Prev: Very simple question on a REDOX reaction
Next: REDOX: How can this occur if an ion can't lose anymore electrons?
From: Paul Stowe on 25 Jul 2010 15:59
OVERVIEW

What is Neo-Aether Theory? I identify Neo-Aether ss the so-called
classic aether model adapted and integrated to accomidate the
observations and experimental evidence garnered over the last
century. In other words, the model is explicitly demonstrated to be
compatible with and, in many cases, leads to, such concepts as Local
Lorentz Invariance, Planck's Constant, quntum elemental charge,
Newton's laws of motion, basic quantum nature, the uncertainty
principle, ... etc. Aether theory, especially this modern
interpretation is a 'bottoms up' approach to science, that is to say,
on starts with the a basic kinetic quantum entity model and builds up
all else from that. It truly is, the ultimate in simplicity... at its
base. See,

http://www.archive.org/details/historyoftheorie00whitrich

for an excellent detailed presentation of the development of the
theory through circa ~ 1910.

So, now let's start at the bottom and build a universe... First let's
define the necessary fundamentals of this type of model. Aether is a
energetic substance, fluidic in nature. To my knowledge, there is
only one way to get such a medium, by kinetic theory. Thus, for such
a model we will need quantum entities (axeons) which have the
following characteristics,

- Of finite size
- has momentum (P) and thus, a speed (c)
- cannot occupy the same volume at the same time
- interacts with each other solely by elastic collisions, period!

At this juncture we have not defined a size or momenta for these
axeons. We have defined that they do not have any 'fields' and thus
cannot produce any 'action at distance' effects between themselves.
Therefore, by extension, the concept of temperature does not apply to
them. Further, we will 'assume' this medium is compressible, in other
words, these entities (great numbers) are in random motion occupying a
large void (our universe). Therefore there exists spacing between the
axeons, resulting in an average travel length (L) between collisional
events.

MASS & ENERGY

We now have sufficient information define and quantify the interaction
events and energy. This will constitute the only action the
collisions have between themselves. Thus the rate of collisions (i)
is c/L. Therefore, formally, the Action parameter (h) is,

L
/
h = 2P | dL => h = 2PL, or 2mcL
/
0

where m is an 'intrinsic' mass. What I mean by this is, on this
level, this value is unobservable.

Where 2 comes from the fact that two particles are involved in any
collision event. Likewise, the internal energy of a single event is
simply,

E = hi

or, action multiplied by the rate at which those interactions are
occuring.

Likewise, the energy in term of speed c is,

c
/
E = 2m | c dc => E = mc^2
/
0

Thus for any population of n particles we simply have,

E = h(ni)

Let nu = ni, thus

E = h(nu)

Likewise,

E = nmc^2

Given nm = M then,

E = Mc^2

We now have reproduced the two fundamental energy equations known to
science, E = h(nu), E = Mc^2.

DIVERGENCE & QUANTUM CHARGE

However, we still don't know what values of P or L are. On the other
hand, we do know what h is, thus what the value of 2PL or, conversely,
what 2mcL is, in SI it's ~6.63E-34 J-sec... To P & L we need a
another fundamental property so let's look at the divergence. Since
we've defined the system as compressible we know that,

Div v = (1/dx + 1/dy + 1/dz)v

Given v = c then

Div c becomes simply c/L

Therefore, the divergence of collision events (q) is simply,

q = 2mc/L = 2P/L

and is also a fundamental property of the system. We note that this
parameter will have physical properties of mass per unit time. We
find that if we take Maxwell's definition from Proposition XVI Page 22
of http://www.vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf that,

c = Sqrt(m/z) [m -> modulus, z -> density]

and map this to the equivalent SI definition of,

c = Sqrt(1/uz) [u -> 1/m]

Then, given Coulomb's law,

F = (1/z)(q^2/4piR^2)

andtTaking z, as it is defined by Maxwell, as a density, to resolve
units of force q must have physical quantities matching our definition
above. Thus, assuming,

q = 2P/L = 1.60E-19 kg/sec

RESOLVING THE PROPERTIES OF AN AXEON

Thus given,

h = 2PL = 6.63E-34

we can now resolve P and L for our model.

P = Sqrt(hq)/2 = ~ 5.15E-27 kg-m/sec
L = Sqrt(h/q) = ~ 6.44E-08 m

Assuming c is as measured, then the 'mass' of an axeon would be P/c or
~ 1.72E-35 kg.

So, where do we stand at this juncture? Well, we've resolved E =
h(nu) = Mc^2 and, that a property matching
elemental charge q is predicted to be a fundamental property. We have
used these to quantify numeric values
for the momenta and interaction length quanta.

This is all we need to move on to the next level up, continuum
Mechanics and Maxwell/Helmholtz/Kelvin's
vortex models.

CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND GRANULARITY...

Up until this point we have dealt with the very basic nature and
interaction of a kinetic granular substance
with each grain a single axeon, and its vector direction, irrelevant.
We did implicitly assume that for a
collision event to occur the vector paths of the axeons intersected.
Clearly, also implicit was the
assumption that sufficient numbers of axeons existed to fill the void
(in our case, the universe). We must
now mention the problem of scale. At physical scales much larger than
L (the mean free path) and physical
size of the axeons the system satisfies all the conditions required to
be treated and discussed as a
continuum. As such, the movements, locations, directions, or identity
of individual axeons is irrelevant,
and, generally cannot be determined or defined. However, as the scale
of interest shrinks into the realm of
volumes approaching L^3 one loses the ability to treat the system as a
continuum. Consider a simple example,
pressure. Pressure is the result of multiple impacts of particles
upon a surface. When sufficient numbers
are 'continuously' impacting a large enough surface the value of
averaged change in the particle's momenta
direction yields the presure. This value quickly converges to a set
value as the surface area becomes large
in respect to the size and spacing of the particles, BUT!, becomes
less certain and variable as the surface
area shrinks toward L^2. In other words, the uncertainty of the value
grows as the area decreases.
Therefore, as should be apparent, there exists a builtin 'uncertainty
principle' as one attempts to go from
the macroscopic to the microscopic. This is also known as
granularity. Formally, a system may be treated as
a continuum when Knudnen's Number < 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Knudsen_number). Conversely, one cannot
do so we Kn >= unity.

Once we enter the realm of Continuum Mechanics all of the work done
referenced in Whittaker's book becomes
relevant, specifically, the superfluidic Faraday/Maxwell/Helmholtz/
Kelvin vortex variant. These lead
directly to their modern variant renderings, Bose-Einstein
condensates, Copper pairing, and Skirmons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose–Einstein_condensate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_pair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyrmion

Where in the neo-aether model a Cooper Pair is simply the vortex ring
pairing predicted in Maxwell's lattice
model. This model predicts that the vast bulk of our physical
universe consists solely of these pairs in a
regular 3D matrix which we would term virtusl e-p pairs... In turn,
Skymions (matter) is simply a modern
term for Lord Kelvin's predicted knots, or defects in the lattice
described above. As such, we find the path
into modern quantum theories. See for example,

http://ltl.tkk.fi/wiki/images/b/bf/Volovik-book.pdf

It also suggests that matter and material systems are but a very
minscule part of our actual physical
universe.

SPECIAL RELATIVITY

It is a fact of history that what is always given as the principle
evidence of proof that an aether cannot exist is the myriad of
attempts to measure the speed of objects with respect to the
background isotropic state (called the rest frame of the aether).
Several models of dynamics of the medium's behavior relative to rigid
material systems indicated that, under such conditions, the behavior
of field dynamics (such as EM) would be simplest (and distinctly
different) when such a system were 'at rest'. This suggested nature
'preferred' its rest frame. At the time of these analyses the nature
of matter was unknown to science and was commonly assumed to be
'ponderable', that is to say, both rigid and embedded within a
separate aetherial medium and under such conditions Galilean
Relativity was assumed valid and would result in a necessary change in
travel lengths of light rays parallel and perpendicular to any motion
relative to any such rest frame. This would result in any single beam
split to travel the paths in any round trip circuit in reconverging ot
of phase. Without repeating a history lesson it is sufficient to say
that this result did not and does not happen. By 1904 several top
scientist including Lorentz and Poincare had realized that of material
system we not in fact rigid and fields were restricted to traveling
the exact same path lengths in the same amount of time and the speed
of the rays were alway the same value regardless of such motion the
result would be that moving systems must alway alter their state to
satisfy this constraint. This would require that, along the the
direction of travel, the path length must change (constrict) with
speed to attain the same total circuit length as taken along the
perpendicular path. Since the total travel length of a circuit also
increase with speed the time required to complete the circuit also
increases. These two effects, result in a departure from the expected
Galilean results leading to what is known today as Special Relativity
related to each other by what is known as the Lorentz transform. In
1905 Einstein published a similar paper where he takes as a principle
that these effects occur. Either way, the end result is that one
cannot use such tests to measure preferential frame. Then the only
question that remains is, "is such behavior the native behavior of a
kinetic medium?". The answer is, simply yes. For a good presentation
of this see:

http://www.amazon.com/Theoretical-Acoustics-Philip-M-Morse/dp/0691024014

NEWTON'S LAWS OF MOTION

Now let us consider a single electron (or proton) moving with some
steady speed v. It's E field is considered infinite and has a
potential and profile relative to the background everywhere of E(r)
centered around itself. Once established the field is at equilibrium,
the result Newton's first law. If we attempt to change its speed by
some dv, according to Lorentz's interpretation, E(r) -> E(r+dr) ->
E(r') in the direction of travel. Thus, during the act of changing
each charge will experience a dE/dr at a rate of dr/dt. The end
result is a -dE/dt proportional to the rate of change in E(r) leading
directly to, Newton's third law. A direct consequence of Newton's
third law is, of course, Newton's second law.

RELATIVITY IN THE PRESENCE OF GRADIENTS

Special relativity is special because it was only developed to
evaluate situations involving inertial motion on an otherwise
isotropic background. Einstein, Hilbert, and others realized quickly
that it was insufficient to deal with the majority of situations
occurring in nature, in particular, gravity and acceleration in
general. It would be expected that if a kinetic spatial medium
exists, like all compressible media it will contain gradients and
currents. Under these conditions strict isotropy does not exist. In
all situations the state of the medium can be defined by its Energy-
Momentum Tensor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress-energy_tensor)
and resulting behavior by Einstein's General Relativity.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Regardless of the derision and contempt many display for the medium
based model I can find no objective grounds on which to discount it.
On the contrary, there seems to be as clear and simple path for
unification and resolution of existing barriers to same.

Well, at least here's one version that is not devoid of mathematical
content.

Paul Stowe
From: Autymn D. C. on 26 Jul 2010 17:48
Copper -> Cooper
it's -> its
scientist -> scientists

http://google.com/groups?q=%22length+is+time%22&sitesearch=groups.google.com
http://google.com/groups?q=Huygens+Newton+Coulomb&sitesearch=groups.google.com

There are elèctròns and quarks, no axeòns. The medial carrier is
cinètic only among many bodies, gains mass, and becomes the plasmòn.
In true-world runs, there are no fotòns, only plasmòns.

-Aut
From: Timo Nieminen on 26 Jul 2010 18:52
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010, Paul Stowe wrote:

One question and one comment:

> At this juncture we have not defined a size or momenta for these
> axeons. We have defined that they do not have any 'fields' and thus
> cannot produce any 'action at distance' effects between themselves.
> Therefore, by extension, the concept of temperature does not apply to
> them.

Why not? It's a hard-sphere gas, which presents no difficulty for
temperature. For identical "atoms", from the Maxwell speed distribution,
you have the temperature. Otherwise, from (kinetic) energy distribution.

> relevant, specifically, the superfluidic Faraday/Maxwell/Helmholtz/
> Kelvin vortex variant.

Considering that you were strongly insistent that

> - interacts with each other solely by elastic collisions, period!

you're not going to get superfluidity - this isn't how hard-sphere gases
behave.

--
Timo
From: Paul Stowe on 26 Jul 2010 21:14
On Jul 26, 3:52 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010, PaulStowewrote:
>
> One question and one comment:
>
> > At this juncture we have not defined a size or momenta for these
> > axeons.  We have defined that they do not have any 'fields' and thus
> > cannot produce any 'action at distance' effects between themselves.
> > Therefore, by extension, the concept of temperature does not apply to
> > them.
>
> Why not? It's a hard-sphere gas, which presents no difficulty for
> temperature. For identical "atoms", from the Maxwell speed distribution,
> you have the temperature. Otherwise, from (kinetic) energy distribution.

Because Timo, atoms are not hard spheres, they are quantum structures
with electrostatic fields. Their collisions are not hard surface
field free interactions. As Feynman was fond of pointing out, matter
never 'touches' matter their fields interact. Temperature is a
measure of those ramdomized field interactions. That's why there is a
radiation field associated with it and, Boltzman's constant is
fundamentally electrical in nature. This is manifested by the
thermoelectric and thermomagnetic effects. In fact, Boltzman's
constant is simply,

k = h/qc

Thus temperature is, fundamentally, a manifestation of field
interactions with friction just being another of these.

> > relevant, specifically, the superfluidic Faraday/Maxwell/Helmholtz/
> > Kelvin vortex variant.
>
> Considering that you were strongly insistent that

It's what best fits the observational evidence to date... Personally,
I think vortex dynamics is nightmare to deal with but, nature is what
it is...

> > - interacts with each other solely by elastic collisions, period!
>
> you're not going to get superfluidity - this isn't how hard-sphere gases
> behave.

The only criteria of superfluidity is zero viscosity... That is what
Maxwell explicitly assumed and to get Bose-Einstein behavior one needs
the axeons to form vortex structures. A vortex is a fluidic entity
consisting of extremely large numbers of axeons. Just like a mundane
smoker's ring is made up of smoke particles and air molecules in great
numbers. A bose-Einstein condensate consisting of vortex cooper pairs
certainly NOT! JUST simple particles, those have to buildup the
fluidic structures. Look up Helmholtz theorems and Kelvin's knot
theory and skymions...

Regards,

Paul Stowe

> --
> Timo

From: Paul Stowe on 26 Jul 2010 21:18
On Jul 26, 2:48 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Copper -> Cooper
> it's -> its
> scientist -> scientists
>
> http://google.com/groups?q=%22length+is+time%22&sitesearch=groups.goo....http://google.com/groups?q=Huygens+Newton+Coulomb&sitesearch=groups.g...
>
> There are elèctròns and quarks, no axeòns.  The medial carrier is
> cinètic only among many bodies, gains mass, and becomes the plasmòn.
> In true-world runs, there are no fotòns, only plasmòns.
>
> -Aut

In the Kelvin/Maxwellian view electrons are vortex rings and quarks
become part of the skymion structures... Photons, phonons of the
medium and when interacting with matter, rotons...

Paul Stowe
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: Very simple question on a REDOX reaction
Next: REDOX: How can this occur if an ion can't lose anymore electrons?