An ether theory of gravity compatible with modern physics

[The God]

No glee at all, just taken aback somewhat in seeing you finally recognising some invalid concepts.

I asked the purpose, did not make any comment on the validity / invalidity of the concept. read properly.

The incumbent theory holds the default position, particularly since it has stood all tests so far over a 100 years.

So what, it gives few monsters also, the biggest of all is Singularity. Geocentric concept was there for 1000+ years, but got debunked. Are you saying that science has reached its limits and no new paradigm shifting concepts can come?

Spacetime is not difficult to understand at all.

Ok, try explaining what is the ripple in the curvature of the spacetime to your club friends.

Let me remind you again, and Schmelzer, no new theory/model of gravitational radiation, or any other aspect of cosmology, will be discovered/realized or otherwise fabricated on any science forum such as this.
It just ain't gonna happen, dreaming and delusions aside.

I agree wholeheartedly with you. When the level of people who are acting/pretending as expert is so low that they need a link to find out the volume of sphere with given radius, what can be expected?

just enjoy....

 

[Schmelzer]

There's no evidence for a Gravistar. Matter falling on the surface of your Gravistar would result in what happens when matter falls on a neutron star or be reflected. The impact parameter is close to radial and would be reflected in the + radial direction. After reflection it would initially be hard to see, due to redshift, but as it moves away it become visible. If that was observed it would be very interesting. But it isn't.

Ok, this point I have also already answered several times, but not here, so I will repeat this point here too.

It is not only the redshift which makes an explosion on the surface invisible. It is also the fact that light rays, as well as any other matter flowing away in an explosion, are curved by the gravitational field. With descreasing $$1\gg \Upsilon>0 $$ this effect becomes more and more important, and only a small part of the emitted radiation, which is emitted almost exactly in vertical direction, will reach infinity, everything else falls back to the surface. And this part of emitted radiation becomes, in the limit $$ \Upsilon \to 0 $$, zero.

One can, of course, imagine an ideally elastic infalling matter which falls in and jumps back in exactly vertical direction. But this is hardly an adequate model for real infalling matter. The more realistic model is that if some infalling piece of matter hits the surface the resulting explosion on the surface is close to an isotropic one. Thus, only a minimal part can be expected to reach infinity.

 

[Schmelzer]

Firstly you make the most basic of mistakes in that "proof" in the scientific discipline, particularly cosmology, is not at all the goal to be achieved.

You may be right that "proof" was not an optimal choice of the word, but this was not about the aim of the theory. What can be proven is only a particular aspect, namely that a certain class of observations, which does not falsify GR, does not falsify my theory too.

[3]Whatever you have at the very least, must be able to explain and predict better then the incumbent model:

This is what is certainly reached in the ether model for the SM, see http://www.sciforums.com/threads/an...he-standard-model-of-particle-physics.153207/
And, of course, it is also reached for the theory of gravity in the quantum domain. GR has not been quantized, but how an ether theory has to be quantized is well-known and straightforward.

To repeat myself, claiming prices is bad style in general. This is something I have learned in my childhood.

Your observations that most of those who propose to have found theories better than the established ones fail is correct, but irrelevant. Science is nothing for people who are afraid of risk. Soccer is, in comparison, low risk, there it is well-known that there will be champions, while in science all scientists may fail to find better theories, and over a quite long time. Such is life, and I'm not afraid of the risk of failure.

Independent of my own risk, one point would be if it is reasonable for laymen to follow one of such proposed theories. This is, indeed, nothing I could recommend. Given the extremely high risk that any proposed alternative is wrong it is quite unreasonable for a layman to follow a typical one. But there are some differences between the typical alternative theory and this one:

1.) The typical alternative theory has not been published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal.
2.) The typical alternative theory does not have the established scientific theories - General Relativity or the Standard Model of particle physics - as limits, thus, are, very probable, incompatible with the results of modern physics.

What makes this theory interesting for a layman is, of course, that it gives an easy to understand, classical picture of the world, one which a layman can understand. This is, unfortunately, also something almost all crank scientists have. But the part which is interesting for the layman is that it is claimed that this worldview is compatible with all of modern physics. And, given that there are references to published papers, he can, if interested, ask any scientist if this claim is correct.

 

[Schmelzer]

Have you ever considered differentiating between the aether medium, and the waves that traverse it? That way, if you imagine the medium without wave energy, it would be equalized, meaning at the same density everywhere. In itself, it would have no velocity. It would just be there, filling space, and with the potential to be compressed by energy wave fronts passing through (waiting for waves to come along so it could carry them across it, lol).

This would be some different theory. In my theory, the ether is compressible and not static, and there are waves in it. This is described by the usual well-known equations for condensed matter theory, namely continuity and Euler equations. The purpose of differentiating between the ether and waves makes no sense for me, as well, as, say, to distinguish water and water waves. This makes sense for informal talk, but not for a mathematical description.

I don't think that there is any proof that there is no aether. It is just that the current model doesn't require an aether. Can you provide a link to claims that aether has been falsified?

Such claims are quite common in low quality popular descriptions, thus, sources not worth to be quoted.

 

[Schmelzer]

You clearly state that the motivation for your theory is to revive ether, IMO not to debunk GR.

Not really. My initial motivation was to solve some, whatever, problem of modern mathematics or physics. Then I have found something which allowed me to tackle one quite famous problem of modern physics, namely the quantization of gravity, in particular the so-called "problem of time". So, the motivation has been to develop a quantum theory of gravity which gives, in some classical limit, GR.

So it was, indeed, nto to debunk GR - but only to modify it, as much as necessary, to get a quantum theory of gravity.

You do not mention anything uncomfortable about GR either in your motivation or in your main paper, while claiming your theory an alternative to GR.

There is, of course, the problem that GR cannot be quantized. This is a quite uncomfortable fact for GR. And, once an ether theory on a fixed background does not have all these quantization problems, I would expect a preference for my theory, once people recognize that it exists.

You know very well that peer reviewed publication is the first hurdle, but real success is wider acceptance and you cannot wait for GR to die before your theory gets acceptance. You must demonstrate the superiority / flawlessness of your concept.

Yes, but there is nothing I can do about this. It is one of the rules of scientific publications that to republish something already published is not supported. This was a quite reasonable rule in the past, where it was possible to read everything published in the own specialized domain of research. Today this is impossible, and so my theory can be easily ignored forever, without any reasonable counterarguments being proposed.

I will be abrupt to get a better grip of your concept.... You propose flat spacetime and you claim Gravity as stress / distortion of a compressible entity which has density (defined differently..thats ok) and is called ether (or any other term), so primarily you are creating a force field which is non existent in GR, which is simply the distortion in the spacetime geometry. Once a distortion is created in the materialistic ether then light is not expected to traverse this distorted path, it will follow the Euclidean straight lines, suggesting that you have gotten over with the concept of geodesic / spacetime curvature etc.

No. Light is a wave in the ether (as well as all other fields in the SM and gravity). So, it does not follow straight Euclidean lines, but is influenced by density, velocity and pressure of the ether.

I still do not get the convincing argument about the relevance of flat spacetime (other than providing a space for ether) in your theory once you propose gravity as the stress in the ether. In the sense your Gravity is absolutely independent of background space.

The real problem solved by the background is quantization. You need a parameter t to define the Schrödinger equation $$\frac{d}{dt} \Psi = H \Psi$$. This parameter is absolute time of the background.

One point is that the Newtonian background provides Newtonian causality, in a fixed, matter- and gravity-independent way. In a quantum theory of gravity, the gravitational field has to be uncertain. This makes Einstein causality, which is defined by the gravitational field, uncertain too. Uncertain causality is no causality, but fixed background causality does not have this problem, thus, causality can be defined in quantum gravity.

Another point is local energy and momentum conservation. Via Noether's theorem, this is closely connected with translational symmetries in space and time. So, with absolute space and time we have a translational symmetry of the whole theory in space and time, which gives momentum and energy conservation laws, in the usual way, with local densities.

Your theory will also debunk the concept of Gravitational Waves, they will be more akin to Gravity Waves as the ripples in your ether media.

Certainly not, there will be gravitational waves. In fact even more that in GR - but the additional waves simply do not interact wtih matter, so, they are purely "dark matter" waves.

 

[quantum_wave]

This would be some different theory. In my theory, the ether is compressible and not static, and there are waves in it. This is described by the usual well-known equations for condensed matter theory, namely continuity and Euler equations. The purpose of differentiating between the ether and waves makes no sense for me, as well, as, say, to distinguish water and water waves. This makes sense for informal talk, but not for a mathematical description.

Thanks for the reply. I get you that waves and ether are not two different things then, so if there were no waves, then there would be no ether. Doesn't make any more sence than to say that in the case of water, if there were no waves, there would be no water, except that is an analogy that doesn't exactly work because water is particles and particles are waves.

 

[Schmelzer]

Thanks for the reply. I get you that waves and ether are not two different things then, so you if there were no waves, then there would be no ether. Doesn't make any more sence than to say that in the case of water, if there were no waves, there would be no water, except that is an analogy that doesn't exactly work because water is particles and particles are waves.

I would not say if there would be no water waves, there would be no water. There would be the possibility that the waves are too small to see them, so to conclude from that we do not see water waves that there are none, or even that there is no water, would be nonsensical.

Water consists of particles, and I suspect that there is some comparable atomic structure of the the ether too, see http://www.sciforums.com/threads/an...he-standard-model-of-particle-physics.153207/ for this, but this is beyond the applicability of the analogy. Gravitational waves are, in the analogy, what has to be compared with usual water waves.

That the particles of water are, on the more fundamental level, described by waves of a different type (fields in quantum field theory / wave functions) is another question. In some sense, what I name here "atomic ether" is more metaphorical. The important point, which is shared by all atomic ideas, is that there is some critical distance, and below this critical distance we need a different theory. In my "atomic ether" model, this critical distance is the distance between the elementary cells of the lattice. It does not mean that these elementary cells are somehow indivisible.

 

[quantum_wave]

I would not say if there would be no water waves, there would be no water. There would be the possibility that the waves are too small to see them, so to conclude from that we do not see water waves that there are none, or even that there is no water, would be nonsensical.

Good. I hoped you would see that nonsense.

Water consists of particles, and I suspect that there is some comparable atomic structure of the the ether too, see http://www.sciforums.com/threads/an...he-standard-model-of-particle-physics.153207/ for this, but this is beyond the applicability of the analogy. Gravitational waves are, in the analogy, what has to be compared with usual water waves.

I see the distinction that you are making between the tiny waves and the relatively larger gravitational waves.

That the particles of water are, on the more fundamental level, described by waves of a different type (fields in quantum field theory / wave functions) is another question. In some sense, what I name here "atomic ether" is more metaphorical. The important point, which is shared by all atomic ideas, is that there is some critical distance, and below this critical distance we need a different theory.

But speaking loosely, there must be one reality that both theories would be consistent with. It take it that you are not claiming that you have resolved the incompatibility between the macro and micro realms. I think your point is that GR and QM are as yet not reconciled, and are at least inconsistent, and maybe incompatible?

In my "atomic ether" model, this critical distance is the distance between the elementary cells of the lattice. It does not mean that these elementary cells are somehow indivisible.

Did you mean, "that these elementary cells may be somehow divisible"?

 

[Schmelzer]

But speaking loosely, there must be one reality that both theories would be consistent with. It take it that you are not claiming that you have resolved the incompatibility between the macro and micro realms. I think your point is that GR and QM are as yet not reconciled, and are at least inconsistent, and maybe incompatible?
Did you mean, "that these elementary cells may be somehow divisible"?

We don't have any base for making assumptions about the properties of the elementary cells. All what the theory knows is that, essentially, the state of a single cell can be described by 12 real numbers, and that these 12 real numbers behave like a three-dimensional affine transformation, which is a 3x(3+1) matrix which consists of a shift (3 numbers) and a linear transformation (3x3 matrix). An elementary cell, which could be uniquely described by four of its points (also 12 real numbers) would behave similarly.

 

[quantum_wave]

We don't have any base for making assumptions about the properties of the elementary cells. All what the theory knows is that, essentially, the state of a single cell can be described by 12 real numbers, and that these 12 real numbers behave like a three-dimensional affine transformation, which is a 3x(3+1) matrix which consists of a shift (3 numbers) and a linear transformation (3x3 matrix). An elementary cell, which could be uniquely described by four of its points (also 12 real numbers) would behave similarly.

I see where you are coming from. Too bad about that pesky vanishing point of waves in the matrix.

 

[Schmelzer]

????

 

[quantum_wave]

????

Lol, good response. My point is that you seem to have acknowledged that there is a need for another theory to deal with wave energy in the quantum realm, but you didn't reply to my reference earlier ...

But speaking loosely, there must be one reality that both theories would be consistent with. I take it that you are not claiming that you have resolved the incompatibility between the macro and micro realms. I think your point is that GR and QM are as yet not reconciled, and are at least inconsistent, and maybe incompatible?
Did you mean, "that these elementary cells may be somehow divisible"?

Wouldn't it be in the quantum realm where waves are tinier than can be quantified relative to the matrix. Using the term "vanishing waves" probably was out of context.

 

[Schmelzer]

My point is that you seem to have acknowledged that there is a need for another theory to deal with wave energy in the quantum realm, but you didn't reply to my reference earlier ...

Indeed, I see a necessity to quantize a classical theory, but I don't see there any problem of dealing with some "wave energy", whatever that would be. And "matrix" is, for me, a term in mathematics and a name of a nice film, that's all. In physics I have heard it only as an old name for quantum mechanics.

Let's also note that the critical length which distinguishs the long distance limit of ether theory (continuous condensed matter theory) from the microscopic (atomic) ether has nothing to do with the distance where quantum gravity effects become important.

 

[quantum_wave]

Indeed, I see a necessity to quantize a classical theory, but I don't see there any problem of dealing with some "wave energy", whatever that would be. And "matrix" is, for me, a term in mathematics and a name of a nice film, that's all. In physics I have heard it only as an old name for quantum mechanics.

Let's also note that the critical length which distinguishs the long distance limit of ether theory (continuous condensed matter theory) from the microscopic (atomic) ether has nothing to do with the distance where quantum gravity effects become important.

First, I meant lattice, not matrix; my bad. Also, my use of the term, "wave energy" is a reference to the energy carried by waves across a medium. Me being a layman who operates at the dumbed down popular media level, we will be speaking different languages. But clear this up for me; if you have an ether theory, does wave-particle duality exist, and are particles also waves or not?

 

[Schmelzer]

First, wave-particle duality is some very unfortunate, bad term from very early times of understanding quantum theory. I would recommend you to forget it. The wave function is a function which defines the probability of the object (say, the point particle) having a certain value (say, its position), and how this probability changes. So, roughly, your question "are particles also waves" can be translated into "are particles also probabilities", which is quite meaningless.

Then, using a lattice instead of a continuous field as in quantum field theory removes some serious problems with infinities in the field theory variant. This is an improvement, which makes quantum lattice theory much closer to standard quantum theory with a few point particles. But it does not change anything for the many conceptual problems of understanding standard quantum theory already for these point particles.

If you want to understand quantum theory, read Bell, Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics.

 

[quantum_wave]

First, wave-particle duality is some very unfortunate, bad term from very early times of understanding quantum theory. I would recommend you to forget it. ...

Ok, :tongue in cheek: consider it forgotten. Now, is there a Santa Clause? Just kidding of course.

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/wave_particle.html

I guess you can forget wave-particle duality if you can explain the various effects that demonstrate that particles act as waves in some circumstances and as particles in other. I don't think that is really part of what you are doing in you ether theory of gravity, so consider it a side issue. Thank you for your responses.

 

[paddoboy]

I asked the purpose, did not make any comment on the validity / invalidity of the concept. read properly.

No, you inferred that Schmezler's ether hypothesis was/is not needed.

So what is the purpose of having two co existing alternative theories, one must go.

And in this lone instant, you are correct.

So what, it gives few monsters also, the biggest of all is Singularity. Geocentric concept was there for 1000+ years, but got debunked. Are you saying that science has reached its limits and no new paradigm shifting concepts can come?

Firstly GR is a classical theory, secondly, sure GR in time will be improved upon and parameters extended, I have said that many times, thirdly no science has not reached its limits, and fourthly and most importantly, any improvements, any further validation or even invalidation, any modification, is not going to evolve or be born on a science forum such as this, nor by a bunch of amateurs toing and froing, and nor by any alternative hypothesis pusher that spends his/her time on such a forum.
That's not going to happen...period.

Ok, try explaining what is the ripple in the curvature of the spacetime to your club friends.

My club friends? You mean the general consensus that support the mainstream accepted cosmology?
Gravitational radiation/waves has already been strongly evidenced.
Just as we have overwhelming evidence for BH's , DM, DE.

I agree wholeheartedly with you. When the level of people who are acting/pretending as expert is so low that they need a link to find out the volume of sphere with given radius, what can be expected?
just enjoy....

The bulk of mainstream supporters on this forum, including myself, supply reputable references and evidence to support the mainstream stance.
There are really only few alternative posters that do the pretending, and acting you speak of, and that is evident at least with one actor in being silly and suggesting anyone has questioned any formula for the volume of a sphere.
May I say if the cap fits, wear it.

 

[paddoboy]

You may be right that "proof" was not an optimal choice of the word, but this was not about the aim of the theory.

Yes, I admit some unnecessary pedant there with my comment on your use of the word "proof "
I'm certainly not competent enough to entirely critique your ether hypothesis, and I'm equally as certain that if it was as faultless as you describe, and extended on GR by entering the quantum domain as you claim, then it would obviously be superior to GR.
Yet no one has recognised claim of yours. And it sits and lingers in cyber space without any citations.
And I'm also of the opinion that like a Mother endears a baby, so to his the fondness between you and your ether.

I could go on and on with regards to why if what you claim is factual, that you are stuck here on this forum, but I've already made that point clear on a couple of other occasions.

 

[Schmelzer]

Yet no one has recognised claim of yours. And it sits and lingers in cyber space without any citations.

Yes. When I started with science, this situation seemed unimaginable for me. I thought, if one has such a theory, it would be evaluated based on arguments, and if it survives this, it would be accepted at least as an established alternative theory. That it is hard to publish such a theory, ok. But that it will be simply ignored, without any counterarguments, even after publication ... Today I think that it will probably continue for quite a long time, and the only question is if at the moment when it will be invented a second time in fifty years or so and becomes acknowledged by the mainstream somebody will remember this old publication or not. But this will be no longer a problem for me ....

But in fact it does not really matter. Last but not least, it has never been my wish to become rich or famous, but I wanted to find some new theory. So I have what I wanted, and have no reason to object.

I could go on and on with regards to why if what you claim is factual, that you are stuck here on this forum

I could as well use any other physics forum. Unfortunately, many have extremely rigorous policies against any ether-theoretical proposals.

And I simply don't have other possibilities. Publications of already published theories require new results. Participation in conferences requires money - they happen to be expensive, for the simple reason that government institutes pay for this, but I'm not working in a government institute, because they have no jobs for ether theoreticians. This also closes the channel of "cheap" publications in conference proceedings, where one does not have to present something really new, but gives a talk and publishes the content of the talk. Such is life.

So what, I'm happy that my money are sufficient to do myself what I like to do, and have another interesting project related with hidden variables for quantum theory. The well-known de Broglie-Bohm theory is nice, but has some weak places (known as "surrealistic trajectories") worth to be improved.

 

[paddoboy]

So what, I'm happy that my money are sufficient to do myself what I like to do, and have another interesting project related with hidden variables for quantum theory. The well-known de Broglie-Bohm theory is nice, but has some weak places (known as "surrealistic trajectories") worth to be improved.

Nice post, in respect to no adhominem attacks on my person..
On the part of your post I reproduced, best of luck with that.