The Universe as a Hologram (my interpretation)

[cyberdyno]

The Universe as a Hologram (my interpretation)
by Laurent R Duchesne

Gravity as a negentropic force? As an information gathering mechanism? That's what it looks like.

Let's look at a our galaxy, then apply this model to a subatomic particle.

At the center of our galaxy we have a black hole, or a singularity. This black hole is constantly pulling matter/information, but all that information stays on the surface (Event Horizon), the black hole's surface growing directly proportional to the volume of the bodies it swallows (Jacob D Bekenstein, Gerard 't Hooft, Leonard Susskind, Juan Maldacena, Stephen Hawking, et al.). So, black holes inside galaxies, like the black holes inside subatomic particles, are basically nothing more than information gathering mechanisms.

All of these black holes acting as information nodes forming a quantum network or hologram (spacetime) where the holographic plate is the two dimensional surface of the event horizon and the non-dimensional object (singularity) in the center of each body acting as their energy source.

Right, all that missing mass (aka., Dark Matter) is now being considered by contemporary physics to be contained by empty space itself, probably in the form of infinitesimally small black holes in the center of neutrons, protons, electrons, and the rest of all subatomic particles. Which is how all matter is connected to the whole. Current physics' description of black holes, singularities and the gravitational aether being actually very similar.

Excerpt from: "Aether: The Physicalists' God"

It is a radically holistic view of reality where entanglement is seen as the glue that keeps the universe from atomizing. Entanglement made possible by the aether's oneness.

 

[James R]

Hi cyberdyno (Are you Laurent?).

Let's look at a our galaxy, then apply this model to a subatomic particle.

A galaxy is very different from a subatomic particle.

At the center of our galaxy we have a black hole, or a singularity.

The word "singularity" just means there is an issue with the maths that describes black holes. We don't have a theory capable of describing the conditions at the centre of a black hole, so when we use the general theory of relativity to try to describe it we get a bunch of infinities in the maths. The reality is likely to be more complicated and more interesting than that.

This black hole is constantly pulling matter/information, but all that information stays on the surface (Event Horizon), the black hole's surface growing directly proportional to the volume of the bodies it swallows (Jacob D Bekenstein, Gerard 't Hooft, Leonard Susskind, Juan Maldacena, Stephen Hawking, et al.).

Okay.

So, black holes inside galaxies, like the black holes inside subatomic particles, are basically nothing more than information gathering mechanisms.

There are no black holes inside subatomic particles. What gave you that idea?

All of these black holes acting as information nodes forming a quantum network or hologram (spacetime) where the holographic plate is the two dimensional surface of the event horizon and the non-dimensional object (singularity) in the center of each body acting as their energy source.

Nothing comes out of a black hole, so nothing inside the hole can be an "energy source" for anything that happens outside the hole. The exception to this is Hawking radiation, which comes about due to quantum fluctuations of the vacuum outside the hole.

Also, no information can travel from inside the hole to the outside, so there can't be any "sharing" of information between the inside of a black hole and the outside world, as far as I'm aware.

Right, all that missing mass (aka., Dark Matter) is now being considered by contemporary physics to be contained by empty space itself, probably in the form of infinitesimally small black holes in the center of neutrons, protons, electrons, and the rest of all subatomic particles.

Is this idea that there are infinitesimally small black holes inside subatomic particles your own idea, or are there physicists who claim this to be the case? Is there any actual theory on this? (Are you a physicist?)

Which is how all matter is connected to the whole.

I don't see how this "connection" is supposed to happen between separate black holes. Can you explain, please?

Current physics' description of black holes, singularities and the gravitational aether being actually very similar.

What is a "gravitational aether"?

Excerpt from: "Aether: The Physicalists' God"

Is this a book/article you have written? Or something written by somebody else? If it's somebody else's work, you should acknowledge the author. It also makes it easier to find, for anyone who is interested.

It is a radically holistic view of reality where entanglement is seen as the glue that keeps the universe from atomizing.

Is there any theory behind this, or is it currently at the level of musings about what you think there might be?

Entanglement made possible by the aether's oneness.

That sounds almost like a religious idea. What do you mean by "the aether's oneness"?

 

[cyberdyno]

Yes, this is Laurent. I know, trying to mathematically describe empty space using classical physics laws is not enough. Notions like size, age, velocity, or infinity, which imply motion, quantity, extension, or duration, should not be used to describe empty space. That is what Einstein meant when he said there was no time before the Big Bang. At the aether scale there are no distances to cover, it is all pervading... the aether is one.

"Generalising we must say this: — There may be supposed to be extended physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied. They may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time. In Minkowski's idiom this is expressed as follows: — Not every extended conformation in the four-dimensional world can be regarded as composed of world-threads. The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity. Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a state of motion to the ether."

Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein
An Address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ether_and_the_Theory_of_Relativity


Then read this article to understand the picture:

Wormholes Untangle a Black Hole Paradox | Quanta Magazine

A bold new idea aims to link two famously discordant descriptions of nature. In doing so, it may also reveal how space-time owes its existence to the spooky connections of quantum information.

www.quantamagazine.org

Octopus Wormhole
Olena Shmahalo/Quanta Magazine

 

[cyberdyno]

Aether vs. Spacetime

Before we continue, we must further distinguish empty space from material space, or spacetime. EM fields and matter are observable, or measurable, empty space is not. EM fields have a geometric structure, empty space does not. When you describe an EM field, you may talk about intensity, density, size, magnitude, or duration, but not all of these concepts may be properly used to describe Einstein's gravitational aether.

I see empty space as the seat to EM fields, synonymous to Einstein's aether, and I see it as a primary, or fundamental component of physical reality. Material space, or what many call the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR), remnant radiation left after the Big Bang, is seen as a product.

Einstein's aether is not the same as his spacetime. Spacetime is an aether product, synonymous to Timothy Boyer's material space, which is nothing more than a combination of CBR, Wheeler's Quantum Foam and invisible quantum matter. Spacetime is material, and Einstein's aether is physical but immaterial. First, there needs to be an aether before we can have anything like EM fields, matter, spacetime, or even Wheeler's Quantum Foam.

We have to be careful with meanings. What Einstein was referring to as empty space is more akin to a perfect vacuum than the space we usually talk about. Remember that, at the time Einstein wrote his 1920 essay, Big Bang and Inflation theories were still in their infancy. He thought that, in order to obtain an empty space, it was possible to extract all matter from a given volume. It wasn't until Timothy Boyer and what many call, the Casimir effect, that we began to really understand the meaning of empty space. In a true empty space, there can be no Casimir force.

 

[cyberdyno]

Particles can emerge anywhere and as needed, e.g., particle pair creation, but from where and what do they feed from, creation ex nihilo? I don't think so, that seems like a physical impossibility. Anyway, why would we have wave-particle complementarity if it were not because matter depends on the substrate? Isn't this the reason why we need a Higgs mechanism?

The aether has a non-zero vacuum expectation value, that is the reason why particles emerge as expected... or as dictated by spacetime conditions.

We must not confuse the concept of space outlined by Inflation theories with Einstein's gravitational aether. Extension is a material property not applicable to Einstein's aether, neither is density. On the other hand, Einstein's spacetime is material, and properties like extension and density do apply. But this is something we learned after Einstein's Relativity. Inflation theory came after Relativity. Remember Einstein's cosmological constant, which he later called his greatest blunder? Einstein's universe was initially static, then, after Hubble, he learned about what we now call Inflation.

EMR, CMBR, and ZPE are all observable, material phenomena, with mechanical properties, like density and pressure. The universe inflates as background radiation, Wheeler's Quantum Foam and dark matter fill spacetime. Spacetime is packed full of particles.

 

[cyberdyno]

This notion of an aether has been integrated into physics for a very long time. We are talking about the perfectly flat vacuum state of Quantum Field Theory. A perfectly flat vacuum state which refers to the quantum mechanical state of the vacuum. But is this vacuum considered a thing? Is it real even though it is not matter? I suppose it is, since how could it be in any given state if it wasn't real? It is real and it is called aether. Some call it the long winded vacuum state of quantum field theory, I prefer to call it what it has always been called: aether. [Since it harkens back to the idea of a fixed frame of reference, which can be misleading, the term aether isn't used much these days.]

Einstein's gravitational aether is the seat to an all relating process which he called spacetime. The aether was re-introduced early in the 20th century by scientists like Einstein, Mach, and Minkowski as they were trying to describe a substance, or... a thing. Einstein said that matter and fields emerged from the same basic substance, that there could be no universe without an aether because it is the seat to the electromagnetic and gravitational fields. That there are gravitational, electromagnetic, and nuclear forces because there is an aether. According to him, without fields there can be neither matter, nor spacetime, therefore the aether is.


Einstein's Universe is Background Free

But this is not the same aether Newton, Poincare, and Lorentz talked about. Particles come to existence as required by spacetime's energetic and thermodynamic conditions. In this new aether, objects are relative to each other, not to absolute space, therefore there is no violation of the Principle of Relativity. As they explained Relativity, Einstein, Mach, and Minkowski said that things are not relative to absolute space, but to an absolute world. Acceleration is measured in relation to other objects in spacetime, not in relation to absolute space. According to Mach, this is why there is inertia.

Einstein's gravitational aether does not represent an absolute inertial frame. It is not material, therefore cannot represent a background. It is not quantized, like material space. Einstein was correct in his claim of a background free universe in the sense that there are no landmarks to be used as reference to motion, or elapsed time. How could a non-material aether represent a preferred inertial frame if it lacks any landmarks or coordinates? It cannot.

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 violation.

As Einstein said, spacetime is an extension of matter. That is because spacetime and empty space are not the same thing. Spacetime is neither primary, nor fundamental, it does not exist by itself, it is a product, just as matter and time are. There is flat empty space, then there is curved spacetime, or what is known as the observable universe.

Therefore the universe is background free and there is no fixed, nor absolute frame of reference. There is absolute reality. From Einstein's General Theory of Relativity we get that objects are not relative to empty space, they are relative to other objects with mass. Respect to Relativity, what is absolute is not empty space, what is absolute is the objective universe, the world. This is what makes GTR (General Theory of Relativity) true, everything is related through and by the aether. Or, how could it be that when a body is accelerated to near the speed of light, time and length must change in relation to a stationary observer? Wasn't space supposed to be absolute, primary, independent, and not derivable from anything else? According to General Relativity, the universe is one single entity, one process. Space... objects... Mankind... all come from one thing, which by definition, we call aether.

Einstein presented a different notion of the universe with his 1920 essay Ether and the Theory of Relativity. He stripped 19th century aethers off any kinematic or mechanical properties. This new aether lacked the property of motion and was not composed of parts which followed a time-line. What he termed the Gravitational Ether came from a completely different idea. Motion and particulation, he said, cannot be considered properties of the aether because it is one and has no components. This oneness can be used to explain action-at-a-distance, gravity, and inertia.

Einstein's aether is more akin to Newton's absolute space than most people think, this is why he sees the universe as background free but imbued with Mach's reciprocity between matter and space. It is Newton's absolute space mixed with Mach's aether, or with relativation. Empty space tells matter what to do and matter tells empty space how to curve. Which is where space curvature comes from.

Einstein said that, when trying to define the aether, we need to put aside notions of motion, extension, size, beginnings, and endings. In essence, he said that this substance lacks the properties of matter, yet all matter emerged and is ruled from it.

 

[James R]

Notions like size, age, velocity, or infinity, which imply motion, quantity, extension, or duration, should not be used to describe empty space. That is what Einstein meant when he said there was no time before the Big Bang. At the aether scale there are no distances to cover, it is all pervading... the aether is one.

Again, that sounds more like a religious idea than science.

The idea that there is no time before the big bang comes from the fact that the general relativistic cosmological models tend to "blow up" at time zero, creating another mathematical singularity a bit like the one we see at the centre of a black hole. But, again, this is mathematical problem, not necessarily a physical one. It points to a limitation in our models.

While you are correct to say that "space" has no "size" or "extension", as such, it does not therefore follow that the universe has no size, because we can measure distances between objects in space.

I don't know what the "aether scale" is. What is it?

"Generalising we must say this: — There may be supposed to be extended physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied. They may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time. In Minkowski's idiom this is expressed as follows: — Not every extended conformation in the four-dimensional world can be regarded as composed of world-threads. The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity. Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a state of motion to the ether."

Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein
An Address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden

The main point here is that no "ether wind" is detectable. See, for example, the Michelson-Morley experiment.

In the 100 years following Einstein, of course, physicists have dispensed with the notion of an "ether" completely. There is no detectable ether, as far as I'm aware. Einstein probably couldn't be so sure about that back in 1920.

 

[James R]

Aether vs. Spacetime

Before we continue, we must further distinguish empty space from material space, or spacetime. EM fields and matter are observable, or measurable, empty space is not.

EM fields aren't directly observable, as far as I'm aware.

EM fields have a geometric structure, empty space does not.

What do you mean by a "geometric structure"? General relativity literally describes gravity as an apparent effect of (four-dimensional) geometry.

I see empty space as the seat to EM fields, synonymous to Einstein's aether, and I see it as a primary, or fundamental component of physical reality. Material space, or what many call the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR), remnant radiation left after the Big Bang, is seen as a product.

The CBR consists of light (or electromagnetic radiation, if you prefer). It is not "space", in any sense.

Einstein's aether is not the same as his spacetime.

Aether was supposed to be like a medium that carried electromagnetic fields. In modern times, 100 years after Einstein, we recognise that such a medium is not needed.

Spacetime is an aether product, synonymous to Timothy Boyer's material space, which is nothing more than a combination of CBR, Wheeler's Quantum Foam and invisible quantum matter.

The CBR, "quantum foam" and "invisible quantum matter" all consist of particles. I don't know how you plan to get spacetime from those.

Spacetime is material, and Einstein's aether is physical but immaterial.

Spacetime isn't material, as far as I'm aware. It is just space + time.

First, there needs to be an aether before we can have anything like EM fields, matter, spacetime, or even Wheeler's Quantum Foam.

Not according to modern physics.

Why do you think there needs to be aether? What does aether do? How can we detect it?

We have to be careful with meanings.

Indeed.

What Einstein was referring to as empty space is more akin to a perfect vacuum than the space we usually talk about.

Fair comment, although we could argue about what is more or less "usual" to talk about, I suppose.

Remember that, at the time Einstein wrote his 1920 essay, Big Bang and Inflation theories were still in their infancy.

Yes. That's why it's important to look at what happened in cosmology after 1920. After all, there's been 100 years of physics since then.

He thought that, in order to obtain an empty space, it was possible to extract all matter from a given volume. It wasn't until Timothy Boyer and what many call, the Casimir effect, that we began to really understand the meaning of empty space. In a true empty space, there can be no Casimir force.

The Casimir effect is inherently a quantum phenomenon. Of course, in 1920, quantum mechanics was also in its infancy.

 

[James R]

Particles can emerge anywhere and as needed, e.g., particle pair creation, but from where and what do they feed from, creation ex nihilo? I don't think so, that seems like a physical impossibility.

They come from random quantum field fluctuations. Quantum fields exist throughout space, according to quantum field theories.

Anyway, why would we have wave-particle complementarity if it were not because matter depends on the substrate?

Please explain in more detail.

Isn't this the reason why we need a Higgs mechanism?

The Higgs mechanism explains why some particles have mass and some do not. It's a quantum field theory thing, again.

The aether has a non-zero vacuum expectation value, that is the reason why particles emerge as expected... or as dictated by spacetime conditions.

What spacetime conditions are you referring to, specifically?

We must not confuse the concept of space outlined by Inflation theories with Einstein's gravitational aether.

Good advice.

Extension is a material property not applicable to Einstein's aether, neither is density.

I'm not so sure about that. But then, at this point, I'm not sure what you mean by "Einstein's aether", exactly. Hopefully, you can explain in more detail.

Do you think that "Einstein's aether" exists, or not? Why is it important to you?

On the other hand, Einstein's spacetime is material, and properties like extension and density do apply.

How do you define the density of spacetime?

But this is something we learned after Einstein's Relativity.

I didn't learn it, despite studying quite a bit of physics. I hope you can teach me more about it.

Remember Einstein's cosmological constant, which he later called his greatest blunder? Einstein's universe was initially static, then, after Hubble, he learned about what we now call Inflation.

No. The theory of inflation was first proposed in 1980, which was decades after Einstein died. Einstein never knew about it.

Maybe you're confusing inflation with the expansion of the universe. No cosmological constant is required to account for that.

Einstein's "blunder" was that he assumed he needed a cosmological constant to prevent the universe from collapsing in on itself. He realised his error on that count.

The cosmological constant is used these days to describe how the universal expansion can accelerate. Einstein never knew anything about that.

 

[James R]

This notion of an aether has been integrated into physics for a very long time.

I was under the impression that the aether has been dead and buried in physics for a long time.

But, then again, I'm still not quite sure what you mean by the "aether".

We are talking about the perfectly flat vacuum state of Quantum Field Theory. A perfectly flat vacuum state which refers to the quantum mechanical state of the vacuum. But is this vacuum considered a thing? Is it real even though it is not matter? I suppose it is, since how could it be in any given state if it wasn't real? It is real and it is called aether. Some call it the long winded vacuum state of quantum field theory, I prefer to call it what it has always been called: aether. [Since it harkens back to the idea of a fixed frame of reference, which can be misleading, the term aether isn't used much these days.]

Okay. So your "aether" is just the ground state of the quantum fields that exist in spacetime. I can work with that.

Einstein's gravitational aether is the seat to an all relating process which he called spacetime.

What do you mean by "seat", in this context?

The aether was re-introduced early in the 20th century by scientists like Einstein, Mach, and Minkowski as they were trying to describe a substance, or... a thing.

The luminiferous aether was the hypothetical medium that was thought to be needed to carry electromagnetic fields. However, experiments failed to detect it. So these days, physicists hold that it's existence is not a necessary part of modern physics.

Einstein was well aware of the idea of the luminifeous aether. It didn't need "reintroducing" in 1900. It was quite a current idea in physics at that time.

Einstein said that matter and fields emerged from the same basic substance, that there could be no universe without an aether because it is the seat to the electromagnetic and gravitational fields.

It sounds like he was referring to older ideas, there, if he said that. (Where did he say it?)

That there are gravitational, electromagnetic, and nuclear forces because there is an aether.

Please explain how "aether" causes any or all of those "forces".

According to him, without fields there can be neither matter, nor spacetime, therefore the aether is.

This was just his thought-bubble musings, then? Or was there theory, maths - that kind of thing? Are we still back in 1920, here?

But this is not the same aether Newton, Poincare, and Lorentz talked about. Particles come to existence as required by spacetime's energetic and thermodynamic conditions. In this new aether, objects are relative to each other, not to absolute space, therefore there is no violation of the Principle of Relativity.

So the "new aether" is just a synonym for Einstein's spacetime?

As they explained Relativity, Einstein, Mach, and Minkowski said that things are not relative to absolute space, but to an absolute world.

"Absolute world"? Do you just mean the set of all objects in space? Is that what they meant?

Acceleration is measured in relation to other objects in spacetime, not in relation to absolute space. According to Mach, this is why there is inertia.

Okay...

Einstein's gravitational aether does not represent an absolute inertial frame. It is not material, therefore cannot represent a background. It is not quantized, like material space.

What is "material space"? Is that just a synonym for "quantum fields"?

Are you just stating the well-known fact that general relativity is not a quantum theory, using somewhat obscure terms?

As Einstein said, spacetime is an extension of matter.

What did he mean by "extension", in this context?

That is because spacetime and empty space are not the same thing. Spacetime is neither primary, nor fundamental, it does not exist by itself, it is a product, just as matter and time are. There is flat empty space, then there is curved spacetime, or what is known as the observable universe.

The "observable universe", as I understand it, consists of spacetime and its contents (matter, fields etc.) - but only the parts we can observe (hence the word "observable").

It strikes me that you seem to be a little confused about the distinction between spacetime and its contents.

Therefore the universe is background free and there is no fixed, nor absolute frame of reference. There is absolute reality.

It seem like a big step from "no absolute frame of reference" to "absolute reality".

What is "absolute reality"? That's not a term I'm familiar with from physics.

From Einstein's General Theory of Relativity we get that objects are not relative to empty space, they are relative to other objects with mass.

You're using the words "relative to" in a strange way, there. What do you mean by "relative to", in this context? What properties or features are "relative" and comparable?

Respect to Relativity, what is absolute is not empty space, what is absolute is the objective universe, the world.

What do you mean by "absolute" in this context?

You seem to be trying to distinguish something that is "absolute" from the opposite, which would be something that is "relative" to something else. What is it that you're trying to distinguish between?

This is what makes GTR (General Theory of Relativity) true, everything is related through and by the aether.

Related? How?

Or, how could it be that when a body is accelerated to near the speed of light, time and length must change in relation to a stationary observer?

The theory of relativity explains that as a reference frame phenomenon. If you like, you could say that it's due to the nature of spacetime.

Wasn't space supposed to be absolute, primary, independent, and not derivable from anything else?

When? Before 1905? I suppose that would be fair to say. There's been 100+ years of physics since then, though.

According to General Relativity, the universe is one single entity, one process.

You don't need GR for that. You don't even need physics. The word "universe", by definition, means "everything that exists". It's had that definition for a long time.

Space... objects... Mankind... all come from one thing, which by definition, we call aether.

Is this just a convoluted way of saying that matter consists of quantum field excitations, or quantum strings, or something like that?

Einstein presented a different notion of the universe with his 1920 essay Ether and the Theory of Relativity. He stripped 19th century aethers off any kinematic or mechanical properties. This new aether lacked the property of motion and was not composed of parts which followed a time-line. What he termed the Gravitational Ether came from a completely different idea. Motion and particulation, he said, cannot be considered properties of the aether because it is one and has no components. This oneness can be used to explain action-at-a-distance, gravity, and inertia.

Einstein's aether is more akin to Newton's absolute space than most people think, this is why he sees the universe as background free but imbued with Mach's reciprocity between matter and space. It is Newton's absolute space mixed with Mach's aether, or with relativation. Empty space tells matter what to do and matter tells empty space how to curve. Which is where space curvature comes from.

Einstein said that, when trying to define the aether, we need to put aside notions of motion, extension, size, beginnings, and endings. In essence, he said that this substance lacks the properties of matter, yet all matter emerged and is ruled from it.

Okay.

So, this is all of some historical interest, I suppose.

Where are you going with all this?

Is there anything you'd like to discuss with us, here on sciforums?

Your posts read almost like you're cutting and pasting sections from a book - maybe one you wrote?

Please tell me this isn't just you trying to find a sneaky way to publicise yourself.

 

[cyberdyno]

The main point here is that no "ether wind" is detectable. See, for example, the Michelson-Morley experiment.

The aether itself is not observable, you cannot say - here, lets take a look at this piece of aether! Because it is not matter. It is real, but not in spacetime, hence not directly observable. This is why the MMX (the Michelson-Morley experiment) failed so miserably. But you can measure its effects: things like inertia, gravity, magnetism, electrical charges... etc.

From the MMX results we should conclude that the aether is immaterial and directly unobservable. Now, if there was an empty space before there was matter, isn't the classical vacuum also immaterial and directly unobservable? Can we take a direct measurement of something which is not matter? The only thing proven by the MMX was that we did not understand the aether's nature. Want to measure aether caused drag? Just measure a moving object's momentum, or measure the force needed to accelerate any object, that is aether caused drag!

n the 100 years following Einstein, of course, physicists have dispensed with the notion of an "ether" completely. There is no detectable ether, as far as I'm aware. Einstein probably couldn't be so sure about that back in 1920.

All he had to do to explain Relativity without an aether was explain motion as a function of position determined through the metric. Using tensors and vectors which tell matter where to go at each point in the metric. What this meant is that the trajectory any body in space takes would depend on its position in relation to its surrounding objects. Why? Because space is flowing into each and all the surrounding bodies, giving each point in the metric a direction and a force.

 

[cyberdyno]

Do you think that "Einstein's aether" exists, or not? Why is it important to you?

Aether is the empty space in which the universe sits.

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

Do you think that "Einstein's aether" exists, or not? Why is it important to you?

Aether is the empty space in which the universe sits.

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

But, then again, I'm still not quite sure what you mean by the "aether".

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 other. 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. They claim they finally have a fixed inertial frame, as if we ever needed one. But according to Relativity, objects in spacetime are relative to one another, not to empty space.

Please explain in more detail.

Information (geometry) starts with the quantum. Existence starts with the quantum. Before the quantum, there is aether. There can be an aether without quanta, but not quanta without an aether. Matter is dependent on the aether, it depends on the background as an energy supply, hence wave-particle complementarity.

 

[cyberdyno]

Leading cosmologists picture the universe as a bubble floating in empty space and Einstein's spacetime as the space inside that bubble. Now, is that empty space composed of parts? No.

Do the concepts of motion, and therefore time, apply to it? No.

Does it have a beginning and an ending? No, it does not move, and therefore not subject to change. It is eternal.

Is it everywhere? Yes.

Is it the seat to all fields? Yes.

Can there be matter without fields? No.

Is it matter? No.

Is it real?

Traditionally, Western science's tendency has been to fragment and isolate everything we take as the object of our investigations, ignoring the background or the underlying substrate from which the universe emerged.

From the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, we gather that light is particle and wave at the same time. That the totality is more than the sum of its parts, and that, when you get down to the size of atoms, there are no solid-like particles spinning in empty space, but a net of interconnected wave-particle systems: a hologram ruled by the laws of Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, and Thermodynamics. From the EPR (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen) experiment we find that, regardless of the distance between the two, when we measure the spin of one of the photons on a pair of entangled photons the other photon registers the spin direction instantaneously. Which gives us non-locality at the quantum level. And, from John A. Wheeler's Delayed-Choice and John Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, we get undividedness of process, wholeness, self reflection, and self-organization.

From these facts we can argue that matter originates at a deeper level, and that state is instantaneously registered throughout space thanks to wholeness in space and time. This wholeness, I believe, is what makes these phenomena possible.

It has been argued before that there is an interaction at a deeper level between matter and the environment in which it develops. This notion that energy and matter come from a common substrate is a very old idea.

 

[cyberdyno]

The theory of inflation was first proposed in 1980, which was decades after Einstein died. Einstein never knew about it.

Right, that is why I said: "...after Hubble, he learned about what we now call Inflation."

 

[cyberdyno]

This where I get the idea of empty space (a black hole)as an energy supply:

"Well, perhaps we should finish with this business about empty space.

If you follow through the mathematics of the present Quantum Theory, it treats the particle as what is called the quantized state of the field, that is, as a field spread over space but in some mysterious way with a quantum of energy. Now each wave in the field has a certain quantum of energy proportional to its frequency. And if you take the electromagnetic field, for example, in empty space, every wave has what is called a zero point energy below which it cannot go, even when there is no energy available. If you were to add up all the waves in any region of empty space you would find that they have an infinite amount of energy because an infinite number of waves are possible. Now, however, you may have reason to suppose that the energy may not be infinite, that maybe you cannot keep on adding waves that are shorter and shorter, each contributing to the energy. There may be some shortest possible wave, and then the total number of waves would be finite and the energy would also be finite. Now, you have to ask what would be the shortest length and there seems to be reason to suspect that the gravitational theory may provide us with some shortest length, for according to general relativity, the gravitational field also determines what is meant by "length" and metric. If you said the gravitational field was made up of waves which were quantized in this way, you would find that there was a certain length below which the gravitational field would become undefinable because of this zero point movement and you wouldn't be able to define length. Therefore, you could say the property of measurement, length, fades out at very short distance and you'd find the place at which it fades out would be about 10^-33 cm. That is a very short distance because the shortest distances that physicists have ever probed so far might be 10^-16 cm. or so, and that's a long way to go. If you then compute the amount of energy that would be in space, with that shortest possible wave length, then it turns out that the energy in one cubic centimeter would be immensely beyond the total energy of all the known matter in the universe.

Present theory says that the vacuum contains all this energy which is then ignored because it cannot be measured by an instrument. The philosophy being that only what could be measured by an instrument could be considered to be real, because the only point about the reality of physics is the result of instruments, except that it is also said that there are particles there that cannot be seen in instruments at all. What you can say is that the present state of theoretical physics implies that empty space has all this energy, and matter is a slight increase of the energy, and therefore matter is like a small ripple on this tremendous ocean of energy, having some relative stability, and being manifest. Now, therefore, my suggestion is that this implicate order implies a reality immensely beyond what we call matter. Matter itself is merely a ripple in this background.

If you take a crystal which is at absolute zero it does not scatter electrons. They go through it as if it were empty. And as soon as you raise the temperature and (produce) inhomogeneities, they scatter. Now, if you used those electrons to observe the crystal (e.g., by focusing them with an electron lens to make an image), all you would see would be these little inhomogeneities and you would say they are what exists and the crystal is what does not exist. Right? I think this is a familiar idea, namely to say that what we see immediately is really a very superficial affair. However, the positivist used to say that what we see immediately is all there is or all that counts, and that our ideas must simply correlate what we see immediately.

So now, with this vast reserve of energy and empty space, saying that matter itself is that small wave on empty space, then we could better say that the space as a whole (and we start from the general space) is the ground of existence, and we are in it. So the space doesn't separate us, it unites us. Therefore it's like saying that there are two separate points and a certain dotted line connects them, which shows how we think they are related, or to say there is a real line and that the points are abstractions from that.

The line is the reality and the points are abstractions. In that sense we say that there are no separate people, you see, but that 'that' is an abstraction which comes by taking certain features as abstracted and self-existent." --- David Bohm (Wholeness and the Implicate Order)

 

[cyberdyno]

I don't know what the "aether scale" is. What is it?

I said, at the Aether scale there are no distances to cover, it is everywhere. And, as Eugene V. Stefanovich contends: interactions, not forces, are instantaneously registered throughout space. Finally, someone offering a good explanation for instantaneous state transfers.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612019 / http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=175965

 

[cyberdyno]

Is Our Universe Inside a Black Hole? - Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

I said, at the Aether scale there are no distances to cover, it is everywhere. And, as Eugene V. Stefanovich contends: interactions, not forces, are instantaneously registered throughout space. Finally, someone offering a good explanation for instantaneous state transfers.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612019 / http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=175965

Instantaneous interactions do not occur in nature, unless the interactees are somehow in contact, and maybe not even then.

 

[cyberdyno]

Never heard about entangled particles? How about Einstein's spooky action at a distance?

 

[DaveC426913]

Never heard about entangled particles? How about Einstein's spooky action at a distance?

That has nothing to do with instantaneous interaction.