Let’s redefine the historic æther.

Aether or Æther or Ether

” The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment,
is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.” –RB Laughlin
By Bruce E. Camber  20 January 2020

Introduction.  Prior to December 2011 the scientific-and-scholarly communities had not seen a base-2 chart of the universe from the Planck base units to the current time and size of the universe. It has 202 notations: Notation-199 holds the first billion years. Notation-188 holds the first million years. The first second comes within Notation-143. The first 64 notations are below the thresholds of measuring devices so basic logic, the formulas that define the Planck base units, all the necessary dimensionless constants, and the actual Planck-derived numerical units at each of the first 64 notations, should guide us.

Finite, Physical, Quantitative. Here are foundations to redefine the aether (or æther or ether). This æther is finite and physical yet beyond the reach of any possible measuring device. Quantum indeterminacy makes measuring impossible, yet here are the foundations of all measurements. Here are the foundations of all things physical. Here things are quantiative, yet we get the feelings of the qualitative.

We will consider the history of Aether theories, the luminiferous aether, the timeline of luminiferous aether, and the Lorentz ether theory (LET) .

We will find as many facts as possible, then within the structure of the first 64 notations, begin to make some guesses and postulations about the steps from simplicity to complexity. Because these numbers all originate from with the perfections of continuity, symmetry, and harmony, our most encompassing definition of the infinite, the first notations ostensibly define the finite-infinite transformation.

The formulas that define the Planck base units. First, we have the four formulas for the Planck base units. Don’t let those formulas confuse you. We’ll be taking them apart step by step. First, get visually familiar with each.

  • Planck Length: PlanckLength

  • Planck Time: PlanckTime

  • Planck Mass: PlanckMass
  • Planck Charge: PlanckCharge
  • Planck’s constant:  6.62607015×10−34 J⋅s
  • Reduced Planck constant (H- bar): ħ = h/2π

These Planck base units are defined by dimensionless constants. Although every constant will eventually be studied until each becomes a friend, we start with the two constants knowingly shared by us all, π (pi) and c (the speed of light). The most simple dimensionless constant to shape space is pi, first, as a circle, then as spheres, then as sphere stacking, and then as the simple geometries generated from cubic-close packing of equal spheres.

A Primary Assumption.  There are finite and infinite systems that : (1).can best be described as continuity (order), symmetry (relations), and harmony (dynamics).

What else can we assume? What about the Poincaré sphere? Could the polarization happen in the first doubling? When and how might the Fourier transform apply, even at these infinitesimal frequencies? What about Maxwell’s equations?

The first doubling could readily involve even more of the greats of mathematics, everyone from Leibniz (calculus, relational space and time), Euler (exponentiation), Gauss (beams, kernels,  and Spherical Gauss-Laguerre Basis Function and Gauss‐Legendre algorithm), Langlands (automorphics),  Laplace (operator on the 2‐sphere), Lorentz transformations, Witten (string/M-theory), Dijkgraaf (topological string partition function)… (yes, to be review, researched, and continued)

Also, every hypothetical elementary particle (like the axion, for example, postulated within the 1977 Peccei–Quinn theory to address the CP problem in QCD) has a place within these 64+ notations. We’ll eventually be wrestling with all of them.

So we start with the sphere. We ask, “Is the simplest sphere the first manifestation of the physical?” Can the universe be populated by what we call the plancksphere?  Is it the current expansion of the universe, the forward thrust of the earliest notations?”

My quick answer is, “Yes. Yes, and Yes.”

Within this model the æther is this forever changing domain, always expanding, the most-infinitesimal spheres from the first moment of time, plus a never-ending generation of planckspheres always filling the current notation.

Quite roughly, there are eight billion more years within this current notation. It is still “filling up” causing a sense of the directionality of time. And, “Yes” that conclusion flies in the face of many, possibly most — and probably all — current theories held by the many within our scholarly and scientific communities.

That steady stream of planckspheres blasting into the universe is a penultimate mystery. Mathematical logic is the only way we can visit there. My simple guess today is that there is a progression from circle to sphere,  an infinitesimal circle with the qualities defined Planck base units and those currently understood qualities of spheres such as the Fourier transform.

In a figure of speech, “It’s a long way to Tipperary!”   Much more to come….

###

Various notes (resources and references  below).

A Few References and Resrouces:

Odds & ends:

Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about the ether in contemporary theoretical physics:

“It is ironic that Einstein’s most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed. The word ‘ether’ has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry.  It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with ‘stuff’ that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.”[6]

A Different Universe. 2017-06-27. (Wikipedia overview)
Main articles: Luminiferous aether and History of special relativity

Isaac Newton suggests the existence of an aether in the Third Book of Opticks (1st ed. 1704; 2nd ed. 1718): “Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines? …Is not this medium much rarer within the dense bodies of the Sun, stars, planets and comets, than in the empty celestial space between them? And in passing from them to great distances, doth it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the bodies; every body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the medium towards the rarer?”[9]

In the 19th century, luminiferous aether (or ether), meaning light-bearing aether, was a theorized medium for the propagation of light (electromagnetic radiation). However, a series of increasingly complex experiments had been carried out in the late 1800s like the Michelson-Morley experiment in an attempt to detect the motion of Earth through the aether, and had failed to do so. A range of proposed aether-dragging theories could explain the null result but these were more complex, and tended to use arbitrary-looking coefficients and physical assumptions. Joseph Larmor discussed the aether in terms of a moving magnetic field caused by the acceleration of electrons.

James Clerk Maxwell said of the aether, “In several parts of this treatise an attempt has been made to explain electromagnetic phenomena by means of mechanical action transmitted from one body to another by means of a medium occupying the space between them. The undulatory theory of light also assumes the existence of a medium. We have now to show that the properties of the electromagnetic medium are identical with those of the luminiferous medium.”[10]

Hendrik Lorentz and George Francis FitzGerald offered within the framework of Lorentz ether theory a more elegant solution to how the motion of an absolute aether could be undetectable (length contraction), but if their equations were correct, Albert Einstein‘s 1905 special theory of relativity could generate the same mathematics without referring to an aether at all. This led most physicists to conclude that this early modern notion of a luminiferous aether was not a useful concept. Einstein however stated that this consideration was too radical and too anticipatory and that his theory of relativity still needed the presence of a medium with certain properties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

https://exploring-zeropoint-energy.blogspot.com/2019/10/aether-doctrine-and-electricity-mining.html

Gundelfinger quartic and quartic surface and projective space and infinity

Octet truss: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Truss&action=edit&section=8

@rickygervais https://twitter.com/hashtag/AfterLife

Drew Houston – DropBox

Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, Stanford University, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down. NY, NY: Basic Books. (2005).pp. 120–121. ISBN 978-0-465-03828-2.