pantheory

Thanks for your reply, Ophiolite.

The reason this stronger magnetism is a prediction of this model is that the entire theory of magnetism of this model as a whole is much different from the standard model.

The theory behind this prediction is that accordingly both stellar and planetary magnetism is based upon several factors. The first has to do with the density of the atmosphere, the second relates to its rotation rate, and a third is the strength of plasma radiation from the sun. But geo-magnetism accordingly is unrelated to the Earth's iron core. Instead when the sun, as well as all stars, originated it had a very large torus of inflowing matter that was the original source of the sun's matter. Both its atmospheric density as well as its spin rate were greater in the past. This, according to this model, would have produced a greater degree of stellar magnetism. The Earth, for the same reasons, would accordingly have had greater magnetism during its origin. Its spin rate and atmosphere would have been denser/ greater due to its higher temperatures and increased heavy material in its atmosphere. This theory is also contrary to the dynamo model whereby the Earth's inner iron core is accordingly the source of Geomagnetism.

The link you presented relates to observation of rock material of maybe 3.5 billion years ago and less. The times of the sun's and Earth's origin date back 5 to 4.5 billion years respectively. So maybe the first 500 million years of their lives, accordingly the sun and Earth accordingly would have had stronger magnetic fields than it does in the present day. The mechanics of the theory are that for the Earth, ionized clouds move over the water producing continuous weak westerly currents of electricity in the oceans and lakes. These currents in the waters produce magnetic currents of influence in both the water and in the adjacent air. These magnetic currents move at right angles to the electrical current flow. This accordingly is the Source of Geomagnetism.

Although totally scientific, the paper concerning the link, involves much speculation, extrapolations based upon the present dynamo magnetic model of the Earth.

Other evidence for the model that I have proposed is that Venus, Mars, and the Earth all probably have an iron core. Venus with its very thick atmosphere, but little rotational spin, has hardly any detectable magnetic field. Mars, with probably a substantial a spin rate similar to our own but with a very sparse atmosphere, has little detectable magnetic field. The detectable magnetic influences on Mars surface material generally run East and West as apposed to North and South for the Earth. The reason for this, according to the proposed model, is that Mars has seasons where there is an atmospheric flow during the Martian summer where carbon dioxide and water vapor through winds, flow from south to north over the land, and in the winter the wind blows the other way returning carbon dioxide and water vapor back to the south pole. So accordingly the flow of the ionized atmosphere form south to north creates east-west magnetic markings on the land surface. This is contrary to the present dynamo theory concerning the Earth, planetary, and stellar magnetism models. If one looks at magnetic influences on Uranus and Neptune one also can see how the dynamo model fails to explain what has been observed.

Here are more predictions of the above model:

You heard it first here!

-- De Broglie waves are waves which all spinning particles create in the surrounding field as they alternate their axis of rotation.

-- Magnetic fields of galaxies generally become stronger with age as current theory predicts, however contrary to current models, distant large galaxies will appear to have larger magnetic fields than their closer galaxies having a similar appearance. This is based upon a presently unknown type of distance relativity.

-- The density of matter in the observable universe in any time frame would accordingly be generally constant.

-- Both the Sun and the Earth would have originally had stronger magnetic fields as well as all of the other planets in our solar system.

Replying to Neutrino Oscillations evolve with Redshift ?

According to the Borexino Princeton Group, Neutrino Oscillations behave differently, in high density media, at high energies:

 

What effects would this have had, on Neutrinos, at ultra-early epochs, at ultra-high red-shifts, associated with Primordial Nucleo-Synthesis ?

The idea of the paper is speculative but now based upon much evidence. But as to neutrino interactions with matter effecting/ evolving redshifts, I can think of no possible mechanisms how this could happen. What is your idea?

Back at the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe was infinitely rapid, [math]H(t=0) \rightarrow \infty[/math]. This is visualizable, as the vertical, 'infinitely steep', asymptote, of the Cosmic Scale Factor, plotted as a function of time, simply in 1D:

 

Thus, at the "bottom of space-time", back at the Big Bang, the fabric of space-time becomes asymptotically flat, with a flat, planar, tangent surface. Is that a way of "visually explaining" the cosmological 'Flatness Problem' ?? or, as a more attention-grabbing 'surface-of-revolution':

No, the Big Bang model does not propose an infinitely rapid expansion of the universe during the Inflation era (the Inflation hypothesis), it only proposes a very rapid Inflation process, in most interpretations. Inflation accordingly was faster than the speed of light.

Instead the flatness problem of the Big Bang model relates to the underpinnings of the Big Bang model itself, which are Einstein's cosmological equations based upon his Theory of General Relativity (GR). GR uses Riemann geometry which relates to the proposal that space in non-Euclidean. Euclidean geometry can also be called a "flat geometry" in that everything would simply have simple length, width, and depth co-ordinates and there accordingly would be no curvature of space if the universe were that simple. But when looking at the universe as a whole, all indications indicate that the universe is flat and simple, and that space is not curved as proposed by Einstein and his theory of gravity. By proposing the Inflation hypothesis theorists believe that if the universe expanded very quickly (faster than light) that it could appear to us that the universe is Euclidean/ Flat even if at a much larger scale it accordingly could be curved in some way. So the flatness problem is the contradiction of observations which seem to suggest that space is Flat, and that Einstein and the Big Bang model are wrong. Inflation supposedly proposes a theoretical way to get around what is being observed.

Most consider the flatness problem to be a fine-tuning problem of the Big Bang model, that requires the density of matter/ energy in the beginning universe, to have according been very close to an exact number during most of its volume expansion phase, otherwise the observable universe would now appear to be much different.

To somebody who believes in quarks, gluons and Higgs, the evidence might appear to support them. However a non-believer could argue that all the experimental evidence suggests that these things do not exist.

I also am an infidel

.

My theory is based around electric charges and electric forces, whose existence is hard to deny.

Realize that the existence of positive and negative charges as something separate from something mechanical, can certainly be questioned (by me for instance).

On the other hand all attempts to detect isolated quarks have reportedly failed. Most people probably accept that this is because quarks are undetectable, but it could also be argued that this is because quarks are not a proper description of reality.

I agree.

Similarly billion dollar experiments have failed to detected the Higgs. This could of course be the fault of the experiment, but it would be perhaps more rational to accept that it is because the Higgs does not exist.

I agree.

Again there is no experimental evidence that gluons exist, even though they are supposed to have some kind of rest mass in order to account for the fact that they do not venture far from their host quark.

When quarks go, so will gluons -- theoretically

If a theory is sufficiently flexible it can always be adjusted such that its followers can claim it supported by the evidence.

I agree. Unfortunately this is the sad state of affairs concerning theories today whereby there are many versions of the same model, and regardless of the observations made, the theory can often claim that a particular observation was predicted beforehand. Maybe there are 2,000 separate theorists and three collectively made such a prediction within a factor of 20 -- then they claim a successful prediction. The prime example of this was the microwave background and the Big Bang model -- regardless of whether the microwave background had anything to do with an original bang or the supposed hot dense field as a result.

.

If the math doesn't change, the predictions don't change, and the theory doesn't change.

Different explanations for the same predictions are different interpretations of the same theory.

There are two very distinct aspects of QM. One is the math called QM and the other called Quantum Theory which primarily consists of interpretations. See link this forum, below postings 9,10,&11

http://www.sciencefo...ions-have-legs/

I agree, these ideas lead to new or modified interpretations of the existing theory. It happens all the time and it will keep happening, and progress will be made. If one interpretation (ie. explanation) shows itself to be logically "right" vs another interpretation, it will probably only do so by improving or expanding the theory (and its math), or by suggesting a new way to test the different interpretations. Otherwise, even if an explanation is "completely logical", yet it makes the exact same predictions as another explanation, mathematically, with no test, then there is no way to show that the other explanation is wrong.

I agree but in time, I think logical interpretations and related theory will supersede all others which is why I believe most of Quantum Theory (QT) will be replaced

I can tell you what I think are the numerous mistakes of the model and what predictions could prove it wrong. This could be done on the other thread link posted above, since this thread concerns quantum jumping. The other thread concerns the troubles with today's theories, and is entitled Simple but Logical (theories).......

.

"Never been detected" is not the same as "not detectable." If something is theoretically undetectable (and not just that detection is currently unfeasible), then it can never be detected according to that theory. If it is ever to be detected, the theory must be modified or replaced.

I agree and believe Quantum Theory will be modified some day enabling logic to become part of the new model.

It doesn't matter who you are (Shroedinger, Einstein etc); if an idea is based on belief and not theory and observation, then including that idea in a model is an interpretation of the theory.

Their collective ideas involve alternative ideas that could be transformed into alternative theory, whereby the math would not change, only the explanations.

Particles traversing distance may be a simpler to conceive interpretation than leaping. However, "simpler" is not just about what seems to make the most sense without having additional questions to ponder. Its about specifying the model as efficiently as possible to minimize the number of additional assumptions that aren't a consequence of the observable evidence. So, the idea of particles leaping may be abhorrent, but if all that it means is that the particle is in one location at one time and in another location at another time and you don't specify or care about what goes on between those 2 spacetime coordinates, then it is simpler.

I agree, but in QM they state that the electron can never be in transit between two orbital states, it simply goes from one orbital position to another without transiting the distance in between. This link provides the normal QT explanation.

http://www.jimloy.co...ics/quantum.htm

I'm not sure what QM predicts is undetectable or unobservable, but I know that it does predict that some things are. For example the uncertainty principle says that some measurements are physically impossible to make, even with any yet-to-be-imagined measuring technology. To be able to measure things that the uncertainty principle says are unmeasurable, you wouldn't need just better instruments, you would need a new theory.

You might call it a new and different theory, but the math would probably remain the same for the most part.

I'm not sure what the various theories say about the detectability of particle traversal vs. leaping.

If transit actually takes place, why has it never been observed? I also cannot find such explanations but I could guess at least a couple of simple, logical possibilities and am sure there are many others: one possibility is when an electron changes orbits it either accordingly absorbs a photon or emits one. At this precise moment, how could its changing position be detected, using another simultaneous photon? So there would not seem to be any conceivable method of detecting/ observing its transit if it occurred. Another possible explanation is that the electron itself may not change positions at all but its orbital position could change by moving in or out based upon the changing position of the nucleus.

My opinion is that if explanations do not follow normal logic, like quantum leaping/ jumping, those explanations have a greater chance of being wrong.

.

If there is no possible detectable difference between particles "leaping" from one place to another, vs. traversing the distance in a classical sense, then either case would be equally valid in a model of reality. Unless some test can show that one or the other is invalid, there is nothing to say that one is right and the other is wrong. If there's no difference, the two should be interchangeable. But, I think it would be pointless to say that something exists in a location if there is no way to detect that it was ever there, so if there is no evidence that particles traverse distances, then leaping those distances would be a simpler explanation (ie. a model would have the particle existing in one detectable place, and then in another detectable place, and not specify any other locations for which there is no evidence of the particle existing).

 

I think it's important to consider that any "leaping" would have to obey the law of causality. If information is transfered over a distance (the leap), then it must do so at a speed <= c (but probably =c). So if energy disappears from one location and appears in a distant location, it would also need to appear at a later time than it disappeared.

Because it has never been detected, of course, does not mean that it never could be detected, re: physically traversing the distance between electron orbits. I consider it a matter of logic. If an electron is in fact physical, then it would have to disappear, transform into something else and then back into a particle. I understand almost the entirety of Quantum Theory has such assertions which seem illogical. I do not think leaping is a simpler explanation than traversing simply because detection in transit has never been observed. In this way my thinking is more in line with Shroedinger, Einstein, De Broglie and others who believe(d) that particles always have existence in one location or another, not disappearing and reappearing, or multiple locations at one time.

I wonder.

The principle of least action is beautifully simple and resembles very much to the sharp edge of Occam's razor.

I agree 1000%.

Thanks michel

Quantum theory doesn't seem logical at all to those who don't understand the mathematics. The emphasis should be on whether or not a theory makes correct and testable predictions about reality. Quantum mechanics has given correct predictions many many many times, so what is the problem pantheory?

The mathematics of QM is based upon a long history of observation. There is little question that it is the best thing going concerning its predictive ability. Quantum Theory, on the other hand, are the verbal explanations as to why QM predictions are valid. This theory is where all the "lack of logic" exists. Quantum Theory could be almost entirely wrong and totally replaced, while QM could remain almost totally intact concerning its mathematics. All that would accordingly change would be the explanations.

Here is an example. Quantum Theory, concerning the double slit experiment using photons, proposes that a single photon particle goes through both slits and then interferes with itself. Is this logical? Einstein, De Broglie, Shroedinger and many others thought this was not only wrong, but a ridiculous interpretation.

If the background field (the ZPF) includes any particulate or string-like entities such as dark matter, Higg's particles, gravitons, field strings, quantum sand, quantum foam, etc. , then as the photon moves through the field it could produce waves of these particulates in the background field which could go through both slits, while the photon itself would go through only one slit. The waves could accordingly interfere with the photon's progress producing the interference patterns we see. This is extremely simple to understand but since we have no proof of the existence of such particulates such as dark matter, etc. we have chosen a "ridiculous" explanation. All of Quantum Theory, in my opinion, consists of little more than many such ridiculous interpretations/ explanations.

I also do not understand the distinction between mathematics and logic. Math is nothing but the purest logic un-tainted by the semantics and word ambiguity of regular language.

Mathematical logic is its own system. The primary requirement is internal consistency. This logic does not require formulations in physics to provide justification. Both logical systems are based upon a number of quite different rules.

.

Simple but logical explanations have legs.

More complicated models will always be written in Ptolemaic epicycles, hence complicated explanations. The Ptolemaic model met the requirements of the church at the time concerning the Earth being the center of the universe. A simpler answer was that the sun was the center of a stellar system of planets, where the Earth was only one of the planets. This new model, only upon strong evidence, ended the idea that the church must always be the ultimate authority.

 

Today I think we are faced with a similar dilemma. The 20th century ushered in many new theoretical models like Quantum Theory, Einstein's theories of relativity, The Big Bang model, etc. All of which originated as, or evolved into complicated models involving aspects of theory similar, in my opinion, to Ptolemaic epicycles. The meaning of this is that many aspects of these theories lack in logic and as a whole have become complicated beyond what is likely to be valid. The concept involved is this: The more unprovable aspects and assertions that a model has, the more likely it is that the model is wrong.

A prime example of "Simple but logical" theories I believe were Newton's theories. Although Newton often did not explain the logic behind his assertions and formulations, considering today's physics as a whole, Newton's proposals seemed to always have a strong logical basis that today's models seem to lack. Most of Newton's models have survived to the present day.

,

.

..........does your model explain the power spectrum of the CMBR? The peaks contain physical information and suggest we live in a (near) flat Universe which went through an inflationary period. Unless your model allows for other interpretations?

In my recent readings concerning the CMBR, they have observed "ripples" in the CMBR in the form of continuous slight increases and decreases in temperature on a somewhat regular basis. The mainstream interpretation is that minor fluctuations during the Inflation era have expanded into the variation we see today.

This does not seem to be the only likely interpretation. It is well known that the universe is made up of galactic bubbles/ webs surrounding large voids. If the related CMBR heat was produced instead by galaxies, a 360 degree pan of the sky at the same distance would seemingly produce the same pattern of heat that they are now observing. The polarization CMBR pattern observed could likewise be explained/

It is also now known that large voids result in as much as a 45% less heat reduction concerning the CMBR temperature than its surrounding volumes. This would seem to be a strong indicator that the heat of the CMBR is the redistribution of galactic heat, since in the relative absence of galaxies we observe less heat concerning background radiation.

http://en.wikipedia....i/CMB_cold_spot

.

So stating that time has no meaning before the big bang is fairly standard in cosmology. However, quantum gravity models cloud this and people do talk about pre-big bang physics. Classically, fair enough.

Although I don't believe the standard model is a valid model, its beginning of time concept I believe is totally valid and logical.

This sounds like the thermodynamic arrow of time, which is one type of arrow.

I believe that time is an extremely simple concept to understand and that there is no other meaning to it. Accordingly "time" is solely an interval of change(s) which occur between two instances, and nothing more.

The notion of causality is an interesting one, people do wonder if we really need it or if we can somehow weaken it to allow time-travel.

Again in causality, I think the BB concept (even if the model is wrong) is dead on correct logically. Accordingly the consensus version is/ was that the beginning bang was self-contained concerning the potential energy that caused it, and that there was no external cause.

The other point is in the heat-death epoch there will be no changes to speak of. Thus do we really still have a notion of time and the arrow of time?

This I agree seems to be a conundrum, but would be of no consequence if the BB model were wrong.

Yes, this is the mainstream classical consensus. Without a real quantum theory of gravity it is difficult to really say much about "time before the big bang" and what that really means. A theory of quantum gravity will presumably give time some quantum nature at energy scales near the Planck energy.

I believe that time, like space is a simple analog defined by atomic changes, and particle spin in particular. Some believe space could also be digital but I also think that such models are barking up the wrong tree

Anyway, the idea of eternal as a physical idea is clearly tied up with our understanding of time and the evolution of the Universe. It soon gets rather philosophical quickly and pushes us towards the boundary of our understanding of space-time and gravity.

I do not think I would ever seriously consider any model where "eternal/ eternity" could be considered as something physical. As to gravity, I think the concept of warped space will in time be replaced, and that space-time will come to be understood as a very simple concept, such as a point in space identified by the relative coordinates of its observable surroundings, at a particular point in time -- and nothing more.

The trouble is that we do not know if we can have an "infinite past" nor do we know if we can have an "infinite future".

A totally valid comment. In this way I agree with standard model physicists that assert that time before the beginning of the universe has no meaning at all if the beginning was finite concerning time past. As to time ending in the future, seems like a logical possibility, but not one according to any cosmological models that I know of. Accordingly "infinite" is only conceptual that does not exist in reality according to many standard model versions (and others) -- such as space as a continuum, for instance.

... I am not sure how we define time before the big bang and how we define time in the heat death epoch.

Most BB theorists believe time would have no meaning before the beginning of the universe if this is the only universe. Defining time in the heat-death epoch is a standard model problem that is unrelated to alternative models.

And of course we still have basic questions about time and the arrow of time.

Logically there is absolutely no problem at all. Time is measured by change, and one could never undo what has already happened. Mathematical models may consider other possibilities, but I think such models totally fail in logic.

The quantum nature of time is a real mystery ...

So to resolve this (in part) I said "existed for all time and will exist for all future time". Which I think is the best definition given our current thinking.

I think that the mainstream consensus still asserts that time began with a Big Bang, at least as the leading hypothesis.

Here are more predictions of the above model:

You heard it first here!

-- Stellar fission processes are instrumental in creating the abundance of light elements.

-- More than half the sun's heat is created by gravity, therefore the lifetime of the sun as well as stars in general, will be much longer than present theory allows. Some stars then would be much older than is presently thought. The evidence for this is the lack of electron neutrinos (about 1/3 the quantity) that should exist if fusion were the sole source of solar radiation.

-- Both individual Protons and electrons vary in mass, roughly as much as 1/000 part. This prediction is directly implied by the underlying "string theory."

-- During particle pair creation, antiparticles form with more difficulty and often spin-out before becoming a stable particles. Normal particles form with greater ease and therefore are more plentiful and remain, while their anti-particle companion "spins-out" of existence to return to being a non-spinning field strings

Occam's razor really only states that "given two theories that equally well model nature, then you should favour the theory for which you have to make the least assumptions about non-observed entities".

So, for example following Occam's razor would mean that supersymmetry would be immediately discarded. We have no tangible physical evidence for supersymmetry today. However, supersymmetry has many mathematical properties that make it worth studying and these then pose the question "why does nature not exploit supersymmetry?".

Most humans would agree that symmetry is related to beauty, but humans probably have a different understanding of beauty than other animals. I highly respect Dirac's work but personally think that mathematical "beauty" should never have preference over simplicity, all else being equal. Particle physics as a whole is fraught with insurmountable problems, in my opinion, super-symmetry was maybe worth consideration but the foundations of the model are tenuous at best.

String theory also would be disregarded, currently string theory does not model the real world well, but again there are many non-trivial mathematical reasons why string theory should be studied.

String theory was a great precept in that strings could be the foundation of reality instead of particles. After that it's all down hill . There is no need for any more than 3 dimensions plus time, in my opinion.

The point being if one were to follow Occam's razor to the letter then I expect that progress in physics would be slowed down. One has to allow a bit of imagination in physics. This is particularly true when probing the frontiers of knowledge. That said, as a general philosophy applied correctly Occam's razor can give you hints at what models are "sensible". But it is in no way a law of nature;

Simplicity and logic should not be the ultimate tests or considerations, but I believe they should be primary yard sticks, which I think presently they are not. Most instead seem to prefer modifications of standard models rather than giving the slightest thought to alternative explanations/ models contrary to the standard model, again reminiscent of Ptolemaic epicycles.

....there is no reason why nature should be "simple" or even "comprehensible" to mankind. One cannot for sure use Occam's razor to pooh-pooh modern physics.

I agree that Occam's Razor should not be the ultimate test, but logic and simplicity should be important considerations. Unfortunately "logic" is considered today, in my opinion, with about the same regard as it was during the times when the church "explained" what was "true." Logic has little sway in science today, to the discredit of those that make such illogical proposals, Quantum Theory being the prime example. Ultimately, I believe, everything that exists has a logical basis in every respect -- granted it could never be logical to everyone. Accordingly the only reason a theory lacks reason is because its practitioners cannot make sense of the related observations. But in my opinion, the logic is never complicated, it is only that science no longer uses logic as the quintessential tool which I think that it should.

Also it might not be obvious what theory is "simpler". For example, is a conceptionally clear theory that is very hard to calculate with simpler or not than a theory that is conceptionally difficult but easy to calculate with?

I agree that you are making a good point. In my opinion the physics/ mathematics of a model are just an analog which at best might approach reality, but never could be a mirror of it. Accordingly the math should never rule logic. If more complicated math is required, so be it. If simpler math generally serves the purpose, like the inverse square law for instance, then it should always be used unless there is some reason/ logic for increased accuracy.

.

Occam's razor-- Doesn't always lead to truth, but definitely is a good rule of probability. But considering science never proves anything, and by protocol follows the path of greatest probability, Occam's razor definitely has a place here.

As you know, there was a 50 year period where the "the Earth is round" was just a theory, about the time of Columbus the fact was not established. Science can prove theories, the evidence simply must be strong enough to squelch all other possibilities. A few of today's theories I believe fall into this category. "Natural selection" has a mountain of evidence to support it. Even though it is known there are other mechanisms of speciation, natural selection someday, I believe, will be known to be fact. Another example is plate tectonics. This is still a theory but there also is a mountain of info to support it. The reasons for it are still speculative in nature, but the model of separate moving plates of the Earth's crust will someday be considered fact. The point is that I believe the best of theories will someday be proved.

Occam's razor is an excellent guide, "the simpler answer is the better answer, all else being equal." The question always boils down to "all else being equal." This is where disagreement is certain

.

If photon had mass, the emitted radiation wave energy from fusion or fission would be like this. (M-M_photon) C²=hv

A photon at rest accordingly has no mass. But a photon can never be at rest and it does "sink" (bend) under the influence of a gravitational field and has mass-like influences/ properties such as energy of contact like a solar sail. Your equation hv = E/m does not seem to make sense in that Plank's constant h (a very small number), times a velocity (v) the speed of light or less, together being hv, could never equal the speed of light squared, right?

^.

More complicated models will always be written in Ptolemaic epicycles, hence complicated explanations. The Ptolemaic model met the requirements of the church at the time concerning the Earth being the center of the universe. A simpler answer was that the sun was the center of a stellar system of planets, where the Earth was only one of the planets. This new model, only upon strong evidence, ended the idea that the church must always be the ultimate authority.

Today I think we are faced with a similar dilemma. The 20th century ushered in many new theoretical models like Quantum Theory, Einstein's theories of relativity,

The Big Bang model, etc. all of which have originated as, or evolved into complicated models involving aspects of theory similar, in my opinion, to Ptolemaic epicycles. The meaning of this is that many aspects of these theories lack in logic and as a whole have become complicated beyond what is likely to be valid. The concept involved is this: The more unprovable aspects and assertions that a model has, the more likely it is that the model is wrong.

.

rigney,

Is eternity a physical or mental thing?

Of course the answer is solely a matter of conjecture. It would depend upon the definition of eternity that you choose to use. Here are the two primary definitions:

eternity:

1. Infinite or unending time.2. A state to which time has no application; timelessness.

For the first definition eternity is a concept, therefore it would be of mental and conceptual character based upon an unending progression in the future.

The second definition could have a spiritual component such as an eternal heaven. In such a concept if one's religion considers heaven, for instance, as a physical entity then "eternal" might then be considered physical. There are other hypothesis in physics where entities accordingly might exist outside of time either by their nature, or by some other means.

But for most, eternity would be considered a mental "thing."

Electrons move from one orbit to another without traversing the distance in between. Is it possible that the distance in between lacks the property of momentum potential?

 

Perhaps momentum potential space exists as fields in the subatomic realm. Lately I've been thinking that momentum poteneial space might be the by product of vacuum energy anihalation. This might give a "real time" space for electromagnetic charge to exist within, seprerating the electromagnetic energy particles of the quark from electromagnetic energy particles of the vacuum energy. Otherwise what is the difference from the elecreomagnetic energy inside the quark and the electro magnetic energy out side the quark (vacuum energy)

"Electrons move from one orbit to another without traversing the distance in between." You also might consider that this is only present theory but may not be valid. Although there seems to be no evidence that electrons traverse the distance in between, Einstein and others believed that electrons like photons were particles in the classical sense in that they accordingly must "traverse the distance in between," whether this "traverse" can be detected or not.

.

I ignored stellar aberration because it is not relevant to the ether model. When the image of a moving object reaches an observer, because of the finite speed of light, the object has moved on, thus the image is out of date & needs to be corrected. This is done using maths based on the Lorentz transformation, which is the basis for Special Relativity, & it works. It is not dependent on whether light is a wave or a projectile. Einsteins subsequent assumption that the velocity of light is a mathematical constant is where things go awry.

As I said before, I also adhere to the aether model but if it is the correct model, there should be some aspects of it that most physicists cannot quite get their arms around, cannot quite grasp. For your model of the aether, what do you think the problem is concerning why "they" seem to have such a hard time detecting it?

.

Here are more predictions of the above model:

You heard it first here!

-- Anti-protons are not long-lived particles with half-lives of less than a million years.

-- Spinning looped particles back to back can logically explain the mechanics of a Bose-Einstein condensate.

-- Everything that exists can be explained logically.

-- In space the relative motion of all matter decelerates in the direction of the body's greatest velocity relative to the surrounding aether field, considering the ....field.as stationary. This is not contrary to Newton's first law of motion since the aether applies an external force of resistance to the motion of the body.

.

olvin dsouza,

....The challenge of this theory is to prove that gravity is a PUSH FORCE BY UN SEEN PARTICLE

There are a number of present theories that propose that gravity and or mass are caused by "unseen" particles in the background field, such as dark matter, Higg's particles, gravitons which are the most well known. Additionally Pushing Gravity has been around as a theory for more than 300 years. I also think it will be proved to be the correct model of gravity but is a big change from the present GR model so it will probably take a while for such realization .

Whether your sphere gravitational model is correct as explained by your link, is another matter.

Here are more predictions of the above model:

You heard it first here!

-- Some galactic polar jets are truly super-luminous relative to the galaxy and the central black hole which produces them which would not be just a condition of relativity.

-- The large holes in the micro-wave background discovered in 2007 & 2009 will be discovered to coincide with large voids of galaxies known to exist in the same locations. The resultant cold spots in the microwave background would accordingly be the result of the absence of matter within the associated large voids, contrary to the Big Bang explanation of the CMBR.

-- Galactic Polar Jets being ejected from active galactic nuclei/cores (AGN) can be analyzed to determine the amount of material being ejected, primarily in the form of protons and electrons. The mass of galactic polar jets will be found to be far greater than that which could be explained by material orbiting the black hole within its taurus. This would imply that the gravitational force of the black hole is creating new matter which represents more than half the matter being emitted by the polar jets.

-- New matter is being created by AGN in the form of hydrogen which fuses into helium in the galactic jets. Electrons and positrons are also created in this matter. Other light elements are created by fission processes related to the inner taurus, some of these fissioned elements are emitter in these polar jets.