A Universe on Aether Built
About a Universe as if on Aether Built
Prolegomenon: inertia and gravitation
Dan Romalo
ABSTRACT.
The essay tries to configure a physical model of gravitation and inertia massively on intuition based. It suposes the existence of a substantial two-phases 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 a 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, 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 for example — one have simply to express correctly their meaning. For a notion like aether, the task is much more delicate because the meaning of aether is not 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 precise the specific differences into this class.
For exact sciences this is not a practical 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 power to assimilate the new concept.
Looking now into the proximate class in concern of 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 now that all “aethers” into [2] listed constitutes the proximate class of aethers into the present essay approached, one remains 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]], to that one by Albert Einstein’s despised one, arbitrarily rejected as “unnecessary” [4], one finds many other examples conceiving the nature of 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 gravitation and inertia intrinsically into their characterization caught. This introduces a logic draw-back because, if so doing, the anomaly of taking the consequences as causes is maintained, only a level pushed down deeper in our knowledge.
In hope that a more profound understanding of physics may be acquired by trying a different set of specific differences than the one before cited, one has:
─ 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 non interactive — except when into material elementary particles absorbed and here substantially transformed one into the other,
─ matterial elementary particles generate around them unlimited aether flow-fields in three ways specific: source-like, sink-like and dipole like looped flows,
─ elementary particles are supposed interacting not directly yet by intermission of surface-activity between aether-flows to the particles attached.
On the premises so set one tries to configure an intuitive model of a presumed universal aether; precise ”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 orientates the here engaged research is the supposition that our universe evolves into a volume of space towards all azimuths extended and filled with aether, a medium supposed substantial yet not classically material — because not to gravitation-inertia submitted — medium perfectly fluid and everything permeating. The model was, some years ago, initiated [5], [6], [7].
The present attempt, by this it accepts intuition as a valid thinking instrument, tries 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 the matter 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 to be somehow continuously 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 improbable: how long could a stable material particle grow in substance without becoming unstable and start decaying in some way; a process definitely not met with. So thought of, 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. In the spirit of the present essay the second variant shows plausible, so that one accept it as a 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 product 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 flows 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 assumed space. 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 to gain a more profound phenomenological understanding of gravitation and inertia imposes a thorough understanding of the related basic facts. The ones to be minded 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 radial-mode attractive and 1/R2 mode dependent from the in-between particles distance.
About inertia one must mind that:
d) zero inertial masses doesn’t exist — or haven’t yet been perceived —,
e) mechanical inertia depends linearly from the whole quantity of matter implied,
f) 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 find out a more profound ― and, if possible, by intuition sustained ─ understanding of gravitation and inertia; intuition mentioned because one considers it as the most powerful thinking instrument in fundamental research. So inclined, one start meditating on the cause-effect of gravitation and inertia determinism, concluding it resides at the very elementary particle’s level. Once so oriented, one presupposes that, in the universal space by aether occupied, material particles float freely only by gravitation acted, the aether flow around them being by (Rel. 1) and (Fig. 1) represented:
vae = ± qg mi Ri/ R3i
(rel. 1)
(Fig. 1)
The meaning of the symbols in (rel. 1) as follows:
─ mi particle’s ‘i’ mas
─ Ri position vector of a point ‘’í’’ on the aether flow, the vector’s origin on the studied particle,
─ qae rate of aether into the particle absorbed.
Now to presume that a particle begins its evolution Rel. 1) / (Fig. 1) way described is deceptive. It is so because by definition a particle is bound to leave immobility to start moving into a uniformly non moving aether. Yet this is imaginative thinking; no hope a sane reality could come out from so thinking. More hopeful is to reflect about the evolution of an ensemble of elementary particles (Rel. 1) gravitationally determined. So starting, a particle into a omogen system evolving, by its very existence conditioned, is bound to establish links with the others. Tis might be performed by sending around messages which, when detected by another particle, shall determine this one to emit an answering message which, catches back by the first particle, would establish a permanent link between the twos.
Here two subtle, meaningful questions intervene: why moving and how mowing?
The first question transgresses our reasoning power. To ask ─ general way ─ the meaning of motion or moving is foolish. Motion stays at the very base of our cognition power, probably even at the universe’s basic existence.
Turning now towards the more modest ‘’how moving’’ ─ yet perhaps the most intriguing interrogation of physics ─ one approaches the problem imagining that an elementary particle bound to establish a gravitational contact with another one, shall emit a specific pulse determining a specific answer.
Yet how could this be done while the receiving particle is immersed into its own immensely more powerful exit flow than the weak incoming signal from far away coming?
No chance to get an answer as long one minds only of continuous, same sense aether fluxes. To progress shall presume that an “on /of“ kind of ability is active into the particle. This oblige to presume that two particles supposed (Fig 1) actives — or, if by moving through aether, by (Rel. 2), (Fig. 2) determinied — shall, finally, combine in pairs.
So reasoning leads to conceive gravitation determined by interaction between elementary particles entangled in alternate active/idle aether absorbing periods (Rel.2) and (Fig. 2) described. ,,Heuristic about ether” - https://aboutrelativities.com/heuristic-essay-about-a-physics-aether-model/
Vj, ae = (3/4πR3 )(Ej R1 ) R1
(rel. 2)
(Fig. 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 , dipolar factor as follows defined: initiated the very instant one particle of the pair is reached by the other’s particle flow, aligned on the particles joining line and strength assumed proportional to the inertia (defined later) developed by the particle along its evolution.
And here, a daring hypothesis: energy supposed accumulated into the aether’s flow loops, eventually returnable to the initial device. So, one assumes (rel. 2) because of its supposed ability to describe not only the movement of a free-traveling particle, yet, essentially, the evolution of a real one by a general slowdown process restrained.
Here, the need to return to the question: “how moving?”
The asking is not trivial because it implies that,strictly logically thinking, in absence of any opposing physical process a particle should move instantly from its initial state to the final predetermined one. Clearly, it is not an assumable reality. To continue, step further one presume that Nature developed a process of slowing down all gravitation determined movements. The meant process is the classically acknowledged phenomenon of inertia; phenomenon specific by that it counterbalance instant accomplishment of a task, asked for at distance, by a somehow braking process. Obviously a vectorial parameter aligned with the in-between particles joining-line and strength linearly dependent of the particle’s speed variation.
If so set, the aether flow around a particle accelerated into a field of uniformly not moving aether will be expressed by (Rel.2) and (Fig. 2), explicitly:
Vae, j, = (3/4πR3 )(I j R1 ) R1
(Rel. 2)
and
(Fig. 2)
The meaning of the symbols into (Rel.2) used being:
— bold characters indicating vector entities,
— I j inertia operative vector to the particle attached,
— Ri , position vector starting from a significant particle to a point of the aether flow
— Ri vector’s R scalar value,
— R1 unity vector of R.
Ruminating on inertia in wish to penetrate inertia’s deep meaning, Newton’s Apple incident passes by; it asks competent well qualified comment. Meditating on the subject one becomes aware that during its fall the apple accumulates kinetic energy which, on hitting Newton’s head, that energy is returned to the environment. Yet, what is kinetic energy and how does it work?
No enlighten answer at hand.
Surprisingly, hope of enlighten comes out when (Fig. 2) is looked out: it comes so that a possible explanation for the energy circulation between falling apple and environment is that inertial energy passes from the apple to the environing, aether included, and vice versa.
Yet one may wonders how aether may store energy to, afterwards, restitute it?
Looking carefully at (Fig. 2) one becomes aware that the inertial energy developed by the falling apple might be stored into the closed loops of the circulating aether, following to be restituted, or transferred, at the end of the fall. If so considered, Newton’s whole physics gets a new aspect. Inertia do not determine the gravitation attraction, yet determine the way elementary particles react to the gravitational influences. If so thinking, it is normal to ask how the gravitation-inertia problem might be extended towards the larger frame of the entire Universe’s problematique. On that aim one shall mind that the so developed research will naturally align itself along two lines of significance: one, Newton specific, leaning on gravitation-acting-at-distance, the other, of undulatory nature, by that of propagation specificity.
Factually, two physical actions running into the same space yet totally independent one from the other; a behavior absolutely normal if one minds that one phenomenon runs on pure gravitation interaction wile the___14 second is of undulatory propagation specificity.
IV. Attempt towards Macroscopics.
To ascend from elementary particle level to the universal one, one must assume how, cause-effect determined, the micro flows build the aether flow in it’s universal ensemble. Taking-over the so opened challenge one starts by supposing the elementary particles in an initial state (Rel. 1), (Fig. 1) described and that they absorb aether to generate gravitation. One may suppose that, at a certain moment, they will begin to combine in pairs. The ensemble so constituted shall naturally contain a significant number of particles Ij determined. Whatever the presumptions, all particles Ij enriched turns direction reactive, random oriented.
Now, supposing the ensemble so set meets a massive, already aggregated mass ― Terra for example ― it will coalesce with it, the consequence being that all Ij enabled particles will align collinear with Terra’s own ITerra previously formed.
If so assumed, the new incoming flows will participate to build further, vector-composing mode, the system. Because the addition presume addition of micro-components all-so developed alike and same way oriented, the resulting flow at planetary scale developed will result alike those at the micro level actives, yet properly dimensioned. This manages to imagine the earth floating through space wrapped into a huge, stable aether flow alike those at elementarylevel developed, yet now at the earth’s scale formed.
Confirmation or miss information of the phenomenon as here thought-of tumbles into the domain of electromagnetics. Analyses as “About Relativities” [8], approaches the subject offering a somehow not quite complete investigation; “Not complete” said because the study doesn’t precise the physical process means of which relativity hides the observer’s movement relative to some absolute referential.
Clearly, a correct perception of the problem asks knowing the physical basis of the processes responsible for the mysterious relativist masking effects. A subject Ives fundamentally developed in Fitzgerald-Lorentz’s matter-contraction [12], [9], [10] and also, in a classical Newton-mode approached, in Ives-Stilwell’s frequency shift [12].
Yet these processes, because external to pure gravitation determinism acting, if here assumed, would destroy the gravitation as self-consistent phenomenon.
So the conclusion: only direct experiences are credible in assuming general theoretical conclusions. By “direct observations” one refers here at experiences of Kenedy-Thorndike type yet run with devices modified by that one branch of the Kenedy-Thorndike interferometer is on pure gravitation based, the other branch remaining a simple material support. Secondly, at the same target aimed, one think of a classic Kenedy-Thorndike interferometer yet run with extra-terrestrial light.
Waiting for eexperimental results one may ruminate on hypothetically imaginable solutions. Analytical deductions suggest that, in case the gravitation branch test delivers positive results, one is entitled to conclude that gravitation acts totally independent from the electric world. If so, the aether flow field builds itself analytically point by point in its whole extent.
The essential consequence if so presuming is that an observer might effectively know ― means of the local aether flow used as absolute referential ― its true location and physical state into the world.
On the contrary, if no information comes out from the experiment, the task facing will be to imagine what aether-specific phenomena ─ similar to the Fitzgerald Lorentz and Ives-Stilwell usual ones ─ masks the observer’s movement relative to its environment. In this, hopefully unprovable case, Einstein’s RTR will seem to win: no way to access absolute referencing.
Is this menace likely to happen?
No easy answer. One should sadly remember that, for more than a century, physicsts and philosophers argued about this subject; essentially on the possibility or impossibility to evidence Terra’s movement relative to a still hypothetic aether. Einstein and his adepts imposed the answer stating the STR principle: the “aether doesn’t exist”.
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 were exhaustively run, the results remaining unpublished. Or more directly put in doubt: that our information was/is poor?
Whatever way it is, an experimental completion seems to be compulsorily needed.
Resuming the meditation about the phenomenon of gravitation aether-mode and at the micro level thought of, one concludes that gravitation must work as a self-consistent phenomenon, meaning by that it must be cause-effect 100% electricity independent.
An assumption seemingly by direct observation confirmed. Due to its fundamental significance it is principle-mode assumed as theoretical truth. Basically, it is supposed to shoulder the entire Theory of Relativity Aether Way Assumed.
Still, might this observation allow to suppose that a world only on gravitation based might exist?
Obviously not; that because a world so determined would be unable to aggregate matter. More evidently because it would be unable to express the whole reality. From this comes out that the most stringent step is to out-line a general on aether based physics. This asks the beforehand gravitation-formalization to be free of functional contradictions.
Is it?
It is not. It’s not because continuous inflow of aether into particles ─ process needed to generate gravitation ─ might not be imagined without ejection of an equivalent quantity of a similar substance, most probably antimatter aether. Still, a world so set would evolve richer and richer in Eam aether, poorer and poorer in Em aether; obviously an unsustainable development.
So, again, one is driven to step deeper into presuming about an aether phenomenology. An essay in this sense has been in ,,Heuristic about ether” - https://aboutrelativities.com/heuristic-essay-about-a-physics-aether-model/ developed. Inferred in it is the idea that our universe on matter-aether Em built evolves connected to ─ or even internally caught in ─ a surrounding anti matter Eam specific one. The supposed transformation Em aether into Eam aether and vice-versa is supposed performed means of specific processes into the m and am particles performed.
Here arrived, it seems normal to rise a milestone indicating that, from here further, a deeper understanding of gravitation and inertia aether mode assumed is not possible without implying electromagnetic connections. Yet this plea for a much more intimate approach of gravitation with electricity, at the macro level considered, than till here practiced.
Alongside gravitation, inertia is always present, and active. Aether mode imagined, one assumed it bound to the particle’s aether flow loops around the particle induced by its through aether moving.
And now that the exercise of reflection till here developed bumps into a wall of phenomena not yet aether-way mastered, one realizes that gravitation evolves at the micro level totally separated from electricity. A somehow unwaited conclusion. One assumes it on condition the analysis refers to gravitation at the micro level only. When macro thinking, one is pushed to imagine that gravitation builds its strength on any one particle and wherever in space ─ by summing the gravitational actions in this point manifested by all individual elementary particle belonging to the system. Minding that at the macro level the distances between compacted mases are immensely larger than those at atomic level, and that gravitation acts 1/R2 mode, one concludes that at the macroscopic level, gravitation will manifest itself Newton classic way, essentially by weak forces at distance acting.
Now, supposed one succeeded to assume gravitation at the macro level on basis of its understanding, intuitive way, at the micro one, one dares think that to define the aether flow in its world-wide extent is possible. Yet a general understanding of our world aether way assumed, is conditioned by conceptually joining Maxwell’s world with Newton’s gravitation as here assumed. Obviously not a simple task, on the more when constant being the quanta are to be minded of.
The fulfilment of the subject so assessed depends from the force of the belief an aether exists.
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/
[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).