologically to make your stance more substantial then it really is without relevant arguments.

 

Compact spaces still have Lorentz symmetry. The 4d space-time they inhabit still have Lorentz symmetry. It's just not SO(9,1). I'm not saying the Lorentz symmetry of normal space-time (ie SO(3,1)) is broken. And that's what Motl talks about. But unless he's claiming that we live in a universe with 10 large dimensions, which he isn't, then he will not be saying the universe has SO(9,1) Lorentz symmetry.

So you still haven't looked up what those words mean. So much for any honesty on your part.

Why not just admit you don't know what those words mean in the way physicists use them?

No, it's a demonstration you are willing to make claims about things you have repeatedly shown to not know the meaning of.

That would make it an attempt by you to manipulate people to try and make your stance seem more substancial. Anyone wishing to learn a bit of relativity or symmetries will see what I mean. But you aren't and you have to rely on misunderstanding out of context quotes on topics you don't know.

You don't even know what a 'local symmetry' is compared to a 'global symmetry'. The first hit on Google would have explained it. But you're either too lazy to look, too stupid to understand or too desperate not to accept it.

Which ever is the reason, you're the one being dishonest.

 

Nope, this is definitely not, what Lubos Motl explicitly says about "exact microscopic Lorentz symmetry", which is "is one of very many general and universal predictions of string theory". This is not Lorentz symmetry of "normal space-time". After all, what the "normal space-time" is supposed to be? Is global space-time paranormal?

For future discussion, please submit a list of yours peer-reviewed publications about string theory. You know, this forum isn't supposed to give a place for ambitious trolls, who are trying to infirm good name of mainstream science by unsubstantiated arbitrary interpretations of mainstream theories.

 

So once again, the answer to my question is that no, you haven't looked up what those physics terms mean.

Aren't you the one claiming that string theory is wrong? And yet you don't even know what a local symmetry is?

And you think that because I disagree with your misunderstanding of string theory I disagree with that particular string theorist. I disagree with your ill conceited view that you understand people's discussion of symmetries when you don't know anything about the mainstream notion of such things.

You're the one saying "By my opinion, no mathematically exact theory can derive by using of Lorentz symmetry postulate exactly the opposite as one of its theorems by rigorous way. Here's no explicit difference between "local" and "global" scope of Lorentz symmetry and this difference isn't contained in string theory postulates, so you cannot use it in rigor based math theory." when you don't know any of the development of string theory, how to derive Lorentz symmetry, what a local Lorentz symmetry is or even the specifics of any mainstream theory.

Tell me, what proof have you that you are competant at mainstream theories? I've proven I'm half decent at string theory to people like Michael Green. He lectured me string theory.

 

...Me??? No

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Can we see the list of reviewed publications of yours, at last?

..unsucessfully, it seems... You didn't become productive in anything.

 

Can we see your list of reviewed publications?

If I've been taught unsuccessfully, how come I got a distinction in my essay on string theory, as marked by that professor? How come I'm doing a PhD in it? I've reviewed papers for a journal. I've taught undergraduates. I've got qualifications. I haven't claimed to be a published string theorist. I'll admit, I've been somewhat under productive, until recently. In the last 2 weeks I've developed a new construction for non-geometric flux algebras in the \(\mathbb{Z}_{2} \times \mathbb{Z}_{2}\) orbifold. Infact, just yesterday I upgraded my model from a single GL(2,Z) parameterisation to a full GL(2,Z) group.

My supervisor said I now have the backbone of my thesis. I now need to flesh it out.

Let's see evidence you're productive?

 

That list, plzz...

 

What relevence does my published list have compared to your ability? As I said, I've not claimed to know better than Motl, I've claimed to know better than you. Besides, you're creating a strawman. I have specifically said I'm not published.

You don't know what a local or global symmetry is, so you don't understand what Motl says. You don't know the specifics of string theory, so you don't understand what Motl says. You don't know the specifics of mainstream physics, so you don't understand what Motl says.

I do know what those symmetries are and a lot of the specifics of mainstream physics, including string theory. Here is a picture of my Cambridge degree. Where's yours?

It all comes down to you demonstrating you understand the specifics of the terminology Motl uses. You don't, you have demonstrated that. I do. I've demonstrated that.

 

The Dunning-Kruger effect is the phenomenon wherein people who have little knowledge tend to think that they know more than they do, while others who have much more knowledge tend to think that they know less. Dunning and Kruger were awarded a 2000 Ig Nobel prize for their work.

The phenomenon was demonstrated in a series of experiments performed by Justin Kruger and David Dunning, both of Cornell University. Their results were published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in December 1999.

We can interpret this phenomena as a surface tension phenomena at the presence of energy density or knowledge gradient in context of Aether theory or as a virtual boson "coat" in context of Standard Model, etc.

Here.

 

And that applies to people like yourself, Farsight, StevenA, Mott, Ivars, Reiku, SolidStateUniverse, Precursor and many others.

You don't get tested as to your physics knowledge so you think you're better than you are. I don't claim to be a world leading expert. But I can claim to be competant because I have proven to other physicists I am and I can demonstrate working knowledge of such things.

Either you're demonstrating that you're a wind up merchant or you're demonstrating you suffer from brain damage.

That is not for a degree. Nor do you demonstrate you have anything to do with it. Notice I wrote on a bit of paper in my picture, to show I at least took the photo.

Let's try something a bit simpler. Can you link to a few posts where you demonstrate you have working knowledge of mainstream physics? Where you show you can do questions/problems at the level of a physics graduate? For instance, here I demonstrate I can derive the behaviour of light around spinning black holes in GR. Where've you done anything like that?

 

Aether is the empty space on which the Universe sits.

Empty space is real but does not exist as matter, right? Einstein was right, the Universe is background free. The Aether does not exist, yet, it is the physical but immaterial substance from which the Universe emerged.

How big is a point? Size does not apply, right? Points are dimensionless. Same with empty space, it is dimensionless... yet, it contains the Universe. In this realm, we need to think in terms of state, not in terms of process. Process occurs as spacetime. Trying to mathematically describe a realm where there is no need for classical physics' laws is not acceptable. Terms like velocity or infinite imply motion and duration and can't be used to describe empty space, they are non-descriptive and inappropriate. At the Aether scale there are no distances to cover, it is all pervading... the Aether is one.

This notion of a primordial substance is a very old one, also known as Akasha or Brahman, and many times described as pure energy or spiritual fire. It has been anthropomorphized by man since the times of Plato and Aristotle, the Chaldeans and the Akkadians. Called by names like Zeus, Jupiter, Brahma and others. Always seen as immaterial until 1964, when the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR, CBR or CMB) was discovered. Since then, there have emerged completely contradictory notions which now compete for acceptance. The reductionists are becoming restless in countless desperate attempts to quantify the unmeasurable. Now there are new claims of an absolute frame of reference showing up everywhere. We finally have a fixed frame! They claim, as if we needed one.

If the Aether is physical but non-material, with no possible landmarks, how could it represent a fixed frame? Einstein, Minkowski and Mach described a different aether. This twentieth century aether differs from earlier aethers in that, in it, objects are relative to other objects, not to empty space, therefore avoiding a Principle of Relativity (POR) violation.

Like Einstein said, there is no absolute space, space is an extension of matter. Space and empty space are not the same thing. Space is not primary, nor fundamental, it does not exist by itself, it is a product, just as matter and time are products. Space is dynamic, it tells matter where to go and matter tells it how to curve. Empty space, on the other hand, is primary, non-derivable. There is flat empty space, then there is curved spacetime, or what is known as the observable Universe. Einstein's aether is the seat to an all relating process which he called spacetime.

Contemporary physics is increasingly turning into a cross between conformational space (General Relativity) and material space (Quantum Mechanics). After we realized there was a CMB, we have slowly integrated particulate space into GR, while starting to take a serious look at emerging space flow theories combining electrogravity and relativation.

Here, I use the aether concept in an attempt to solve the Hard Problem, to answer; What is that which is?

In most aether views, whether material or immaterial, the Aether is seen as an all knowing creative force, but not in this view. Here, I compare the Aether to God in the sense that it is one, omnipresent and eternal but, at the same time, I argue that it is not all knowing. That it is a thing which can neither think nor see without a brain. That it sees, thinks and exists through matter, and that in that sense we truly are God's servants. Consciousness, instead of being treated as universal, is seen as a local field around the planet.

Aether is but does not exist as matter, it is before spacetime, before the Big Bang, Inflation, a CMB... etc. It is not matter, therefore, notions like motion, size or duration are not applicable, time does not apply. It is outside the rules of spacetime. Aether becomes through matter. But, as you probably know, energy is finite, this is the reason why nothing with mass can reach the speed of light. Not even light can reach the speed of light! For a single photon to reach the speed of light the whole Universe would need to turn into that one photon. Because energy is finite and the speed of light needs to be kept constant for fields to work in the allowable speed range (0 to 300,000 km/s), there is time dilation and space contraction for material systems moving at relativistic speeds. As a photon reaches the speed limit its waves are flattened, it will lose its wavelength (energy) and go back into being Aether. Slow down the system and it reappears... as required by local spacetime conditions.

"This shows us two things: you cannot have parts of the infinite and the infinite is indivisible. But indeed, even if the One is more like a Principle, and the one is undivided, then the whole Universe will be undivided either in quantity or in form." (Aristotle, 340BC)

"A substance cannot be produced from anything else: it will therefore be its own cause, that is, its essence necessarily involves existence, or existence appertains to the nature of it." (Spinoza, 1673)

"It need hardly be pointed out that with things that do not change there is no illusion with respect to time, given the assumption of their unchangeability." (Aristotle, 340BC)

Reduce yourself to the size of the smallest particle and what do you get? You get empty space. Matter is made of fields and fields are little more than apparitions. Fields are shapes in empty space, lines of force. Matter is an illusion, but that is reality. Matter in spacetime is the one drawing the shapes, not some creator or designer. The Universe designs itself. Particle creation occurs according to local spacetime's energetic or thermodynamical requirements. Reality is process and process happens as spacetime.

Basil Hiley is correct, being remains constant during the process of becoming. Matter is only temporary, it has a beginning and an ending, it is subject to time (change). Things are because of the Aether, Aether is what gives them their temporary being status. The Real, that which is, is the Aether. Reality, on the other hand, simply refers to the process of becoming.

Whether there is an aether or not is finally answered; the Aether is but does not exist until it turns into brains with eyes.

This isn't a new theory but a new insight on already existing theories. A freshly synthesized interpretation consistent with already known and well accepted scientific facts. It is a new insight or synthesis which represents, in one way or another, claims already made by many great thinkers throughout the history of Mankind. A fresh perspective in which the aether concept is reintroduced in an attempt to reconcile a centuries old notion of wholeness in space and time with actually established scientific paradigms. In addition to arguing for a common substrate to all matter, in a purely dialectical way, without math or complicated formulas, I relate self-awareness and perception to non-living self-organized systems, thereby suggesting that consciousness is not a supernatural entity that precedes matter but an intrinsic property of Nature.