Why physicists must accept the aether back
Date: Monday, August 03, 2015 @ 23:59:11 EDT
Topic: Science


To:  Dr. Ludwik Kostro, University of Gdansk (author of the book “Einstein and the Ether”)
 

Dear Dr. Kostro,

I would like to explain something you did not understand: why Einstein did not succeed to bring  back the aether to Physics after 1916.

As you know, in the 19th Century the physicists have supposed that the light moves by waves in the aether like the water waves move in the surface of a lake.  Such concept of aether is known as “luminiferous-eather”.


By considering that light moves as an electromagnetic disturbance (waves) of a medium (aether), then the motion of the Earth about the Sun must have influence in the speed  of the light.  That’s why Michelson and Morley had built an interferometer so that to detect a difference in the speed of light.

The experiment made by Michelson and Morley did not detect any difference in the speed of the light, and that that’s why the aether was banned definitively from the Physics by Einstein in 1905, and his stronger reasons for rejecting the aether were the following:

1-  The experiment did not detect the aether

2-  From experiments is known that light moves by transverse waves. But by considering that light is a propagation of longitudinal waves, the luminiferous-aether would have to have the tenacity of the steel, so that to be possible for the light to move by transverse waves.

Nevertheless, we have to note that what the Michelson-Morley experiment did not detect was the luminiferous-aether.  And also the tenacity of the steel required for the propagation of transverse waves in a medium is regarding to the luminiferous-aether.   Therefore, the arguments  used by Einstein for rejecting the aether are applied to the luminiferous-aether only.

In short, the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment does not imply in the rejection of the aether.  The negative result imply in the rejection of the luminiferous-aether.  The experiment does not imply in the rejection of a “non-luminiferous-aether”.

In the paper “A Model of the Photon” published in my book “Quantum Ring Theory”  is proposed that the photon is composed by two corpuscles (particle and antiparticle), moving with helical trajectory (the zitterbewegung discovered by Schrodinger in the Dirac’s equation of the electron).
http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Ring-Theory-Wladimir-Guglinski/dp/0972134948/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1438648660&sr=1-5&keywords=guglinski

Such model of photon does not require a luminiferous-aether for its propagation, because the photon does does not move in the non-luminiferous-aether like waves in the surface of a lake.  The light is not a propagation of waves.

In 2013 the European Physical Journal has published the paper “The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light” where the authors propose an idea similar to the photon proposed in my QRT.
In spite of the authors do not consider a model of photon moving with helical trajectory, in the item 3 of the article (The vacuum permeability), they say:

We propose a physical mechanism to produce the vacuum permeability from the elementary magnetism of the charged fermion pairs under a magnetic stress. Each charged efemeral fermion carries a magnetic moment proportional to the Bohr magneton.

We assume the orbital moment and the spin of the pair to be zero. Since the fermion and the anti fermion have opposite electric charges, the pair carries twice the magnetic moment of one fermion
”.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7#page-1

So, while the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment does not imply in the rejection of the aether, on another hand other experiment published by the journal Nature in 2011 has detected the non-luminiferous-aether, since light cannot  be created from nothing:
Moving mirrors make light from nothing
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110603/full/news.2011.346.html


Dear Dr. Kostro,

in your book ALBERT EINSTEIN’S NEW ETHER AND HIS GENERAL RELATIVITY you told us that after 2016 the own Einstein tried to bring back the aether to Physics again:
http://www.mathem.pub.ro/proc/bsgp-10/K10-KOSTRO.PDF

But even the own Einstein did not succeed to bring back the aether to Physics after 1916, because of two facts not understood by you, by Einstein, by Lorentz, and by John Stachel.  In the page 81 of your paper you say:

At the same time, Einstein proclaimed once again that the ,,ether in the old sense does not exist”[7]. Therefore, we can say following John Stachel reviewing my book: ,,The ether he reintroduced differed fundamentally from the ether he had banished.”[8]

The reasons of the failure of the Einstein’s attempt are the following:

1-  Einstein had proposed a new structure for the aether.

2-  However Einstein did not remove the main cause for the rejection of the aether:   the consideration that the light is a propagation of waves in the aether.

3-  Therefore after 1916 Einstein continued to consider the concept of luminiferous-aether in his new attempts trying to bring back the aether.

4- The concept of luminiferous-aether, as Einstein continued to consider after 1916, was already proved be wrong by the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

5 – By keeping the concept of luminiferous-aether, it is impossible to bring back the aether to Physics, no matter what sort of structure for the aether can be proposed.  Einstein could propose billion of new structures for the aether, and all they would be unacceptable, because he was keeping the luminiferous concept of aether in his new proposals.

6- The aether can be brought back to Physics only by considering a non-luminiferous aether.  And a non-luminiferous-aether requires a model of photon moving with helical trajectory, as proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.

But there are another reasons why the physicists must bring back the aether to Physics, and the main of them is the following: the aether contributes for the properties of the matter, and it is impossible to conciliate the Quantum Mechanics with the behavior of the atoms, nuclei, and particles as quarks without considering the structure of the aether.
For instance, it is impossible to conciliate the Schrodinger equation with the atom model existing in Quantum Mechanics, because Shrodinger developed his equation by considering a free electron, and therefore his equation cannot be applied to the atom model considered in Quantum Mechanics.  Such paradox was solved by an unacceptable way, as explained in the Book Description for my book “The Evolution of Physics: From Newton to Rossi's eCat”, published by Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Physics-Newton-Rossis-eCat-ebook/dp/B00UDU8978/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1438648660&sr=1-1&keywords=guglinski

I wrote that Book Description as a reply to the Nobel Prize in Physics Dr. Brian Josephson, who along a discussion with me was desperately trying an impossible enterprise:  to save the Quantum Mechanics without to bring back the aether to Physics.

In the book Quantum Ring Theory it is proposed a new hydrogen atom where:

1- the electron moves around the proton with helical trajectory

2- the space (aether) around the proton is non-Euclidian  (different of the Euclidian space considered in Quantum Mechanics).

3- when the electron moves in radial direction within the proton’s electrosphere (between two orbits), the electron moves with CONSTANT SPEED  (because of the non-Euclidian space).  The atom emits the photons when the electron jumps between two orbits (so, when the electron is moving in radial direction).  Therefore, as the electron moves with CONSTANT SPEED,  it behaves as a FREE electron.

As said, it is impossible to conciliate the Schrodinger equation with the atom model of Quantum Mechanics, and the quantum physicists adopted the absurd postulate mentioned by Eisberg and Resnick in their book:

===================================================
It must be emphasized that we arrive to (5-22) by considering an special case: the case of a free particle where P(x,y) =Vo , a constant. In this point it seems reasonable to argue that we have to hope that the wave equation of the quantum mechanics should have the same shape of (5-22) for the general case in which the potential energy V(x,t) actually varies as function of x and t (i.e., the force is not null); but we cannot prove that this is true. However, we can postulate that it is true. We do it, and so we take (5-22) as the wave equation of the quantum mechanics whose solutions Q(x,t) give us the wave functions that must be associated to the motion of a particle with mass m under the influence of forces which are described by the potential energy function V (x,t). The validity of the postulate must be judged from the comparison of its implications with the experiments, and we are going to do several of those comparisons later.”
===================================================

The only way to explain the success of the Schrodinger equation is by considering the contribution of the aether within the electrosphere of the atoms, as shown in my book Quantum Ring Theory.

Dr. Brian Josephson did not reply to my argument published in the Book Description in the Amazon.com.  Actually he has decided to run away from discussion, because he has realized that it is impossible to explain why Schrodinger equation works well if we try to explain it from the foundations of the Quantum Mechanics.

I hope other scientists will understand that the paradoxes and unsolved puzzles in Quantum Mechanics will never be solved by simply running away of the discussions.

Also, I hope other scientists will understand that the paradoxes and unsolved puzzles in Quantum Mechanics   will never be solved if the physicists continue to refuse to bring back the aether to Physics.
 

Regards

Wladimir Guglinski






This article comes from ZPEnergy.com
http://www.zpenergy.com

The URL for this story is:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3640