Heuristic Essay about a Physics Aether Model
Heuristic Essay about a Physics Aether Model
Heuristic Essay about a Physics Aether Model 22-7-22 users-desktop
Heuristic Essay to Configure a “Aether Physics”
Prolegomenon: inertia and gravitation.
ABSTRACT.
The essay tries to configure ― massively on intuition inclined ― a gravitation-inertia physical model supposing the existence of a substantial, two-phase, fluid aether. Even if heuristic-style developed, the argumentation tries to stay strictly cause-effect delivered. The premises are:
a) the existence of a blend of two sorts of not reciprocally interfering aethers, matter and antimatter specific;
b) matter-charged elementary particles are supposed to generate, into their specific aether, different kind of flows: sink-like, source-like and dipole-like shaped.
c) inertia and gravitation are supposed cause-effect consequences of the flows’ activity.
On the so set basis one assumes that our universe, essentially on usual matter based, might be surrounded by a similar one on antimatter built.
Master words: inertia, gravitation, aether, alternative universes, abstract modeling, philosophy of physics.
I. Preliminaries.
The present investigation assumes that anybody who wants to modify its own model of universe shall integrate into its old thinking mode some new concept or new-thinking procedure. The process so assumed presumes that the basic meaning of the word knowledge as well as that of “virtual model of the world”, are known. Classically referred at, Plato recommends knowledge as: justified true belief. Plato’s sentence is quoted here because he assumes “knowledge as belief”. More precisely: because he assumes knowledge in its wholeness as belief. This a fortiori presupposes that any new hypothesis must be considered belief. From this follows that any imagined virtual model of the world, even if pretending to represent the reality, is, primarily, simple belief.
The aim of the present essay is to configure a model of the world cause-effect determined and supposed to run on aether, a medium presumed everything permeating and not at all known yet.
Assimilation of any new notion, whatever its nature, asks to be well defined previously. If it is a theoretical construct — like coordinate manifold or multidimensional space — one has simply to express correctly their meaning. For a notion like aether, the task becomes much more delicate because the meaning of aether is not yet clearly configured into our momentary knowledge. This imposes to resort to a more vague way of inquiring, essentially to access to one used in natural sciences. Referred at is the procedure: identify the class of things the specimen of interest belongs to, identify the proximate class in which it fits and determine its specific differences into this class.
For exact sciences this is not a quite adequate procedure. Still, because a precise definition of “aether” has not yet been assumed, one adopts it.
Seemingly, Newton was the first powerful mind who thought of aether as a necessary notion to be introduced and exploited in science, [1]. After him, until our days, a swarm of scientists used their thinking powers trying to rationally assume the new concept.
Now, if looking after the proximate class delimiting the notion of universal aether, one finds a widely diversified variety of products. A well structured exposé of the subject may be accessed in Shaw’s article [2,]. It contains an up to date bibliography covering so well the subject that, in what follows, in intent to simplify the present exposé, one quote Shaw’s references as ([2,[ij]]), “ij” meaning Shaw’s own reference numbers.
Assuming that all “aethers” into [2] listed constitutes the proximate class of aethers into the present essay approached, one stays stunned how many and how largely diversified are the items so gathered. From Newton’s aether, imagined as fluid [3], not decidedly assessed as material or immaterial [2,[1]], until Albert Einstein’s one, arbitrarily rejected as “unnecessary” [4], one finds many other examples conceiving the aether as space, or space with physical properties endowed, or energetic fluid, even network of nodes and cells, or fields, grid, or, surprisingly, even “not named character because taboo” [2, p. 68] and, in a more esoteric register, Newton’s one [3]. Finally, of interest is the aether Shaw himself proposes as a typical example, assessing it as materially substantial supposed to act on physical bodies by “ram pressure” [2, p.69]; or, other way précised: “stress tensor produced by bulk motion of a fluid” [2,[18]].
Practically all aethers previously mentioned presuppose, intrinsically caught into their characterization, gravitation and inertia implied. This constitutes a logic draw-back because it simply pushes a level deeper the existent anomaly of taking consequences as cause.
In hope that a more profound understanding of the phenomena might be other ways conquered, the present essay suggests the hypothesis of a “species” of ather characterized by specific differences relative to the previously mentioned ones as follows:
the aether is believed substantial, yet not material — meaning it is not presupposed gravitationally acted or acting, nor to inertia submitted —,
it is supposed perfectly fluid and naturally determined to occupy any free geometric space,
it is assumed existent in two isomeric phases perfectly miscible yet reciprocally absolutely inactive — except when into material elementary particles absorbed and here substance transformed —,
matter endowed elementary particles generate around them unlimited aether flow-fields three ways specific: source-like, sink-like and dipole like looped,
elementary particles are supposed not to interact directly yet by intermission of surface-activity on in between aether-flows surfaces. On the so set premises one configures a intuitive model proper to a presumed universal ather; model decidedly intuitive not because intuition in se is considered superlatively precious, yet because human history indicates that innovative understanding was always quicker and better assumed when on intuitive suppositions founded than when on symbols based.
II. Imagining the model.
The leading belief which orients the here engaged research is the supposition that our universe evolves into a volume of space towards all azimuths extended filled with aether, a medium supposed substantial yet not usually material — because not to gravitation-inertia submitted —, perfectly fluid and everything permeating. The model was, some years ago, initiated [5], [6], [7].
The present attempt, by that it accepts intuition as a valid thinking instrument, attempts to push the understanding of gravitation and inertia one logic level deeper.
So starting one presumes there exists a kind of aether, symbolized Em , coexistent with matter, as to us known, spatially coexisting with another kind of aether, Eam symbolized, anti-matter specific by that it sustains only those phenomena antimatter specific. Both Em and Eam aethers are assumed coexistent in space as mix of two absolutely non interacting fluid media. In the world we live in, Em aether is supposed absorbed into the elementary particles of our world and there “catalytically” transformed in Eam aether, this last being towards the spatial ambiance ejected.
Following Newton’s example, [1], [3], one supposes that in the Em presumed universe, any mass-charged particle absorbs Em aether in sustained way. Yet to suppose that, matter should be credited able to absorb substantial aether in sustained way. This is highly implausible: how long could a stable material particle grow in substance without becoming unstable and start decaying in some way; a process definitely not met. So, the assumed facts lead either to presume an alternative inflow-outflow of aether into particles imposed [2], or to imagine a process of aether Em into particles absorbed, here into Eam aether transformed and, finally, forcibly into ambiance expelled.
Considered in the spirit of the present essay the second variant appears plausible, so that one accepts it as premise.
Resuming: the universe we live in being assumed built on Em aether, it follows that every mass-charged elementary particle shall act as a sink, (fig.1), of Em aether. The into particle absorbed Em aether is supposed forcibly transformed in aether Eam , the so modified medium being towards the environment evacuated. This means one assumes the in-and-out flowing streams are reciprocally non interactive, their activity remaining specifically individualized.
It is fair to remind here that the idea of sinks and “squirts” (i.e. sources) acting as generators of aether flow-fields has been suggested, as early as the end of the 19th century by Karl Pearson [2[ij]]. Quite surprising is that Pearson thought of concomitant in and out flow of aether in matter, situating the phenomenon in a four-dimensional space of existence. It was certainly proof of dare thinking to suppose that substantial aether could enter in, and concomitantly come out from matter. The fourth dimension was without doubt of help.
The idea of two kinds of aether flowing, intimately mixed yet without interfering one with the other, is not quite absurd; the centrifugal separation of fluidized isotopes may be looked at as an example.
III. Phenomenological observations.
The hope for a more profound phenomenological understanding of gravitation and inertia imposes a thoroughly worked out analysis of some basic facts. The essential ones to be constantly minded of are:
a) the study of gravitation, if approached by minding a single material elementary particle, is void of sense. To become meaningful at least two gravitational centers in reciprocal influence must be minded of,
b) the phenomenon of gravitation runs the same wherever in space, seemingly also in time,
c) gravitation is reciprocally radial-mode attractive and 1/R2 mode dependent from the in-between particles distance .
About inertia one must mind that:
e) zero inertial masses doesn’t exist — or haven’t yet, till now, been perceived —,
f) mechanical inertia depends linearly from the whole quantity of matter implied,
g) the intensity of inertia does not depend from place or time of approach.
The above list resumes the essentials to mind of when endeavoring to push forward a more profound knowledge of inertia and gravitation.
IV. Gravitation and inertia aether way thought of.
The ambitious aim of this essay is to outline a more profound and ― if possible ― an on intuition based understanding of gravitation and inertia, two essential, physically inseparable, phenomena; opinion coming out from the belief that the causal motivation of gravitation and inertia resides at the very elementary particle level itself.
One presumes also that matter charged elementary particles ― immersed in unlimited aether, as presumed ― interact not by forces yet means of intermediary aether flows. Minding the geometry gravity traces in space one assumes that matter detaining elementary particles absorb Em aether the way (Rel. 1) expresses it and (Fig. 1) ilustrates it,
vae = ± qg mi R/R3 (rel. 1)
Fig. 1. Source-like and sink-like flow-fields: (a) black arrows for Em aether, red arrows for aether Eam
the meaning of the symbols being:
— bold characters for vector entities,
— mass of a by index ‟j” identified particle,
— “R for the position vector starting from a significant elementary particle to a point of the aether flow
— R for vector R’s scalar value,
q g , a constant factor indicating the volume of aether presumed absorbed per unit of classic time and traversing the particle’s external surface, the aether as perfect fluid classical here presupposed.
Needed to mind of is that (Rel. 1), because by definition descriptive being, is not justified to represent phenomenological processes. And, also that the aether is, provisionally, presumed substantial, perfectly fluid and incompressible, perhaps also able to propagate specific perturbations on it carried instantly, at any distance. Still, all these are only arbitrary suppositions; no strong conceptual motive sustains the so presumed assumptions. Yet, even if so restricted, (Fig 1) and (Rel.1) are presumed justified to describe the aether flow by an elementary particle supposed standing still into a region of uniform, calm aether.
Still, this is only the simplest, particular case at hand. Commonly, a particle, when by another one gravitationally acted, will move towards that other one wrapped itself into another kind of aether flow i.e. as a particle dipole structured, (Rel.2) and (Fig. 2) described.
Vj, ae = (3/4πR3 )(Ej R1 ) R1 (rel. 2)
the meaning of the adopted symbols being:
— vj, ae for the aether’s speed at a certain point, indexed j , of the flow,
— R1 , unit vectors of R, the generally valid positioning vector,
— Ei , dipole specific vector as follows: initiated the very instant one particle of the pair is reached by the other’s particle flow, aligned on the particles joining line and its strength assumed proportional to the inertia developed by the particle along an entire active period, this equivalent to inertia energy assumed stored into ather loops of the correlated aethr flow.
(Fig. 2.) Dipole flow-field of Em aether around a matter-endowed elementary particle when moving relative to the surrounding aether.
Important to remind here is that (Rel. 1) with (Fig. 1) have been assumed arbitrarily, merrily because their alikeness to the geometry gravitation indicates in space. Differently, one assumes relation 2 on basis of its ability to describe not only the movement of a free-traveling particle, yet, essentially, the evolution of one as if by a general slowdown process restrained.
Now, mildly philosophizing on the subject, one feels inclined to foresee that any natural process cause-effect understood would rush, instantly, towards the intended effect were it not a “braking” process acting.
Physics assumes the phenomenon as “inertia”, integrating it at the same level of importance as gravitation. So thinking one is drawn to intently meditate about eventual cause-effect explanations on aether based. So thinking one realizes that elementary particles shall instantly rush towards the inferred effect would it not be a tempering action supposed to act by transfer of some of the particle’s energy towards the environment, or by storing part of it, reversibly, into an energy-pool into the particle existent.
The second alternative looks preferable because it offers an intuitive mode of interpreting inertia as amount of energy stored into loops of circulating aether, as by (Rel. 2) and (Fig. 2) shown.
Now, why so much bother about inertia as a possible on aether informative clue?
Simply because inertia — either classic or aether way thought of — is inseparable from gravitation. Classical mode assumed, it has been widely adopted as d’Alambert’s principle which states that inertia always acts equally and contrary to gravitation, so that one shall mind of relation 3:
mgr, vi, ae = miner, i (‒v i ) (Rel. 3)
the notations speaking for themselves.
And so one is conducted to ask again: why so much query about inertia when inertia is not even primordial to the subject; primordial is, obviously, gravitation. This being evident, the conclusion is obvious: gravitation is the beginning, essentially the genesis of our world, while assertion of inertia looks like the divine touch?
Shy on commenting celestial decisions, one resumes meditating on how an elementary particle might, gravitation way, influence another elementary particle at distance situated. Despite gravitation do not determine elementary particles to conglomerate, one may still presume that when ending an active period in (Rel. 1), (Fig. 1) determinism, they become sensible of the influences of other particles and switch at (Rel.2), (Fig.2) mode of inflow.
Now, the particles so aether dipole-flow habilitated — and also into a space void of electromagnetic influences supposed moving — may catch weak influences from distant situated particles sent. It is natural to suppose that in an ensemble so determined the particles (Rel. 1), (Fig.1) way active shall tend to cohere in pairs (Rel.4) empowered:
vae = 3(Ej •R1 ) R1 /4πR3 (Rel. 4)
the meaning of the symbols being:
vae aether’s speed in a point of its flow,
Ej particle’s dipôle moment,
R position vector designing a point into the aether flow,
R1 unit vector of R, in (Fig. 4) represented.
So thinking, one further presume that a multitude of elementary particles evolving as before described have structured multitude of structures (Rel. 4)-(Fig. 4) mode twinned.
vae = 3(Ej •Rj1 ) Rj1/4πRj3 + 3(Ek •Rk1 ) Rk1 /4πRk3 (Rel. 4)
and
(Fig. 4.) Supposed aether flow of two elementary particles by gravitation coupled.
Yet how would this be possible while the receiving particle is immersed into its own immensely stronger flow than the one from far away came, forcibly by distance weakened.
No chances to get an answer as long one mind only about continuous aether fluxes. To progress one shall presume that an “on /of“ kind of absorption process acts into every elementary matter endowed particle. This forces to presume that two particles supposed (Fig 1) actives — or, by moving through aether in (Rel. 2), (Fig. 2) determinism involved — finally combine in pairs (Rel. 4)-(Fig. 4) determined. So reasoning leads to consider gravitation determined by interaction between elementary particles entangled in alternate active / idle aether absorbing intervals.
Persevering in looking after an intuitive explanation of the gravitation phenomenon, one assumes that a particle A, while in one of its lazy interval sited, “feels” the influence of another particle B, this one active into its absorbing-period. One assumes that, at the end of this period, particle B switches, intrinsic-mode acted, into an idle period. That, by modifying the aether flow between particles will modify correspondingly the movement of the particles into flow immersed.
Basically thought of, the process might be considered as the gravitation very foundation. And when so assumed the phenomenon entangles two processes of extreme importance, actives on the same phenomenological line. The first process thought of is the spontaneous apparition of stable stagnation points into the aether flow between pairs of bounded together particles. Presumed specific and easily recognizable into flows of (Fig. 4) specific, one assumes they are “flow-stagnation singularities”, essentially stable geometric reference points further referred as “fss”.
The second analytical process presumed significant comes out directly from the precedent one. Mentioned of is the property the fss have to structure in aether stable references points, anchor bases for position vectors vae proper to the flow-field.
Factually yet, the item of interest is not vae — aether speed onto a certain point of space — yet vj , essentially the how a elementary particle by aether-gravitation-acted is supposed to move. Minding that Rj, ae has been validly position-vector confirmed, its inverse, invR j,ae results, intrinsically mode, also validly confirmed. Obviously, the same shall be valid for all vectors of invR j, ae format.
The ample effort hereby developed to ascertain the movement of an elementary particle aether determined is motivated by the ambition to justify as solidly as possible the answer to the question: “is the aether formalism — by (Rel. 1), (Fig. 1) to (Rel. 4), (Fig. 4) expressed — Newton-gravitation covariant?” At this intent, to mind is that any one term in (Rel. 4) is proper to validate Newton’s conformity. The sensitivity of the subject explains why a so extended justification.
To actually answer the question one takes into account one of the terms of (Rel .4) ― term representing in format (Rel .2) a free, single particle ― essentially:
vj = 3(Mfss, j •R1fss, j ) R1fss, j/4πRj3 (Rel. 5) associating it with:
a= G M R1/R3 (Rel. 6)
which defines Newton’s acceleration.
The required Newton covariance asks for a same 1/R2 functional dependency on (Rel. 5) as well as on (Rel. 6). This means same functional dependency of
vj = fae (1/R2 ) (Rel.7)
and
a= fNew. (1/R3) (Rel.8)
Essential to mind is that none of these relations is axiomatically confirmed; both are direct intuitive constructs.
Applying Newton’s definition of the derivative to (Rel.7) one obtains:
aj = const.fae (1/R3) (Rel.7)
which confirms that the as before investigated model is Newton compatible.
The preceding lines stay certainly not for a demonstration. Still, even if the reasoning remains limited at a level of clue investigation, the process seems consistent enough to configure a plausible intuitive model of the aether. And also, by simply proving the essayed model is Newton covariant, it strengthens the presumption the intimate causality of gravitation and inertia works at the elementary particles level. This last wide-reaching conclusion as well as its strong phenomenological significance suggests that to persevere on this line of research may be of interest.
IV. Attempt towards Macroscopic.
To ascend from the elementary particle’s level ― the only one till here accessed ― to the world-wide aggregated matter extension, one faces the commitment to imagine how the aether flow will shape itself when under aether cause effect determinism investigated. Taking-over the so opened challenge one supposes that elementary particles (Rel. 1), (Fig. 1) configured, because gravitation-sensitive natured shall spontaneously combine in pairs. Meditating on this reveal astronomic similitude suggesting that more natural is to suppose particles (Rel.4)/ (Fig. 4) assuming the role. Nevertheless, this shall compel all particles Ej enriched to turn directional and random oriented.
Now, supposing the ensemble so set is determined to coalesce with a massive, aggregated mass ― Terra for example ― the consequence would be that all Ej enabled particles shall align collinear with Terra’s own ETerra already existent. If so assumed, the new-coming flows would be able to participate at farther building the system vector-composition mode. Because the addition implies only alike components, same way oriented, the resulting flow, at planetary scale developed, will be alike those at micro level actives, yet properly dimensioned. This conducts to imagine the earth floating through space wrapped into a huge aether flow similar to those at elementary level developed, yet at earth’s scale grown.
Confirmation or invalidation of the phenomenon as here thought-of tumbles into the domain of electromagnetics. Analyses as “About Relativities” [8] (Dan Romalo, About Relativities), approach the subject, offering a somehow not quite complete investigation; “Not complete” mentioned because the study doesn’t clarify the process by which relativity hides the observer’s movement relative to some absolute referential. Clearly, a correct perception of the subject asks for the processes responsible for the mysterious relativist masking effects to be recognized beforehand; obviously they must be the same as those invoked when Newton way thinking, namely: the Fitzgerald-Lorentz’s matter-contraction [9], [10], and the Ives-Stilwell’s frequency shift [12].
These processes stay however out of pure gravitation determinism; they presuppose conjoint electric-gravitation causal determinism and this would break the presumed conceptual unity of gravity as self-consistent phenomenon. Still, a consistent answer to the problem so accessed only direct experiences might deliver. Analytical particularities suggest that in case an experiment of this kind displays a positive result, the obvious meaning would be that gravitation and electricity operate cause-effect totally disjoint. The essential consequence of so presuming is that an observer might effectively know ― means of the universal aether flow used as absolute referential ― its location and absolute physical state in the world.
If otherwise happening, i.e. if no experimental positive result is obtainable, then Einstein’s RTR wins: no possible way to access absolute referencing.
Is this likely?
One may sadly remember that for more than a century now scientists and philosophers argued on the possibility or impossibility to evidence Terra’s movement relative to a still hypothetic aether. In lieu of varying the experiences, the STR imposed, principle way, the conclusion of inexistence of any observable efect. So, the problem was settled down. The partisans of “aether doesn’t exist”, ….. won!
Yet scoring this conclusion as victory would inject into the scientific debate an inherent weakness: factually, that of not knowing for sure if experiences of the indicated specific had ever been run, their results remaining unpublished. Or more directly put in doubt: that our information was/is poor?
Whatever way it has been, an experimental completion is compulsorily needed.
Resuming meditating about gravitation aether-mode practiced, one infers that it must work as a self-consistent phenomenon even if 100% from electricity isolated. This observation, if by experience confirmed, because its essential significance, should be principle-mode assumed as theoretical truth. In fact one would have to assume it as the very foundation of relativity aether way founded. Still, to infer from this that a world half way so presupposed could run only on gravitation is wrong not only because it shows itself unable to aggregate matter, yet, essentially, because it is unable to interpret the whole reality by itself. To configure an on aether conceived physics one should have first unified gravitation with electricity into a unitary on aether based conception. Yet, meantime, a fundamental question must be asked and answered: is the Newtonian world component so assumed free of functional contradictions?
It is not.
It is obviously not simply because if, in a unitary space, a kind of elementary particles continuously absorbs Em aether while, totally independently of them, into the same space another kind of particles emit, concomitantly, Eam aether, the used of universe, even if unlimited, would evolve poorer and poorer in Em aether, richer and richer in Eam aether; obviously an unacceptable assumption ……… even if firmly affirmed by the old ladys’ statement: “it’s tortoises all the way down”.
Now, if minding of Lavoisier’s general transformation principle, one is tempted to imagine our own universe — on Em aether running — wrapped into another one on Eam evolving even if the two sorts of particles are supposed evolving perfectly independently one from the other into a single, common geometrical space, except when, occasionally, for a short interval of time into the particles caught, they exchange their own, strongly interfering individualities.
And now that the exercise of reflection as till here developed bumps into a wall of solidly not yet on aether modeled phenomenon – referred at is electricity – a milestone indicating that at this point gravitation was independently from electricity wholly assimilated, is worthwhile. Milestone marking is justified because independence between gravitation and electricity is a phenomenon of physics.
our intent to round up a sketchy, first-approach image of the universe aether way intuitively tempted. A complete understanding of the subject so approached compulsorily needs to be completed with its natural pending electric half – let’s say Maxwell’s part –. Undoubtedly a much more difficult part to be worked out than the till here tempted one; evidently so because it embraces the quanta domain, intuitively inassimilable. It is fair to conclude précising that the present essay’s intent is not to configure an elaborated model of aether, yet only to try an approach towards understanding the inertia and gravitation phenomena at an as deep as possible level, intuitively contacted; pretence developed in the spirit of Bertrand Russell’s “In order to get on with science we must break its problems into manageable sections. We cannot solve the universe at a stroke.”
V. References.
[1] Iisak Newton, From Wikipedia, Mechanical explanations of gravitation chapter 3, (Strems).
[2] D. W. Shaw, Physics Essays: 25, 66, 2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical%20explanations%20of%20gravitation%20%20Wikipedia,%20the%free%20encyclopedia.htm
[3] Iisak Newton, Principia, http://enwikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica
[4] Albert Einstein, Annalen der Physik 18, (1905)
[5] Dan Romalo, 12th Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, Storrs, CT, 2005, Proceedings of the NPA, Volume 2, No. 1, ISSN 1555-4775, pp. 158-164. “Bending of a light ray passing a black-hole.”
[6] idem, Heuristic Essay on a Hypothetical Quanta-Aether Relation. Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 19th Annual Conference of the NPA, 25-28 July, 2012 Albuquerque, New Mexico.
[7] idem, Correspondence: Philosophizing about Natural Philosophy. Galilean Electrodynamics & GED-East, Volume 28, Special Issue 1. Spring 201, p. 2.
[8] idem, About Relativities, https://aboutrelativities.com/heuristic-essay-about-a-physics-aether-model/
detailed:
[9] H. Poincaré. Sur la dynamique de l’électron. Comptes Rendus, 140 (1905), idem Rendiconti, 1905, 21, 1906.
[10] Herbert E. Ives, ‟The Fitzgerald Contraction” pp. 9-26 in: Scientific Proceedings of the Royal Dublin Society, new series, 26 (1952), reprinted in [12].
[11] Herbert E. Ives and G. R. Stilwell, ‟An Experimental Study of the Rate of a Moving Atomic Klock II”, Journal of the Optical Society of America, 31, 361-374 (1941).
[12] The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers. Edited and Commented by Richard Hazelett and Dean Turner (The Devin-Adair Company, Publishers. Old Greenwich, Connecticut, 1979).