Black Holes Feed On Quantum Foam, Says Cosmologist

It seems inconsistent to say it is an incompressible fluid, that can carry waves. Where is the pressure absorbed if not in the aether? How can the aether experience pressure, and give way to it, if it can't equalize that pressure within it by compressing and pushing back.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*Sigh* Paddoboy, you already admitted to cav755 and dmoe that "no-one knows"; and that YOU certainly don't know; and that the current QM 'understandings' of what MIGHT be 'happening' is just CONJECTURE and INTERPRETATIONS based on conjecture/hypotheses which no-one really KNOWS are true or not.

So please stop repeating mindlessly that lame 'challenge' about "peer review" and "proof" etc etc which is NOT forthcoming even for the PROFESSIONAL hypotheses. OK?

And where have you been for the last few years, with your head in the sand (I was going to say "up your....", but that would be rude, wouldn't it, and you wouldn't 'deserve that because you've never been rude to anyone here, have you?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).

Anyhow, the 'peer review system' has failed big time generally. And in Cosmology it has 'passed' BS for years which has become inbuilt into the later 'work/paper' review based on their validity according to citations/assumptions which were flawed in the previous papers. So your 'belief' in 'peer review' is not healthy scientific observation/belief on your part given the facts in the news over the last few tears and recently with the latest BS 'publish or perish' mainstream crap on 'CMB/Inflation/gravity waves etc papers that I found flaws in immediately (and professionals also followed and found some of but not all the flaws yet which I spotted right away).

Please, paddo, for your own sake if not for science and discourse generally, stop the mindless troll 'me too' and 'cheerleading' and 'challenge you to get peer review/proof' etc, because you haven't a clue about what's actually going on in professional OR the 'crank' community regarding all that stuff. Cool it, mate! OK?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Water is an incompressible fluid.

You are in a bowling alley filled with a supersolid. You roll the bowling ball. The bowling ball displaces the supersolid. The supersolid displaces the bowling ball as it fills-in where the bowling ball had been. By definition, the bowling ball rolls forever through the supersolid.

Q. Is the bowling ball displacing the supersolid or is the supersolid displacing the bowling ball?
A. Both are occurring simultaneously with equal force.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You do understand what a scientific theory is dont you cav755 ?

So why do you claim certainty in your model?
Why are you afraid of peer review?
And why if you are not interested in peer review [for obvious reasons] do you see the need to keep pushing your stuff here?
Were you not banned earlier for that on another forum?
And why now a different handle?
I mean I grow very suspicious of trolls that get banned, and then come back with different handles.

 

Analogies all have limitations I know, but that one doesn't even get past square one!

 

Also cav755, you have started two other threads on the aether and double slit experiment, and you have not received any reply.
Is this why you decide to raise it elsewhere?
Why do you believe you have not got any replies?

 

The waves are surface waves then and the surface carries the compression as crests and valleys on an otherwise 2 dimensional surface by undulating that surface in a third direction, i.e. up and down relative to the flat surface. But the aether is 3-D, so which direction absorbs the displacement?

Are you saying that the bowling ball is compressed aether? It is not, if aether cannot be compressed.

 

Submarines move through and displace water, which is an incompressible fluid.

The bowling ball is condensed aether. Where the pressure is great enough aether condenses into particles of matter. This is different than the aether itself compressing due to objects existing in it and moving through it.

 

Yes, but you still have water that has a surface that moves in the third direction.

With a couple of changes, your model becomes mine, lol. But waves have to compress the aether in order to carry energy through it. Particles become patches of high wave energy density with continuous inflowing and out flowing wave components.

In your model, you are always going to have to have a way for the waves to ride across some otherwise flat surface as in your water analogies.

 

The water and the submarine still occupy the same amount of three dimensional space. When you are in the bowling alley and you roll the bowling ball the bowling ball rolls through the supersolid. The supersolid fills the bowling alley. As the ball rolls through the supersolid the supersolid does not require any additional space to occupy.

I see the aether as a supersolid and I like the way Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate, describes it as a piece of window glass, "Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness."

You don't have to read all of the following. However, they all, or the vast majority of them, are discussing an incompressible fluid.

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid, which is described in the following article as the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. The article describes a 'back reaction' associated with the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. This is the displaced aether 'displacing back'.

'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3458

"We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide further evidence of the “fluidic” nature of space itself. This "back-reaction" is quantified by the tendency of angular momentum flux threading across a surface."

The following article describes the aether as that which produces resistance to acceleration and is responsible for the increase in mass of an object with velocity and describes the "space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."

'Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and fluidic inertia'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4611

"It is shown that the force exerted on a particle by an ideal fluid produces two effects: i) resistance to acceleration and, ii) an increase of mass with velocity. ... The interaction between the particle and the entrained space flow gives rise to the observed properties of inertia and the relativistic increase of mass. ... Accordingly, in this framework the non resistance of a particle in uniform motion through an ideal fluid (D’Alembert’s paradox) corresponds to Newton’s first law. The law of inertia suggests that the physical vacuum can be modeled as an ideal fluid, agreeing with the space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."

The relativistic mass of an object is the mass of the object and the mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the object which is displaced by the object. The faster an object moves with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists the greater the displacement of the aether by the object the greater the relativistic mass of the object.

'Comment on the higher derivative Lagrangians in relativistic theory'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.5759.pdf

"Einstein theory of gravitational fields and this gives a new perspective on the Mach principle revisiting the “absolute” acceleration concept as a natural motion in space-time deformed by the matter-energy contained therein. We refer the reader to the paper of Einstein on a related topic [9]. The relativistic theory of an Aether was discussed several time, see for e.g. [8], [9]. In this paper, our hypothesis is different and gives a relativistic theory of the deformation of continuous media (for which the geometry is described by the metric field)."

The deformation of continuous media is the state of displacement of the aether.

The geometrical representation of gravity as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

The incompressible fluid described in the following article is the gravitational aether which "the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."

'Empty Black Holes, Firewalls, and the Origin of Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4176

"But why an incompressible fluid? The reason comes from an attempt to solve the (old) cosmological constant problem, which is arguably the most puzzling aspect of coupling gravity to relativistic quantum mechanics [13]. Given that the natural expectation value for the vacuum of the standard model of particle physics is ∼ 60 orders of magnitude heavier than the gravitational measurements of vacuum density, it is reasonable to entertain an alternative theory of gravity where the standard model vacuum decouples from gravity. Such a theory could be realized by coupling gravity to the traceless part of the quantum mechanical energy-momentum tensor. However, the consistency/covariance of gravitational field equations then requires introducing an auxiliary fluid, the so-called gravitational aether [14]. The simplest model for gravitational aether is an incompressible fluid (with vanishing energy density, but non-vanishing pressure), which is currently consistent with all cosmological, astrophysical, and precision tests of gravity [15, 16]:

__3__
32πGN Gμν = Tμν − Tα gμν + Tμν ,
Tμν = p (uμ uν + gμν ), T μν;ν = 0,

where GN is Newton’s constant, Tμν is the matter energy momentum tensor and Tμν is the incompressible gravitational aether fluid. In vacuum, the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."

The following article describes the aether as an incompressible fluid resulting in what the article refers to as gravitational aether caused by pressure (or vorticity).

'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old Cosmological Constant Problem'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3955

"One proposal to address this puzzle at the semi-classical level is to decouple quantum vacuum from space-time geometry via a modification of gravity that includes an incompressible fluid, known as Gravitational Aether. In this paper, we discuss classical predictions of this theory along with its compatibility with cosmological and experimental tests of gravity. We argue that deviations from General Relativity (GR) in this theory are sourced by pressure or vorticity."

The following article describes gravity as a pressure exerted by aether toward matter.

'The aether-modified gravity and the G ̈del metric'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.5654v2

"As for the pressure, it is equal to p = 53−αg,6a2 so, it is positive if αg < 3 which is the weaker condition than the previous one. One notes that the results corresponding to the usual gravity are easily recovered. Also, it is easy to see that the interval αg < 15 corresponds to the usual matter."

The following article describes a gravitating vacuum where aether is the quantum vacuum of the 21-st century.

'From Analogue Models to Gravitating Vacuum'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.1155

"The aether of the 21-st century is the quantum vacuum, which is a new form of matter. This is the real substance"

The following articles describe what is presently postulated as dark matter is aether.

'Quantum aether and an invariant Planck scale'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3753

"this version of aether may have some bearing on the abundance of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in our universe."

"mass of the aether"

'Scalars, Vectors and Tensors from Metric-Affine Gravity'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.5168

"the model obtained here gets closer to the aether theory of , which is shown therein to be an alternative to the cold dark matter."

'Unified model for dark matter and quintessence'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0610135

"Superfluid dark matter is reminiscent of the aether and modeling the universe using superfluid aether is compatible."

'Vainshtein mechanism in Gauss-Bonnet gravity and Galileon aether'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.1892

"the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of ”aether” because of the presence of the background field"

'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum medium and the inertial motion of particles'
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0701155

"In this paper we shall show that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as a ubiquitous back ground field is a super fluid medium."

 

HI quantum_wave! Long time no see/speak.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The following is NOT to be taken as any indication either way that I agree/disagree with cav755's hypothesis as put so far. I only refer to the following information about Non-Newtonian fluids because it seems to describe a similar 'behavior' to the his 'aether' behavior when the 'pressure aspect is involved. See wiki entry on Non-Newtonian Fluids:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Newtonian_fluid


Everyone discussing such things might also benefit from actually reading up on the real properties/processes/propagation/entities etc involved in the SuperSolids, SuperFluids, SuperConductors and 'Near-absolute-zero-temp Condensates of all kinds (both Bosonic, Fermionic, mixed bosonic-fermionic) and what they may have to say about what the energy-space may be 'behaving like' in analogous fashion.

All these background things may inform the discussion better to provide a more 'common understanding of terminology/concepts/analogies' base from which to go on with further discussion of the things cav755 is trying to convey.

Cheers; and enjoy your further (hopefully) polite and courteous objective discourse, guys!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thanks. I know it will all be interesting, and some repeats from links you have given before, but the sad truth is that modeling the universe is a major task, and avoiding the self inflicted internal inconsistencies is a never ending problem.

 

Can we agree on the following?

'Alert Einstein's 'First Paper''
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/File:Einstein_First_Paper.pdf

"The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces."

Einstein is referring to the state of displacement of the aether.

The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause its propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether displaced by these forces.

 

Yes, to be sure; terminology differences often turn out to mean the same thing in regard to the concept. And Hi to you too. Keep up the good work.

 

The following is the base.

Aether has mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the aether.

Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave; both are aether displacement waves.

Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.

 

Why do you keep avoiding my questions cav755?
I just need proof re your positive assertions.

 

I avoid your questions because you said Feynman said the particle went through both slits in a double slit experiment. When it was pointed out to you that wasn't the case you went on about how what you were saying was that Feynman was saying that no one could explain what occurs in a double slit experiment, which was not what you had been saying at all.

Once I realized you were unable to admit that you had said Feynman said the particle went through both slits I realized any attempt at having a 'conversation' with you was pointless.

 

Stop your silly-goose-stepping all over the place and just go look at post #111 and the reading recommended to all before attempting to discuss the complex and subtle matters trying to be conveyed by cav755.

Read and understand the recommended information therein, paddoboy, else you prove once again you are a mindless clueless troll, complete with your hypocritical clueless 'challenges'.

 

Yep, Feynman said we do not know...I plead guilty that he didn't say it actually goes through both...But he didn't say it actually goes through one either.
And I have given two other links supporting the particle going through both, you just chose to deride them as they interfere with you picture of what you say happens.
Now can we answer those questions?
Ignoring our unstable friend of course!

 

Do you really think Dr. Quantum has a better understanding of what occurs in a double slit experiment than Richard Feynman? Do you really think a particle splits in two, goes through both slits and then recombines and then is able to create an interference pattern?

Double slit experiments have been performed with C60 molecules. That's 60 interconnected atoms. If the particle splits in two then why are all 60 atoms always detected as a single C60 molecule when detectors are placed within the slits?