# Aether Wave Theory

## Recommended Posts

The main idea of Aether Wave Theory (AWT) is, the whole Universe is composed of continuous inertial environment with infinite mass and energy density, i.e. the Aether. No other assumptions are given, therefore all consequences should follow from this introductory postulate.

This corresponds the idea, the whole observable Universe is formed by dense interior of giant collapsed star, which is similar to black hole. Such environment is so dense, so that even the smallest density fluctuation here is behaving like independent particle with gravitating effects. We can imagine such matter as a condensing hot and dense particle system, similar to supercritical fluid, where all observable artifacts are formed by density fluctuations of another particles, recursively.

Currently the main asset of AWT is, it simplifies the qualitative understanding of most of formal aspects of contemporary physics, i.e. the relativity, quantum mechanics and cosmology and related phenomena. It brings a many new insights into them, while reconciling the modern physics with classical Newtonian mechanics, well - at least conceptually. The realm of AWT is not limited just to the area of physics. It's in fact the comprehensive theory of both matter, both biological and social evolution, as we can demonstrate later. The AWT was disputed on physorg forum extensively. You can found backup of all posts here.

The AWT is based on luminiferous aether concept, which was studied extensively at the end of 19th century. While the Aether is considered a inertial, i.e. massive environment composed from particles, which is serving for spreading of light, it considers the Aether as being postulated by Rene Descartes (1647) and Christian Huygens (1678). It just modifies the Aether hypothesis by assumption, the Aether is of infinite mass and energy density.

The idea of dense Aether is close to "Electric Theory of Matter" of Sir Oliver Joseph Lodge, which was published in Harper's Magazine in 1904 as a electromagnetic theory of Aether. He was first, who stated correctly, the Aether must be very dense environment, to be able to mediate the most energetic light (like the X-ray and gamma radiation) and to mediate the forces in atom nuclei. Unfortunately, this idea was misunderstood by other aetherists, ignored by relativitists and as such it was forgotten completely.

##### Share on other sites

Ughhh... Do you make predictions? If not, it's a hypothesis, not a theory.

##### Share on other sites

Currently the AWT is the only theory, which explains the character of light, which is spreading through vacuum in transversal waves without Maxwell's theory, which is based on experiments with these waves and/or quantum field theories, which are based on unexplained yet postulates of quantum mechanics and relativity theory. The AWT is basically the inertial chaos theory, it doesn't use any experimentally determined postulates for description of Universe, therefore every description of Aether can be considered as a theorem of AWT, i.e. the prediction.

The most important prediction of AWT at the first sight is the string concept and string structure of vacuum, because inside of every dense particle system the fluctuations are having the foamy structure, which can be revealed both by direct observation of supercritical fluid, both by computer simulations.

The foam concept is much more common in contemporary physics, then just in string theory, though. Even the LQG and/or Heim theories are based on foam lattice/network concepts, for example. So if you don't know, from where such concept has come into physics, then the AWT is here for you.

The first attempt to describe the black hole interior was done by Kip Thorne, who conjectured before twenty years, the black hole interior has a foamy structure. It's quite easy to derive such conclusion, if we assume, the interior of BH is behaving like dense Boltzmann gas composed of mutually colliding particles. We can compare it with foamy structure of dark matter streaks, which can be detected by CMB and gravitational lensing. Even some string theorists have their own model of the black hole interior. They're calling it fuzzball and describing it as a ball full of strings, similar to golf ball. Such hypothesis is consistent with J.A.Wheeler's concept of quantum foam and Process physics, Unparticle physics and others.

##### Share on other sites

I thought the aether thing belonged to the history.

##### Share on other sites

Ok, lets see some concrete constructions here. Can you show how light propagates in the AWT? If so, can you show that the propagation speed is c? Unless you can do this, I think that AWT shows no hope of being taken seriously.

##### Share on other sites
...I thought the aether thing belonged to the history....

The Aether was considered as a gas, which is surrounding the massive objects. It was never considered as a material of such objects. Don't ask me, why.

...can you show that the propagation speed is c....

No contemporary theory can derive the light speed from scratch. The science is using many qualitative concepts (the evolutionary theory, the heliocentric theory) without formal models. For example, just from assumption, the Earth is moving around Sun and not vice verse is possible to deduce many testable predictions, like the :

1. existence of parallax
2. shape of Lunar crater shadows
3. phases of Jupiter moons
4. Venus phases

Does it mean, the heliocentric model has no testable predictions without math or even it shouldn't be considered seriously? I don't think so. If the Darwin's theory has no math model, it doesn't mean, it's wrong, or such model cannot be developed later, after confirmation of such theory by testable predictions, based on boolean logic. If nothing else, you can use the AWT for explanation of concepts, which are having no explanation (the constant speed of light as an example). By AWT the speed of every wave is constant, when measured by the same wave by definition of speed.

##### Share on other sites

Maxwell's theory relates the propagation speed to the electric and magnetic constants.

You need to do something similar. Or at least prove your statement about have light propagates.

And you need some maths so we can do calculations.

##### Share on other sites

no maths no theory.

It's simple... and using historical arguments to say "well people thought that was a theory" will not hold here, we've moved on.

Could you show me how your theory shows that light will travel at c. Not what the value of c is.

##### Share on other sites

I thought the constant speed of light falls out of the Maxwell equations.

How does [acr=Aether Wave Theory]AWT[/acr] explain the MM experiment?

##### Share on other sites
...no maths no theory.....

Then the Darwin's theory is not scientific theory as well.

..How does [acr=Aether Wave Theory]AWT[/acr] explain the MM experiment?..

The light is spreading through Aether via thin density fluctuations in transversal waves by the same way, like the waves at water surface. The propagation of tiny surface waves (so called the capillary waves) doesn't depend on the underwater motion, so that such motion cannot be detected easily by using of these waves, therefore the negative result of MM experiment is in agreement with Aether theory in fact. But the AWT predicts, for light of much shorter of longer wavelength then the visible light the Lorentz invariance should be violated by the same way, like for waves at the water surface due the dispersion.

##### Share on other sites
No contemporary theory can derive the light speed from scratch.
Now I haven't followed all of your thread, but from Maxwell's equations: $c=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu_0 \epsilon_0}}$

 oops, I opened the thread but then didn't respond for a while, yourdad's post wasn't there when I opened the thread! ikes, that was 10mins ago! Ah well. And yeah, like he said, how does your theory explain the MM experi?

##### Share on other sites
Then the Darwin's theory is not scientific theory as well.

I strongly suggest you learn some modern evolutionary theory before stating things like that.

The light is spreading through Aether via thin density fluctuations by the same way, like the waves at the water surface. The propagation of tiny surface waves doesn't depend on the underwater motion, so that such motion cannot be detected easily by using of these waves.

And how would you describe this mathematically? It can't be too hard to do, we can do wave mechanics with water easily.

But you don't get constant wave velocities falling out of it, which we KNOW is true.

##### Share on other sites
I strongly suggest you learn some modern evolutionary theory before stating things like that..

From where the Darwins theory have become a real scientific theory, after then? Try to supply some date.

##### Share on other sites

Are we at rest with respect to the aether, or moving through it?

From where the Darwins theory have become a real scientific theory, after then? Try to supply some date.

Let's stick to the topic at hand.

##### Share on other sites
Are we at rest with respect to the aether, or moving through it?

Betwixt and between, if you try to think about Aether concept, youl'll find, it has no reference frame at all. Or at least its reference frame is undefined.

##### Share on other sites
From where the Darwins theory have become a real scientific theory, after then? Try to supply some date.

This is a pointless direction to take your argument in, it's a strawman, we are dicussing a physical theory to replace the maxwell theory of light, which is already highly predictive and mathematical and you've got to beat it!

##### Share on other sites
.. we are dicussing a physical theory to replace the maxwell theory of light...!

I'm discussing the AWT only. This isn't supposed to be a replacement of any theory, it's a metatheory. After all, why it should be replacement just the maxwell theory of light? There is huge number of other theories.

...but you don't get constant wave velocities falling out of it, which we KNOW is true...

I don't understand the sentence of yours fully. Sorry, English isn't my native language, as You probably realize... The violation Lorentz invariance for short wavelength gamma radiation was confirmed by MAGIC observation.

Guys, you're all very nervous. Try to explain, why the particles should consist of strings for me, for example. After you'll find some reasonable explanation, you can call it "theory of strings", or whatever else. I choosed the AWT, because of scientific priority of this concept, that's all.

##### Share on other sites
I don't understand the sentence of yours fully. Sorry, English isn't my native language, as You probably realize...
That's ok. You said:

The light is spreading through Aether via thin density fluctuations by the same way, like the waves at the water surface
What Klaynos is saying is that from Maxwell's equation you get a single (i.e. constant) wave speed, that is, the speed of light. Whereas when you do similar mathematics for water waves you do not get a single/constant speed, because waves can travel on water at any speed (within reason).

##### Share on other sites
..waves can travel on water at any speed (within reason)...

This is just an illusion of yours. The waves can travel on water only by the speed of surface waves, when observed by using of surface water waves. By the same way, like when observing the light spreading speed by light waves in vacuum. What you probably mean, is the case of observation of surface water wave spreading by using of sound or light waves. But this IS NOT equivalent situation. Whenever you'll use a two kinds of waves, instead of single one in experiment, you'll get a different result. It's logical, isn't it?

##### Share on other sites

Calculate, calculate calculate....

My last word

##### Share on other sites
...Calculate, calculate calculate....

You shouldn't calculate your homework, until you'll get (understand) the assignation completelly. Or you'll start to blindly combine the formulas without understanding. And how can you derive these formula without understanding of subject at first? No way...

Briefly speaking, you should always understand the physics at first on logical, illustrative level. Or you'll develop the string theory for forty years without single testable prediction, because you've ignored the facts, the testable predictions are coming from logical conjectures, not from equations only. The equations can give you just the result, which was putted into them during derivation of physical model. And without physical model you will not get the physical results, end of story.

Furthermore, the calculations isn't so great problem in AWT. Can you model the dynamic fluctuations of supercritical vapor? It's quite easy by using of computer. But it's not so easy to derive some working math model of that stuff, due the highly chaotic nature of these fluctuations. This is why, we have a many theories of black holes, but we haven't the (explicit) theory of common vapor condensation or turbulence.

##### Share on other sites

Unless you can calculate "something" then you can't really tell me you understand it. I would accept numerical studies as a calculation in this context.

One "get out" could be that as it is research work, then we don't know how to calculate. But you have made claims with no back-up. No way can we take you word for it. You need to do more.

If you want to talk about string theory we can do that. But I suggest a new thread.

##### Share on other sites
Unless you can calculate "something" then you can't really tell me you understand it..

This is just an conjecture of yours. For example, as a Galileo I'm able to predict Venus phases from heliocentric model and verify such prediction by observation without single row of math. And my theory will remain verified by such way by much more reliable way, then any numerical prediction of string theory. Simply because my prediction is working on robust logical level, not the formal math level, which can be poorly conditioned. What I mean with this?

If the Galileo would wait for numerical confirmation of heliocentric model, we would use the Ptolemy theory even this very day. Because the Ptolemy theory was heavily fitted to the observational data, so that every prediction of heliocentric model, derived from Kepler's law cannot compete with it.

Briefly speaking, because both Ptolemy both heliocentric model are supplying the same numerical results, the formal math cannot be used for distinguishing them. After all, the fact, the ancient astronomers were able to compute the astronomical events with high reliability doesn't mean at all, they understood the subject. Therefore your argumentation is just a conceptual return to the times of opponents of Galileo, who didn't understood, why to replace the epicycles model, if it's working so well for astronomers.

##### Share on other sites

Furthermore, the calculations isn't so great problem in AWT. Can you model the dynamic fluctuations of supercritical vapor? It's quite easy by using of computer. But it's not so easy to derive some working math model of that stuff, due the highly chaotic nature of these fluctuations. This is why, we have a many theories of black holes, but we haven't the (explicit) theory of common vapor condensation or turbulence.

How do you think the computer models it?