Reality with a matrix

A statement with respect to the Awareness Model of Physics

This blog demonstrates the conceptual unified Awareness Model of everything. That is, all that “IS”. This blog should also be considered in conjunction with my other blogs entitled “Comparison of three models of reality, “The Awareness model of physics and “A statement with respect to the 1887 Michelson and Morley ether experiment”, “The day science lost its way” and “The inescapable duality of all “things””. This blog completes a nexus of information that comprehensively describes my unity model, what it is, how it works, and why it works in the manner that it does. This also includes what the model itself may mean, as well as what the model might mean for us all as we go about our daily lives, because the Awareness model is one that presents itself as being a holistic matrix of informational reality.

I see us and our planet and the wider universe as being explicit “things” and events that I refer to as being explicit information. All things and events that are not explicit I refer to as being implicit information. The respected philosopher and scientist Paul Davis believes that informational physics will one day become the primary investigative model of physics. I believe this as well. I also agree with the idea that reality physics should be considered to be a type of process physics.

Introduction

At different sections of my website I have referred to the Awareness model of physics as being Primordial Awareness (PA). In this blog it is the Awareness model (AM) that I am primarily concerned with. This blog provides a step-by-step insight into the holistic structure of the AM, and why it is probably conceptually different from all other physics models of its kind. It makes philosophical and scientific sense. The AM is a unified model of all that ‘IS’.

If you peruse my blog entitled “A statement with respect to the 1887 Michelson and Morley ether experiment” you will see that the AM is a pre-geometric model of reality. If you read another blog of mine entitled “Comparison of three models of reality” you will see that the AM is a process model that phenomenologically is almost the same as two other models, the Cahill Process Model and the Hiley-Bohm Holomovement Model. However, whereas the Cahill and Hiley-Bohm models provide evidence for an absolute reference frame (like process quantum foam),  the AM speculatively describes what such a quantum reference frame physically is. It is space foam, and I will show how and why it works in the manner that it does. The AM is both testable as well as being supported by a described experiment. The AM describes reality as being in three parts. These are:

1. PA is the implicit non-local reference frame (continuum) of a three part matrix. I refer to PA as being the non-local sub-quantum conditions (a state in which something exists) of the matrix. These conditions are not reducible but they are changeable. Furthermore the matrix is absolute without time.

2. Quantum foam (space foam [SF]) is the explicit local condition of the PA holistic reality matrix that is in a separate concurrent association with it. SF displays geometric and fractal properties. Quantum processes explicitly emerge in SF so as to give it physical meaning and purpose. SF is connected with clock time.

3. There is an implicit effects field (IE) that is a separate condition and influence of the informational PA matrix. This IE influences the emergence of the two energy types into the SF reference frame continuum. These two energy types are gravity and electromagnetic forces. It does this by means of a self referential network process.

The AM is a condition that demonstrates how these three described conditions explain the phenomenon of reality from an absolute motion perspective. It also demonstrates how reality is a stochastic* and iterate** process. This is a process described and explained in Homotopic Field Theory***. Therefore PA reality is a continuum of dynamic change. This means that there are unlimited numbers and patterns of information in PA that only have indeterminable meaning. In other words, PA is a virtual neural network.  PA is the physics inertia frame**** of this continuum. This is an inertia reference frame (matrix) that, from a non-local implicit perspective, is always informationally complete in itself and without time. This is because it is a system that is perpetually changing and expanding within itself. It does this as a neural network.

* In its simplest form, a stochastic process can be thought of as a description of the movement of an object over time.  At every new unit of time, the object could assume one of many possible positions, and each position has a probability associated with it.  While we cannot know the exact path that the object will take, we can make inferences about the path it might take based those probabilities.

** The process of repeatedly applying the same function is called iteration. In this process, starting from some initial number, the result of applying a given function is fed again in the function as input, and this process is repeated.

***Homotopy Quantum Field Theory (HQFT) is a branch of Topological Quantum Field Theory founded by E. Witten and M. Atiyah

****The motion of a body can only be described relative to something else

The above ideas have been extracted from Wikipedia

By way of an analogy for this network, imagine a rectangular glass aquarium with crystal clear pure water in it. This water can be considered to be PA. This representation of the inertial reference frame continuum is the reference frame I just mentioned. Non-local (imaginary) information from within the water begins to expand. Within this process, the water inertia frame takes upon itself quantum waves. These waves might be represented by unlimited different shades of colour. These different shades of colour naturally disperse like new water-based paint used by artists in order to portray some sort of visual effect in their work. It is this process of analogical colour dissipation in the aquarium that is representational of the expanding neural network in PA.

This is a network that also engenders patterns within itself. They are are patterns of information that are a blend of different colours. Where the different colours meet each other, they can be seen as nodes, and from these nodes new and unlimited colour types and shades emerge, that can be considered to be links of shades. In this process, these shades become more and more opaque and indeterminable. Thus they ‘die’ and have no meaning. On the other hand, some of these weak  colours may meet other stronger colours at different nodes, which reinvigorates the system overall. Thus the colour dissipation system engenders it own form of energy type that in turn reinvigorates the potential for new stronger colours to re-emerge within the system. It is for this reason that the overall system is in a perpetual state of renewal.

It is this underlying stochastic process in the wider PA system that influences the emergence of waves and associated wave motion that are meaningful to the neural network system. It is this meaningful pattern of wave behaviour that random [non-geometric] patterns of deep and irreducible fractal patterns of information emerge. Each fractal pattern embodies its own ‘node’ of information. Each fractal node has links to other fractal nodes. An unlimited collage of patterns of nodes and links become entangled with each other and create patterns and structures of information that mean something. In addition, they have the potential to do something and at the same time have some sort of purpose for the system itself with respect to its changing growth and renewal processes. These processes also have a separate geometric meaning and purpose of some kind in SF that might include self-imposed parameters (not rules) within which the overall system operates. Both Cahill’s Process Physics model and the Hiley-Bohm Holomovement models of physics are process models that are similar to the holistic Awareness model, except that the AM is described as having three informational and describable conditions that give it greater ontological and physical meaning and purpose.

What I am saying is that the AM is representational of a holistic information system that ‘embraces’ both implicit and explicit information which we can mostly understand and physically work with. PA is a natural vacuum of all that “IS” in the AM model. All ‘things’ and events organise themselves within this vacuum. PA is the internal energy type (by means of its neural network) in the vacuum of the model. All things and events ‘swim’ and organise themselves within this holistic PA vacuum. It is PA energy that gives rise to the PA neural network in the first place (this process is described in my blog entitled “A statement with respect to the 1887 Michelson and Morley ether experiment”). It is from this same self-organising neural network that patterns of information arise that evolve internally within the system. PA is aware of all things including itself. This is why I refer to my model as being the Awareness model. PA is a single separate reference frame. It is like the water in the aquarium analogy that I recently cited. It is a common ‘fluid’ relating to all things and for this reason it might be called ethereal, but not the traditional ether that has been commonly talked about and researched in physics over many generations. PA is an influence without time. It is the ‘backbone’ of space foam (SF). SF can be seen as being explicit like a 3D representation of local informational types that ‘emerged’ from PA. SF and PA are in a concurrent relationship without time. Notwithstanding this, implicit PA remains the primary field of influence of all that explicit SF ‘does’ within itself. This is because of its second tier IF field of gravity and electromagnetic forces. The neural network system of PA and SF are the same network. Apart from gravity and electromagnetic forces, the neural network is the common link between the two.

The foundation elements relating to the Primordial Awareness Model

PA is the non-local implicit medium (condition) of the three-part matrix. QF is the explicit condition of the holistic reality matrix. The IF is a condition of PA with two different energy types,  gravity and electromagnetic forces, as demonstrated earlier. There is a dynamic 3D relationship between all these energy type forces. It is because of the concurrent entangled relationship of these combined energy forces that it is possible to have a pre-arranged wave function whereby there is one set of particles with another adjacent wave function in the same region of space as the first group of particles. Furthermore they can act in an entirely different way. The presence of the sub-quantum medium of PA provides the effect so that different groups of particles can behave this way if one treats the Planck line as the dividing line between local SF and non-local PA conditions. This arrangement can be seen to allow this phenomenological construct to extend some sort of gravitational type that is both the ‘embryo’ of SF (which acts as a repository for local matter) as well as the latter effects of this matter from within the growing matter structure. This matter structure in turn influences the construction of geometric forms.

It is the coming together of both these local and non-local forms  that causes the dilemma known as the quantum measurement process. Because observers measure a particular process, they are undeniably part of the wider holistic concurrent PA and SF process system. Remembering that observers are an entangled part of the system, it is this contradiction between supposedly individual observers and the wider PA and SF process system that causes the wave particle collapse at the point that measurements are taken. In other words the local and the non-local focus of an observer cannot observe and measure the local and non-local form of other things. The observers are both locally and non-locally entangled with each other as well as other things and related events.

On one hand there exists the concurrent relationship between the implicit PA wave and on the other hand there exists within the implicit wave an explicit particle. It is the explicit act of measurement by the observer that forces the implicit wave function relating to a particular measurement event to collapse into the two describable states of an implicit wave and explicit particle. It is these particles that can be depicted on a screen that appear to be in patterns. These patterns of particles are in respect to the inherent patterns of structures emanating from the geometric properties of the growth the effect of the hidden and undetectable neural network. It is this undetectable relationship between implicit and explicit influences between implicit waves and explicit particles of matter that David Bohm referred to as hidden variables. It is this implicit and explicit behaviour in space foam that is the manifestation of the stochastic process of SF. It is a description of the movement of “things” and events relating to time. My description of this process also explains the random nature of the wider SF process and why it is necessary to employ mathematics in order to predict probabilities relating to the behaviour of such a state of dynamic SF activities.

It is important to realise that this wave particle duality also explains the mystery of the phenomenon of quantum entanglement in physics. What is happening is that the dual nature of waves and particles is no more than the wider explicit SF field being a dual natured concurrent one within the wider implicit PA matrix. It is the wider implicit PA reality field that is the medium by which one particle can influence another particle on the other side of the universe in an instant. It is not the SF field continuum. Implicit waves and explicit particles are two different systems concurrently related to each other within the wider holistic space foam system.

This means that whilst implicit and explicit influences and effects appear to an observer to be related to a single particle, this is not the case. It is the holistic universal system itself that is in a wider state of dynamic duality. It is a duality that makes ‘space noise’ that is assumed in the model.* My words relating to this dynamic implicit and explicit space foam relationship can be seen to be similar to Einstein’s explanation of Brownian motion which explains the reality of small random fluctuations in a given medium of atoms and molecules in no preferred direction. Quantum mechanics and all implicit predictions relating thereto are derived from the Awareness model or models similar to it such as Cahill’s Process Physics and Bohm’s Holomovement Physics model.

* Is self referential, like thinking about one’s self, noise that is the non-local PA driver of the PA and SF system as it relates to the self referential neural network.

The implicit effects field [IE] that I have described are excitations of the continuum of the reality PA [non-local quantum vacuum] that are the conditions for the merging in the SR field of elementary particles such as electrons, neutrons, prions and quarks. It is also conditioning influences and effects for the emergence of electromagnetic and gravitational fields. This is as well as multiple other fields transferring the same dynamic weak and strong interactions between the dualistic implicit and explicit relations of interacting weak and strong forces of the system itself. These forces represent the different types of collective motion of the implicit PA quantum vacuum with which SF is a conjunctional relationship. This concurrent dualistic relationship between implicit and explicit influences and events [energy types] is also one embodying implicit and explicit fractal patterns.

I am saying that in the implicit PA informational continuum, [say, a field] implicit fractal patterns of information exist within the boundless matrix. These same fractal patterns manifest themselves in the explicit fields of space foam as well, and in nature around us in every conceivable way. They are visually apparent within most reference frames. These include flower petals, geographical land systems and body organs. The wider cosmos can be visually observed to be fractal-like as well. Therefore fractals can be seen, and informationally they acknowledge the inherent informational patterns of all that “IS”.

This means that both the continuum of PA and SF are in a dual implicit and explicit relationship as well as with PA implicit waves and SF explicit particles. In other words, fractals might therefore be seen as the scientifically describable micro-physics that is a manifestation of the deepest level of the sub-quantum world. Fractals are the heart of quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics fractals are implicit informational representations of a hidden stochastic PA system [like a imaginary neural network] that allows quantum mechanics to be  like a hidden but describable emergent set of rules that are exclusively relevant to the explicit SF universal system.

It is this type of stochastic quantum mechanics that predictions are entangled in the explicit SF system. This is a system that is the source of quantum fluctuations particle movements within the system. It is the non-local PA field of the concurrent SF system that means that the electromagnetic energy relating to the negative charge of light travels faster than the speed of light itself, but implicit signals can be propagated by means of the PA field as well. It is this faster than light property in the cosmic bulk {further described later herein} in the PA field of this implicit quantum activity that causes  the fluctuations in the explicit SF field that seem to be instantaneously correlated, but are not. Such correlations can only be detected by an observer in the SF field. The same functions when informationally present in the implicit PA field are a representation of the hidden variables Bohm talked about in his Holomovement model of Physics.

The broad structure of the Awareness model

The nexus of reality is the continuum of dynamic change. It is as though the past and the future do not exist. In this sense the nexus of reality is “NOW”. This also means that reality is without time. The matrix of reality is information that has quantum potential to mean something. Because it means something, this quantum potential can also be seen as energy which acts on a quantum particle in local SF conditions. Locality in SF is merely a relationship that dominates the explicit SF but it has no validity at the implicit PA quantum level. At the Planck line between implicit PA and explicit SF, the wave disturbance between both SF and PA forms pressure waves of gravity in accordance with Homotopic Field Theory. It is from this field that the PA reality system may be envisaged as being a single mathematical fractal [an implicit and explicit fractal either side of the Planck line] at all scales. This means all that “IS”. Although the relationship between information either side of the Planck line is complex, a topological soliton effect ensures at first glance that the concurrent relationship with each other is impossible.

However, the implicit and explicit neural network relating to either side of the Planck line of the matrix of reality comes to the fore in explaining how this difficulty is overcome. It is the repetitive iteration and stochastic processes of the process of function input [the inherent energy within the neural network itself] that does this. This process is without time. It is from this concurrent iteration and stochastic process that it forms its own loop in the neural network system that separates the relationship as though the separate parts of the implicit and explicit reality matrix are that of a coil. This coil can be seen to be like an implicit and explicit transition loop which is neither  clockwise or anticlockwise. In other words, the joint iterative and stochastic aspects of this wider process [the topological soliton]  brings upon itself a reconciliation of the opposite effects of the implicit and explicit function at the Planck line.

The affirmation of this conciliation can be seen by means of charge. The Planck line itself can be seen as a neutral charge. The implicit information from the PA condition of the matrix of reality is negative. Conversely explicit information relating to SF is positively charged. The neutral charge at the Planck line is symbolic. In this sense the Planck line is like a “place” from which informational context can be identified as it relates to the implicit and explicit influences and effects at the point of the Planck line.

This act of continuous transformation of implicit and explicit information from one function type to another is the Homotopy of the holistic matrix of reality function overall. Homotopy is the process through which information passes through the loop at the neutrally charged Planck line so as to provide a continuous geometric map force informational space transfer between the two. This is from PA implicit space with its concurrent but separated SF partner at the neutral charge point at the Planck line. This implicit [negative] and explicit [positive] informational meeting at the Planck line is in a continuum of deformation of each other. It is this process of mutual deforming that explains the dynamical three space of the Awareness model. It might also explain the dynamical information models of Cahill’s Process physics as well as the Hiley Bohm Holomovement model.

My description of the key elements of the Awareness model can be best summarised this way: By once again employing the glass aquarium analogy cited earlier, and by filling it with matter, observable excitations would be created. These excitations are of a concurrent implicit and explicit type. The matter in the aquarium is also in a state of excitation with the glass of the aquarium. An observer of the event is similarly in a state of excitation with both the glass of the aquarium as well as the matter contained within it. Because the top of the aquarium is open to its immediate wider environment [say with your kitchen as a frame of reference] the excitation of the matter in the aquarium, the observer, the observers watch and all of the objects and events in your kitchen are experientially in a state of excitation with each other as well. Explicit “things” and events in your kitchen are linked together by means of the explicit neural network relational to space foam. Implicit things and events [hidden variables] are related to the same explicit things and events. This is by means of the hidden variable conditions of Quantum Entanglement.

The duality of things and events in your kitchen is also a representation [say a hidden image] of all that “IS”. This also explains how you and I are in an entangled relationship with the holistic informational matrix of reality. In this sense you and I could also be seen as observers entangled within the matter within the analogical aquarium looking out through the glass of the aquarium as a whole. In other words because all things and events are implicitly and explicitly entangled with each other, then Einstein’s observer with a clock, observing a chosen reference frame of his own choice, is not a valid one. The observers and their clocks are implicitly and explicitly entangled.   This includes the observer’s decision to select any given reference frame in the first place. The only reference frame that is a valid one to an observer is from an explicit [neutral charge] bubble located in a reference frame on the implicit [negative charge] side of the Planck line. The bubble then allows observers to remove themselves and their clocks from both the concurrent implicit PA and explicit SF condition relational to the Awareness space foam model.

Foundational elements relating to relating to the structure of the Awareness model

What follows are more details about the structural embryo of the ontological concept of the matrix of reality. This is the matrix that is the foundational platform for the awareness model. You will find a small degree of repetition here from earlier sections. I have done this as a matter of convenience.

At the outset there was nothing. This means there was no here and now. Furthermore nothing was without time. I have entitled nothing as being conceptual awareness [Primordial Awareness]. The influence of a mathematically demonstrable embryonic “something” emerged from primordial awareness that in the first instance might be considered to be an analogical blob of something that might be as abstract as a simple idea. This blob is symbolic. From this symbolic point, PA became connected to such a blob. This relationship determined what might be the informational parameter of a mathematically describable matrix of “reality”. This matrix of reality became a process and structure that is akin to a neural network. This neural network is like an analogical sea of information that acts as if it were waves of a compressed fluid. This sea of information is a continuum that is non-local, and it is like a sea of fluid that contains something that is undetectable. This is because it is beyond the magnification capabilities of even the most sophisticated microscopes and other scientific equipment. These “somethings” are pixels of information. If such a microscope or equivalent scientific piece of equipment existed, it would need to be able to magnify pixels more one thousand million times to find them. These pixels have a describable history that can be computer modeled.

Although pixels are not electrons, they can however be seen to have memory like the spin of electrons in space. These pixels can be seen as embryonic elementary particles because pixels* act as a movement in waves. However, we must consider them as being imaginary because of their smallness in size. This is as virtual particles do that are described in Quantum Theory. Pixels can also be seen as virtual particles that can move in every direction. Furthermore they do this at speeds beyond the speed of light in PA, the cosmic bulk.  Virtual particles can also be seen as imaginary matter. You will find that I describe this elementary process relating to the properties of reality in my blog entitled “The Awareness model of physics”. These pre-space processes, concurrently entangled within the continuum of PA, are non-local and exhibit instantaneous effects that I have talked about in respect to informational movement and transfer in the wider matrix of Primordial Awareness.

*In PA, pixels are abstract influences which have a dual aspect of implicit virtual effects. In SF these same pixels are real as they relate to the neural network’s inherent energy type.

Informational reality is fundamentally quantum waves. These waves are virtual [imaginary] sub-quantum waves in the implicit negative energy fields of the PA frame with respect to the Planck line. In the positive energy field of explicit space foam, real quantum waves are embedded in SF, by this I mean that the classical explicit world which we experience and live in [physics emerging macroscopic phenomena]. Classical physics is processed [induced] by the nature of the real quantum waves of SF. It is this process that enables the SF system to be dynamic.

The emergence of explicit information from the space foam [things and events related to matter and objects] challenges the standard model of physics that claims that space relativity is relative to an observer’s choice of a single frame of reference for objects, movement and clocks. This means that the concept of explicit SF with respect to the wider concurrent implicit informational field of PA can be viewed as being as single frame of reference in its own right. This is despite SF being in a separate concurrent relationship with the wider informational field of PA. PA is the holistic implicit reference frame of all that is. This means that the reference frame of explicit space foam is in a concurrent but real relationship with the implicit reference frame of PA.

Like the Cahill Process Physics model, the Awareness 3D space model [excluding clock time as it is applicable in the Special Relativity model] can be seen as a static space foam that Lorentz mathematical equations can be applied to. The dynamic space foam of the Awareness model is in the form of patterns of SF constantly moving and changing with inherent informational pixels therein. This means that the explicit SF has a life of its own with respect to the same neural network effects that implicitly apply to the PA matrix of reality. The undetectable noise of the implicit PA informational network is real noise in the explicit space foam frame of reference of the Awareness model. This is because the system itself is implicitly and explicitly dynamic.

With respect to the Awareness model, clocks slow down with movement in SF. In SF time it is a self-organising process relating to movement of objects in successive order. This is different from the Special Relativity model that is historically geometrical. In the SF neural network reference frame, there is “friction” between the self-organising process of a neural network and the stochastic random process during iteration. It is this competitive friction within the SF system that is conducive to the emergence of “healthy” and strong modes of behaviour. By this I mean that the holistic SF system itself [embodying the neural network] is always expanding by means of the strong nodes and associated links to these nodes that both informationally mean something as well as have possibilities to do something.

In the implicit PA matrix frame of reference, these are virtual nodes and links, whereas in the explicit SF frame of reference it is “things” and events that are both explicitly possible as well as explicitly on standby to do something with respect to the changing dynamics of the SF neural network itself. SF is not a fluid. It is by means of the implicit and explicit duality of the holistic PA informational awareness system that it is possible to transmit non-local interaction through the sub-quantum medium of PA as though it was a bulk. Faster-than-light tachyons can travel in the wider condition of PA.

I consider that the previous sections of this blog contain the most compelling information within this work. For this reason, for the remainder of my presentation I will talk in more general terms. If you find that my new words seem to conflict with what I have said earlier, the earlier text takes precedence.

How the Awareness model works

A more general discussion about ‘things’ and events relating to the modelling of the system.

The analogical sea of fluid (neural network) randomly expanded from a state of potential new information as well as possibilities to do something. The notional pixels in the sea of fluid are representational of matter and events related to matter. This includes energy types, influences and effects relating to the behaviour of matter as it is observed by means of gravitational and electromagnetic fields. This includes their respective influences and effects as well. Events are without limit in space foam. This means that such events are also without limit in all other universes and dimensions that might exist as well. PA is not only the common continuum of all that is, but it also embraces within itself informational virtual particles. I have nominated these virtual particles as being pixels.

Therefore PA is like an imaginary influence without time that effects all that ‘IS’. It is the metaphorical backbone of SF. PA not only influences all things and events, but it also affects itself as well. It does this by means of patterns of waves. These PA informational influences are also representational of all non-local and local ‘things’ and events. PA is not ether but it might appear to be so because of its entangled state with all that ‘IS’ (reality). PA is far more ontologically dynamic than the traditional Newtonian and Lorentz  models and other non-local ether type models too) because it is a single reference frame continuum. This is a reference frame from which all things happen in the wider informational field of the matrix or reality. This includes Einstein’s space/time universe that is informationally different from the awareness model because it does not feature or describe a continuum, nor does it attempt to discuss or describe fundamental cornerstones such as how particles have the properties that they do, or where mass and charge come from. The Awareness Model does this. The PA virtual particles create patterns and structures of both local and non-local “things” and events.

These virtual particles create patterns and structures of  both local and non-local ‘things’ and events. Patterns and structures of virtual particles become energy types of their own. This means that they have their own sense of existence as well, because they are aware of all other particles and structures, because they are all interconnected to the wider analogical neural network of reality. This entangled interconnection embraces not only the dynamic SF as described, but also separate energy types and influences such as photons in relation to light, and light in relation to electricity, and magnetism by means of electro-magnetic fields of the wider PA informational matrix of reality. Negative, positive and neutral charge influences are randomly associated with electricity and magnetism with respect to the huge diversity and range of electromagnetic fields. Hidden variables are considered to be entangled within space foam as well. These ontological variables include weak and undetectable cosmic foam pressure points that cause wide-ranging types of gravitational waves. The hidden entangled relationship between PA and dynamic space foam can also be seen as a hidden variable field of influences as well.

Space foam energises itself by means of movement of its own process of conditions, influences and effects. This is as though it has its own mind and is aware of itself. It does this by means of a neural network system as previously described. Space foam is a physical effect in the PA reference frame. PA is a non-local physical effect. In SF, PA is a real physical effect. In both these reference frames they have both the potential to do “something”. This also means, to mean something to both the implicit and explicit reference frames as well. Some of these somethings naturally die in the two systems because they are weak. Other somethings in both these reference frames become stronger possibilities to do something in their respective neural networks and some of these wither and die as well. It is the strongest of the possibilities to do something that survive and in doing so further enhance and strengthen the meaning and purpose of the respective SF and PA holistic neural network systems.

It is from this dual SF and PA system that virtual and real particles [pixels] might emerge that also mean something. Some of these virtual particles (waves) die as well. Meanwhile others form informational constructs that then become foundational space foam particles such as gluons, preons and quarks. These three particle types collectively hold the holistic space foam together in the 3D dynamic space environment. The physical effect of space foam can be seen as being a field that is  related to, but not connected to, the ontological field of influences and effects of Primordial Awareness. There are separate fields of influence entangled within the ‘overlapping’ space foam and ontological PA fields such as electricity and magnetism. There are at least two other holistic reality systems physics models. These are the Cahill Process Physics model and the Bohm Holomovement model. [see article number 20]

From a pre-geometric state to a progressive geometric state. The jelly analogy.

Imagine PA to be a deep tray of pure clear virtual jelly. This jelly is compressible and under certain conditions, waves occur. These waves produce  disturbances then progressively move upwards to the surface of the tray of jelly, and in the process create their own independent ‘jelly fields’ along the way. These independent jelly fields are related to density variations within the jelly, as well as the differing ratios and averages of these respective ‘patches’ of density variations. This includes the associated entangled effects thereof.

This jelly must not break the motion of SF material things and events passing through it. The upper levels of the PA jelly are less dense than the lower levels of the jelly. This variation of density in the jelly creates pressure forces throughout the jelly that include the creation of velocity within the PA system. It is these collective forces that not only permeate the whole tray of jelly, but also cause   the emergence of a PA neural network that in turn influences ‘somethings’ relating to itself. This means evolving and growing. These combined micro and macro phenomena [field forces] that at a distance create non-uniform contact behaviour that influence each other by means of the neural network system entangled within the PA jelly. This is as though it is a neural network with an analogical frame of reference of primordial self awareness. PA is compressible in a static state, and this is what causes this non-unified behaviour by means of processes relating to the neural network.

It is also because of this non-unified behaviour that the jelly has a preferred frame of reference that is SF. This means that the holistic PA frame is one that collectively and randomly [in a concurrent relationship with both] that “embraces” time, motion, velocity, energy and particle size and type. This includes electro-magnetic and gravity fields. It is from this non-unified contact behaviour that elementary particles like preons, gluons and quarks emerge. This then means that the holistic nature of space itself [non-local PA and local SF] is also in a state of average at any given time, state, or location as well. It is in some sort of random geometric uniformity with itself. This means it is always fluctuating but not necessarily for the same reasons. This description also explains randomness with respect to the SF system together with its uniformity.

Furthermore these differing non-local “characteristics” in PA, apart from creating lots of waves that mean something, also create the conditions for gravity fields to emerge from the non-local PA system as well. This process also engenders the condition that includes electrons, by means of electromagnetic forces already inherent in the IE system that is a separate field relational to PA. These words mean that gravity is not only part of the wider PA and SF average but it also embraces the combined PA and SF space average of all other concurrent frames of references to these two non-local  and local fields as well. This in turn makes it a new frame of reference in its own right. It is from these collective non-local conditions and effects that alternative physical and metaphysical things and events might emerge. This is by means of the neural network so other universes and dimensions may emerge.

By way of better understanding this big picture, imagine non-local virtual particles that become an observable local particle on the wave surface of the water in the analogical tray of jelly. These concurrent SF and PA wave particles are concurrently entangled with each other with respect to the common neural network relating to both the SF and PA continuums. Let’s say that this common neural network decides to periodically compress itself within the explicit continuum of SF. This then means that the holistic nature of space (implicit PA and explicit SF) is also in a random state of averages with itself within the continuum of SF.

It is this dynamic changing relationship between both SF and PA that describes the random properties of SF, as well as the geometric properties of SF. It is this random relationship between both the SF and PA continuum that describes the random and fluctuating geometric uniformity in space (SF). Furthermore it is the common neural network process between SF and PA (say like a hidden variable) that relates to the stochastic process of SF, as well as the process of iteration. It is the non-local condition relating to PA in relation to the neural network that engenders the condition for gravity and electromagnetic forces to emerge from the non-local system. This is by means of the implicit effects field (IE). The condition of gravity and electromagnetic forces are in turn connected to SF because of the common neural network of both the continuums of SF and PA.

Closing statement

What I am saying in my blog is that fundamental reality has an informational fractal structure  that is meaningful and describable by the means of Process Physics modelling. I have talked about my concept of reality is in two parts. These parts are implicit, non-local parts and explicit local parts. I have talked about how the primary implicit continuum of all that “IS” is PA and the secondary continuum to which we are related is the SF explicit continuum. It this sense it could be said that because PA is entangled with pixel information [virtual information] it can be seen as virtual particles. We are suspended in some sort of analogical quantum fluid that I have described as being space foam.

The plausibility of my ideas is confirmable by experiment which demonstrates that the implicit quantum- like behaviour can be explicitly reproduced in classical fluids and explained by explicit fluid dynamics in physics. I have shown how quantum particles have been both formed and driven by implicit sub-quantum micro-physics. I have also demonstrated that all things and events, (whether implicit or explicit) are somehow entangled and therefore are implicitly inseparable. This mean that there can never be a clear cut division between things and events that are microscopic and macroscopic.

I have pointed out that unknown but describable micro-physics is the implicit source of quantum fluctuations in stochastic interactive mechanics as is described in Cahill’s Process physics model and in the Hiley Bohm Holomovement model. I have shown how quantum particles and indivisible and irreducible PA pixels are the fundamental informational reference continuum of primordial awareness and how these virtual pixels (electrons) influence space foam as real particles. These particles are entangled in the concurrent implicit and explicit neural network that in turn renders the PA reality system to have the name and nature that it does. This also includes where gravity and electrodynamic forces emerge from.

I have also talked about how we could see ourselves as observers being able to observe all explicit SF things and events in SF as though we were entangled in all things. I demonstrated this in my matter in an aquarium analogy. I also implied that because we are similarly entangled with all implicit things and events we are also like analogical laboratory observers in the deeper matrix of PA reality of all that ‘IS’. I have said that both implicit and explicit reality are also demonstrably mathematically related to Mandelbrot’s fractals at all implicit and explicit scales. Furthermore they are also observable in the wider environment around us. I have maintained that PA is non-geometric whereas SF has geometric qualities and effects. By this I mean holistic fractal geometry. In this sense Mandelbrot’s fractals can be seen as being reality geometry. This goes down to the deepest embryonic seat of physics [say a single thought, patterns of thought and entangled structures of thoughts] to the deepest level of reality that might include the element of lead.

I believe that my Awareness model of physics is a compelling conceptual unity model. I believe that I have described a process model that is informationally comprehensively structured at the deepest level of physics. This is why I have nominated this work as being a concept statement and not a theory. If you feel that the process modelling of physics along the lines that I have employed are in any way unsatisfactory I would be pleased to hear from you. Please also give me reasons why you feel this way. The awareness model is conceptually testable as well as supported by an experiment. Some scientists are mystics, and some people are noetic and know and experience such things as they relate to the universal bigger picture.

Bibliography:

Reference 1:

Certain ideas contained in this blog are derived from the works of Mayeul Arminjon. I have provided numerous informational links within this blog that support my science related views.

Reference 2.

What follows is a link to a video demonstrates how the quantum phenomena can be emulated on a macro [visible to the naked eye] scale:

Quantum effects can be replicated on a macro scale

Category index

For more convenient reader reference to blogs

The day science lost its way

An unusual physics story that I feel all students of science should hear

Introduction

Like you, I was raised as a child to believe that in the world of science Albert Einstein was a genius who was scientifically infallible. I now know that Einstein was very clever, but from my readings I think that he was also an opportunistic and less forthright person than we might imagine. For example, when he announced his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905 Einstein did not acknowledge that a fellow scientist by the name of Lorentz had developed and announced a very similar relativity model in 1904, relating to electron theory. The mathematical comparisons are much the same as each other. Einstein said he was not aware of this, despite the fact that both men had known each other well for many years. I am also suggesting in this blog that Einstein scientifically cut corners with reality science in order to make things ‘fit’ with his modelling. This means that in my opinion, Einstein knowingly released his two relativity models in the realisation that they were both incomplete, and that his ideas relating to objects, movement, space and time were always likely to never be able to embrace non-local (non – physical) ‘things’. Such things include immobile ether that is not testable or measurable in a lab. Furthermore Einstein set aside other important and already commonly known scientific theories and experiments around that time as well. These include the Michelson–Morley experiment in the United States of America in 1887 (that did detect motion relative to space) as well as the ideas of Maxwell, Lorentz and Poincare.

If any physics theory detects ether it automatically contradicts Einstein’s Special Relativity theory. General Relativity treats space as an ether but the idea of motion cannot be applied to it. So according to General Relativity theory, even though the earth is orbiting our sun, at tremendous speed, and orbiting the centre of our Galaxy at even greater speed, it must be assumed that the earth is at rest relative to space itself. This has historically been the conundrum for relativity theorists and experimentalists. It is impossible to have ether in one model and not in the other at the same time with respect to the same theory. By this I mean as a single unity model of everything (all that ‘IS’) from such a contradiction of modeling.

These words form the basis of my idea that follow throughout this text in this blog. These are that there never was a nul result with the Michelson and Morley experiment as many contemporary physicists today claim. In other words I am saying that something ‘strange’ seems to prevail in the laboratories of contemporary physics. Furthermore it has existed for more than a century now.
.
Today I wish to talk to you about both the history and the subsequent consequences of Einstein making what appears to be short-sighted decisions in the manner that I have described. Einstein seemed to be determined that his theories could be physically tested in a lab and as such traditional physic ether theory was set aside by him. Einstein wanted nothing unexplainable (metaphysical) in his theories, and traditional ether theory was considered to be just that. Ether is an immobile theory that (itself) is without time. Movement between objects in the ether is with time. Furthermore because ether has no knowable features it has always automatically been known in the physics community that it was impossible to test ether theory in a lab anyway.

An introductory discussion

Ether theory was first postulated by Isaac Newton in the seventeenth century and continued to be popularly embraced by physicists in their scientific modelling up to the end of the nineteenth century. Ether theory is still supported by some members of the physics community today and it is referred to as neo-Lorentzian Relativity Theory or sometimes the Lorentz Ether Theory. This is important. Here is what Newton had to say about his concept of ether:

Quote:

“He wrote, “I do not know what this Aether is”, but that if it consists of particles then they must be exceedingly smaller than those of Air, or even than those of Light: The exceeding smallness of its Particles may contribute to the greatness of the force by which those Particles may recede from one another, and thereby make that Medium exceedingly more rare and elastic than Air, and by consequence exceedingly less able to resist the motions of Projectiles, and exceedingly more able to press upon gross Bodies, by endeavoring to expand itself.”

The reason why a minority of physicists continue to believe in ether theory today is because they believe that there are serious shortcomings in Einstein’s relativity modelling as I earlier alleged. They see his physics as being both incomplete and incorrect along the lines that I have stated above rather than an informational process. Let’s have a look at some of these concerns that might exist between scientists with respect to these claims.

Einstein had linked his models to light as his primary point of reference for his modelling. Some physicists felt that his theory did not stand up to deeper scientific scrutiny, nor did his idea of linking light with time. However, Einstein was correct in defining the speed of light as being 300,000 km/s because this is exactly the speed that Maxwell had determined it to be with his theory of electromagnetism in the middle of the eighteenth century. The big difference between the two, however, is that Einstein calculated his light speed as being that within a vacuum of space-time, whilst Maxwell and other prominent scientists at the time (such as Fitzgerald, Poincare and Lorentz) felt otherwise. They felt that Maxwell’s determination of the speed of light should be related to an electromagnetic field existing within the immobile ether frame.

For purposes of convenience I refer you to the Wikipedia article that follows relating to light bearing (luminiferous) ether. This additional information is inserted to help fill in the gaps relating to the history and allied debate that I am presenting to you.

Quote:

“… Lorentz (with others assisting) had spent nearly thirteen years developing his electron relativity ether theory. This theory tried to explain the null result of an earlier (1887) physics experiment to determine if the earth was moving in space”.

“In the late 19th century, luminiferous aether, aether, or ether, meaning light-bearing aether, was the postulated medium for the propagation of light.[1] It was invoked to explain the ability of the apparently wave-based light to propagate through empty space, something that waves should not be able to do. The assumption of a spatial plenum of luminiferous aether, rather than a spatial vacuum, provided the theoretical medium that was required by wave theories of light.

The concept was the topic of considerable debate throughout its history, as it required the existence of an invisible and infinite material with no interaction with physical objects. As the nature of light was explored, especially in the 19th century, the physical qualities required of the aether became increasingly contradictory. By the late 1800s, the existence of the aether was being questioned, although there was no physical theory to replace it.

The (alleged) negative outcome of the Michelson–Morley (M+M) experiment suggested that the aether was non-existent. This led to considerable theoretical work to explain the propagation of light without an aether. A major breakthrough was the theory of relativity, which could explain why the M+M experiment failed to see aether, but was more broadly interpreted to suggest that it wasn’t needed by Einstein. (I emboldened). The Michelson-Morley experiment, along with the black-body radiator and photoelectric effect, was a key experiment in the development of modern physics, which includes both relativity and quantum theory, the latter of which explains the wave-like nature of light.

The modern understanding is that heat radiation is, like light, electromagnetic radiation. However, Newton viewed heat and light as two different phenomena. He believed heat vibrations to be excited “when a Ray of Light falls upon the Surface of any pellucid Body.” The problem for traditional ether theory is that it does not bring to account for the variations of speed which are seen emanating from stars, galaxies and similar large objects that cause the flow of space past the earth to vary in speed.

Thus it follows that the 1887 M+M . experiment was to demonstrate that “… if the earth was acting like a spaceship moving through Lorentz’s concept of an invisible and massless cosmic ether at the speed of light in the direction of the earth’s motion, then it should be lower than it is in a direction at right angles to this. By measuring these speeds it should be possible to detect the earth’s absolute velocity relative to the ether. The velocity of the earth’s orbit around the sun is around 30 km/s. Any motion through the ether should be at least as much at some time of the night or day of the year”.

Source: A statement with respect to the 1887 Michelson and Morley Ether experiment

I suggest that in view of the then widely accepted ether theory in the scientific community (from such highly respected physicists such as Maxwell, Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Poincare, and Heaviside), then single supposed null result from just one experiment should have raised a much more serious debate in the physics community than what it did at the time.

I allege that such lack of serious debate encouraged Einstein to take charge of the debate by introducing materialistic Relativity models that for all intents and purposes sidelined any hint of there being an invisible, motionless and without time ether. Some theorists such as Lorentz and Poincare retained doubts about Einstein’s two theories (movement of small objects in Special Relativity and large objects in General Relativity respectively). This state of doubt amongst prominent physicist remained all the while Einstein was effectively promoting his two new theories by means of tertiary lectures and the wider global media.

So then I ask the question “How is it that Lorentz, Poincare and other eminent physicists at the time withheld a seriously challenge to Einsteins theories?” Especially since the maths supporting Einstein’s modelling was almost the same as that Lorentz had formulated and publicly presented in Holland in 1904. [Einstein released his special relativity theory in September 1905]. It is likely this was because Einstein’s ideas were easier to understand and explain, and that in turn quickly captured the imagination of scientists as well as the wider population at large. This is notwithstanding the fact that Einstein’s Special Relativity model that was publicly released in 1905 preceded his General Relativity model that was first published in 1916.

This collective acceptance by scientists of Einstein’s relativity models set the scene for the monumental spread and acceptance of Einstein’s Special Relativity and General Relativity Models across the world. Furthermore as I indicated earlier Einstein’s models are still vigorously defended in the international physics community today. It seems to me that the holistic nature of the ether/electron relativity theory that was promoted by Lorentz and his supporters is one that may have eventually more meaningful led to a physics theory of everything.

More about the Michelson and Morely experiment and the first hint that Einstein may have seriously erred with his Relativity modelling

More about the Michelson and Morely experiment and the first hint that Einstein may have seriously erred with his Relativity modellingMore about the Michelson and Morely experiment and the first hint that Einstein may have seriously erred with his Relativity modelling

More about the Michelson and Morely experimentAs an introduction to this section I have selectively cut and pasted a section of a Wikipedia article that I feel might be useful to you to better understand the wider debate in this area.I have emboldened what I consider to be key words and sections in this article. It provides insight into the substantial degree of confusion and scientific disagreement disagreement between physicists around the time of the experiment together with the following text thereafter.. As I earlier explained it is this disarray amongst scientists that is the focal point of my message to you today. The quotation also supports the reason why I have entitled this blog ‘The day science lost its way’. Einstein publicly released his Special Relativity model on September 26th 1905.

Quote:

“Albert A. Michelson (1881) tried to measure the relative motion of the Earth and ether (Aether-Wind), as it was expected in Fresnel’s theory, by using an interferometer. He could not determine any relative motion, so he interpreted the result as a confirmation of the thesis of Stokes… However, Lorentz (1886) showed Michelson’s calculations were wrong and that he had overestimated the accuracy of the measurement. This, together with the large margin of error, made the result of Michelson’s experiment inconclusive. In addition, Lorentz showed that Stokes’ completely dragged aether led to contradictory consequences, and therefore he supported an aether theory similar to Fresnel’s… To check Fresnel’s theory again, Michelson and Edward W. Morley (1886) performed a repetition of the Fizeau experiment. Fresnel’s dragging coefficient was confirmed very exactly on that occasion, and Michelson was now of the opinion that Fresnel’s stationary aether theory was correct… To clarify the situation, Michelson and Morley (1887) repeated Michelson’s 1881-experiment, and they substantially increased the accuracy of the measurement. However, this now famous Michelson–Morley experiment again yielded a (seemingly) negative result, that is, no motion of the apparatus through the ether was detected (although the Earth’s velocity is 60 km/s different in the northern winter from summer). So the physicists were confronted with two seemingly contradictory experiments: the 1886 experiment as an apparent confirmation of Fresnel’s stationary ether, and the 1887 experiment as an apparent confirmation of Stokes’ completely dragged ether…” (I emboldened). Source

The Michelson – Morely experiment was about determining the speed of the earth through space and the apparatus needed to achieve this objective is called an interferometer. Interferometers are designed to reflect light beams into reflecting mirrors in order to monitor movement and are highly sensitive to any form of external interference. The apparatus concerned had rigid arms extending from its sides as part of the measuring process. Also keep in mind that the experiment was conducted in 1887 and so the apparatus was obviously not as sophisticated as it would be today. Once again what is more important with these words is that the so-called null result was not an absolute null result at all. What actually happened was that the results, although being seemingly trivial to us, fluctuated across a wide range from 5 to 15 k/s per second. At that time speed was determined by Newtonian mathematical calculus which explains the workings of the universe) as it relates to physics that is in variance with other mathematical modelling employed in science.

If you are technically minded and you would like to know a little more about the null result you will find where I have broadly described the mechanics involved in the general reference section of this blog. It is the only item in this section. I decided to treat this area of discussion separately this way because I feel that all my readers may not be interested in too much technical detail. Furthermore this detail is on the periphery of my primary message anyway.

Only Einstein would have known the reason why he moved from a traditional Newtonian ether type theory to his two mechanical models of relativity. This is despite the wide ranging scientific wisdom and experience of his peers that existed around him at the time. I believe that Einstein embarked upon his new relativity theories knowing full well that Lorentz and other scientists had been working for many years developing their own relativity theories. These other theories were based upon the original electricity/magnetism model theorised by Maxwell which would later become electro-magnetic theory. Einstein ‘borrowed’ ideas from Lorentz with respect to his electron relativity theory in order to make his model ‘work’.

I feel that Einstein should have realised these repeated experiments were telling him something was amiss and they were not just aberrations relating to the interferometer apparatus of the day such as in the M+M experiment. Additionally, the important 1913 Sagnac experiment* is another example of what I am talking about as well as the highly significant findings of Dayton Miller from the mid 1920s to the mid 1930’s. Keeping in mind what I have said so far I feel that Miller’s unfortunate experiences within his physics profession epitomise the many difficulties, contradictions and inter scientist disharmony that prevails in contemporary science today. Despite his negative experience with his peers, Miller was still able to successfully defend his interferometer results for the remainder of his life. Miller remained confident of what he had been saying all of this time because he had repeated the M+M type experiment for a number of times. This is relative to him determining the speed and direction for the motion of the earth relative to space (ether). Miller died in 1941. However, Miller was never able to achieve the high degree of recognition that many of his peers felt that he deserved at the time. Many physicists today feel this way as well. The ideas and scientific experiences of Miller dominate my discussion for the remainder of this blog.

*This is a very good example of the Sagnac experiment. However, it is linked to the theme of geocentrism, that I disagree with. You will find geocentrism is only talked about at the end of the video. I have included this link because of the professional manner in which the presenter talks about the Sagnac experiment.

In defence of the Dayton Miller ether experiment

Since 1933 many other interferometer and similar experiments relating to the same ether wind phenomenon (like Cahill, Morris and Ives) have been conducted with positive results. However, the original 1887 Michelson – Morley experiment must remain the defining (alleged) negative experiment relating to both the historical and contemporary ether-wind physics controversy. In this respect probably the most important statement made by any physicists in defence of Millers findings originated from Albert Einstein. You should take a careful note of not only what Einstein said but also their relevance to the longstanding dispute within the physics which is the purpose of this blog in the first place. I also feel that you should consider why it is that this unfortunate turn of historical events has been allowed to become so historically toxic in the scienctific community.

Quote:

“My opinion about Miller’s experiment (referring to Millers reassessment of Michelson – Morley experiment) is as follows… Should the positive result be confirmed (for unsatisfactory reasons it eventually wasn’t), then the special theory of relativity, and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain. However, they would have to be a significantly different theory”

Source: Albert Einstein in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, July 1925

Einstein means from these words that there would need to be a different type of relativity theory altogether.

I further affirm Einstein’s words in this area in my blog entitled ‘The great ether debate’. Keep in mind in this blog that Einstein was talking about ether with respect to his General Relativity model. I contend that it is not appropriate to say when you are talking about ‘contents’ relating to any eventual theory of everything that you embrace the concept of ether on one hand and deny it on the other.

For some reason Dayton Millers experimental ether results were repeatedly rejected by his peers and so they never formally gained a foothold in international mainstream physics. The reviewers assessing Millers work said that they had rejected Miller’s experimental results for two reasons. The first reason was that Miller had superficially erred with a section of his mathematical presentation supporting his endeavours (which he easily and quickly rectified). The second and more significant reason was that in order to demonstrate the full meaning of his experimental findings (on a normal scale they might other wise seem minimal), Miller had to multiply his measured speed by a factor that would make his final outcomes (values) compatible with the orbital speed of the earth. This was not difficult, nor was it unusual physics practice to do such things at that time.

The problem was that Miller did not have a theory to explain why this factor was needed. This lack of theoretical justification for this factor rendered his results as being suspect to his critics. Millers supporters believed at the time, as Miller himself did also, that these two reasons were trivial with respect to the wider scientific importance of what Miller had achieved with his efforts for the wider science community. The experiment could have become a monumental step forward for physics for generations to come. With these words I am saying that it was Millers hostile peers who were responsible for this subsequent major interruption of the advancement of science throughout the world. I further suggest that the difficulties within the scientific community now would be a much fewer problem today than they are if this more enlightened attitude by Millers peers had been adopted.

My closing statement

As you consider this blog, I request that you not only keep Miller’s story in mind but also all the other professional scientists who over time have attempted to influence the international physics community to honourably and transparently reassess historical interferometer results. Whilst I have only cited three physicists there are hundred of like minded professional scientists over the decades who have recorded similar positive results as these three scientists. Furthermore their respective findings are not always for the same reasons either. If you are a physics student I urge you to conduct your own research with respect to the history and scientific evolution of Einstein’s Special and General Relativity theories. If you do this I especially suggest that you consider the robust nature of the debate between the pro and anti ether theorists and experimentalists. If you take this opportunity to do so you will see how the theorists have dominated and overly influenced the debate over nearly all of the time since Einstein released his two relativity models. This is in lieu of the experimentalists conducting the field research.

Apart from the general reference I have cited I have also included a general reference area that provides specific information and links for you to consider. This is as well as the inclusion of four (extract) commentaries that I feel might give you greater confidence to the veracity of my general line of thinking in this blog. I urge you to see my general line of thinking as being more important in this blog rather than the descriptive elements of my ideas, which were never meant to be other than indicative information on your behalf in the first place. This means that elementary errors here are to be considered to being being inevitable in a presentation of this type. My formal ideas relating to the Michelson and Morely and the associated ether debate are incorporated in my blog entitled “A statement with respect to the 1887 Michelson and Morley Ether experiment” including its supporting links. It is my opinion that any unified theory of physics can only be described and understood by means of holistic Informational Process models.

General references

Reference 1.

Greater detail with respect to the technical aspects of the M+M experiment

Here I will talk about why Lorentz and other scientists at the time thought the way they did about both the insignificant result of the Michelson – Morely experiment and the fluctuations of readings of the interferometer itself for the following reasons. In physics there is phenomenon called contraction of rigid poles with the process of movement, as well as time dilation. Time dilation is about the mechanical movements of clocks (not related to their outer casings). Mechanical movements in clocks (let’s say behaviour) are now known to behave differently in different frames of reference. An extreme analogy of this phenomenon is this. Say you had a twin sister or brother and you decided to visit the other side of the universe and return in a rocket.

Physics can now demonstrate that upon your return you would look significantly younger than your twin who remained on earth. What has happened is that you, together with the mechanism of the clock inside the rocket have not slowed down with reference to the inside of the rocket itself. However, you and the movement of the clock have both slowed down in relation to a clock (and your twin) on earth because they in are different in frames of reference, one being the earth and the other the inside of the rocket

A similar analogy applies with clocks inside and outside the ether frame of`reference. A rigid rod contracts in a state of motion for similar reasons to the rocket analogy and these reasons seem to relate to some sort of distortion of molecular forces occurring within rods when they move. Rods materially change in other ways as well. I will provide you with an analogy to what I mean by this. Imagine an ordinary domestic broomstick with two square plates centrally nailed to each end of the broomstick. Now stand the broomstick vertically on end and then place a five kilogram lead ball on the top plate of the vertical broomstick. The weight of the lead ball then partly contracts the length of the broomstick and in doing so puts outward pressure on the centre of the broomstick which then causes it to expand. A transfer of energy has taken place.

This change means that the mechanism of the interferometer (akin to the mechanism of a clock), together with the molecular forces therein, change, and furthermore this same phenomenon includes the rigid arms of the interferometer. They are contracting in relation to the object being monitored in space as well as the rigid substructure of the interferometer itself that additionally sits on a firm concrete or rock foundational base. This means that molecular forces are at play with all phenomena relating to the experiment. By this I mean the moving interferometer relating to different frames of reference.

Whilst to you and me such minuscule movements may seem trivial, in terms of the measuring process of the interferometer it is significant. I think it is worth noting that Lorentz in his electron theory defined these molecular forces as being the gaps between electrons within rigid rods that expand and contract with movement. Furthermore it was from this movement process that Lorentz then decided to relate this movement to the ether frame of reference itself, which he then called ether local-time, or real time. This is the frame of reference from which the physics terminology ‘time dilation’ originated.

In summary, it seemed to Lorentz as well as some of his associates (as well as some scientists today) that it was the contraction of the rigid arms of the interferometer in the Michelson – Morley experiment, together with associated time dilation affect that was responsible for the anomaly. This is the anomaly perceived in the measuring effect relating to the interferometer. Additionally this is along the lines of the analogy I have just given, that made most of the difference in establishing if the Michelson – Morley experiment was a valid one or not. As I suggested earlier, it is possible that Newtonian mathematical interpretation played a negative role in this measuring perception as well.

I believe that because clock space-time is not specifically relevant in an absolute time ether frame of reference (but dilation local-time is), then velocity with respect to space time is not relevant and absolute ether time is not relevant either. Velocity in ether time is only relevant to moving objects within this inertial frame of reference and these objects are not directly connected to the ether. Such objects move in a concurrent relationship with it and not to it. Ether time is regarded as being related to rigid rod contraction relating to movement as I discussed a little earlier.

The mechanical mechanisms of clocks behave differently in space-time ether medium as well because of the phenomenon of dilation. In my opinion this does not mean that Einstein’s relativity models are completely incorrect. I think that his preliminary intentions before he published his Special Relativity model in 1905 were contextually correct, in terms of both of his two new theories original frames of reference. However, it seems to me that he was unable to effectively separate out key elements of Lorentz’s original electron/ether theory and build them into his own two relativity theories. What has happened is that by removing Lorentz concept of an immobile ether Einstein later found he had to reintroduce it again in order to make his 1915 general relativity model make sense.

This fact is difficult to find in contemporary and mainstream literature. It is for this reason I support my words by both quoting Einstein’s statement about the subject as well as hear his confirming words on the matter in a 1920 video clip.

Quote:

“…The electromagnetic fields appear as ultimate, irreducible realities, and at first it seems superfluous to postulate a homogeneous, isotropic ether-medium, and to envisage electromagnetic fields as states of this medium.

But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever…”

Allied descriptive reference material

1 The names and professional scientific backgrounds of the scientists that I have talked about or I am informally acknowledging in this blog are Dayton Miller, Hendrik Lorentz, Henri Poincare, George Fitzgerald, Oliver Hilviside, Herbert Ives and Albert Einstein.

2 I have hyper-linked three videos that I feel would be of assistance to you. These videos are:

2.1 One relating to why light should not be considered as a primary frame of reference in physics. You will also hear about why Lorentz Transformation theory is so important in understanding hidden (metaphysical type) connections existing between infinite numbers of individual frames of reference of both a physical and metaphysical sub-quantum nature – which implies reality.

2.2 A down-to-earth video that talks about what ether is (but not necessarily in the same frame of reference that Lorentz talked about it.).

2.3 If you believe that time is not a meaningless physical concept you may also find Barbour’s video about time to be of interest. Barbour is one of the most respected scientists in the world with regard to this topic.

3. The following text seems to provide sound reasons as to why Einstein was wrong and why Newton was right regarding the speed of gravity with respect to his concept of ether. You will also find many of the points talked about in the text align with my beliefs regarding the subject as well.

Quote:

“The Speed of Gravity: Why Einstein Was Wrong and Newton Was Right

Published Nov. 30, 2012 by Michael Suede

It may surprise you to learn that the speed of gravity is something of an ongoing debate among many cosmologists today.

The textbook answer to the question “what is the speed of gravity?” is that it propagates at the speed of light. This answer is derived from Einstein’s version of relativity, which demands that nothing be able to propagate faster than the speed of light. Yet there is a large body of physical evidence that contradicts this theoretical assertion.

In 1998, physicist Tom Van Flandern authored a paper in Physics Letters A that remains one of the best refutations of Einstein’s version of relativity ever published. Van Flandern argues that Hendrik Lorentz’s version of relativity, which incorporates an aether that all matter moves through, is more correct than Einstein’s version, based on experimental observations about the speed of gravity. Lorentz and Einstein’s versions of relativity are actually very similar. The main difference being that the speed of light is not a limiting factor in Lorentz’s version of relativity. Van Flandern argues that the speed of gravity is far faster than the speed of light, just as Newton’s laws describe it to be. Newton’s laws declare gravity to propagate instantaneously.

I’m sure by now you may be wondering what kind of proof does Van Flandern have to offer? Van Flandern starts out by demonstrating that the visible light arriving from the Sun to Earth comes from a measurably different location in the sky than the point that the Earth is accelerating towards in space. This is because light propagates at light speed, while gravity propagates at infinite speed. The fact that the Earth is not accelerating toward the visible location of the Sun, but rather 20 arc seconds in front of the visible Sun (where the Sun will visibly be 8.3 minutes in the future) is very strong evidence against gravity propagating at the speed of light. This same light delay effect is seen in the positions of stars as well.

If gravity propagated between the Sun and the Earth at the same speed as visible light, the Earth would double the distance from the Sun in 1200 years, which obviously isn’t happening. Many other notable physicists besides Newton and Lorentz also concluded that orbital calculations must be made using an infinite speed of gravity. Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington’s orbital calculations rely on gravity having an infinite speed, and Pierre-Simon Laplace calculated gravity to have a speed of at least 10^8 times the speed of light.

Van Flandern goes on to discuss GPS clocks, which are often cited as being proof positive of Einstein’s relativity. It may surprise you, but the GPS system doesn’t actually use Einstein’s field equations. In fact, this paper by the U.S. Naval Observatory tells us that, while incorporating Einstein’s equations into the system may slightly improve accuracy, the system itself doesn’t rely on them at all. To quote the opening line of the paper, “The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require.”

Van Flandern explains why this is so:

Finally, the Global Positioning System (GPS) showed the remarkable fact that all atomic clocks on board orbiting satellites moving at high speeds in different directions could be simultaneously and continuously synchronized with each other and with all ground clocks. No “relativity of simultaneity” corrections, as required by SR, were needed. This too seemed initially to falsify SR. But on further inspection, continually changing synchronization corrections for each clock exist such that the predictions of SR are fulfilled for any local co-moving frame. To avoid the embarrassment of that complexity, GPS analysis is now done exclusively in the Earth-centered inertial frame (the local gravity field). And the pre-launch adjustment of clock rates to compensate for relativistic effects then hides the fact that all orbiting satellite clocks would be seen to tick slower than ground clocks if not rate-compensated for their orbital motion, and that no reciprocity would exist when satellites view ground clocks.

Van Flandern also discusses the famous Michelson-Morely experiment, the Michelson-Gale experiment, and the Sagnac experiment, which are often cited as discrediting Lorentz’s version of relativity. The truth of the matter is that Lorentz’s version of relativity can easily account for the observations if one simply assumes a local gravity field with preferred frame for local observers, rather than a universal gravity field. Further, at the time, the wave nature of matter has not yet been discovered by Louis de Broglie.

Van Flandern concludes his paper by saying:

Near the end of his career, Lorentz is quoted as having graciously conceded the contest: “My theory can obtain all the same results as special relativity, but perhaps not with a comparable simplicity.” (private communication from C.O. Alley) Today, with hindsight, we might make a somewhat different assessment: “Special relativity can explain all the experimental results in Table II that Lorentzian relativity can, but perhaps not with a comparable simplicity.” Even so, SR cannot explain the faster-than-light propagation of gravity, although LR readily can.

We conclude that the speed of gravity may provide the new insight that physics has been awaiting to lead the way to unification of the fundamental forces.

If this article has piqued your interest in alternative cosmology, please set some time aside to watch the Thunderbolts of the Gods youtube video. I feel that this video might influence your thinking with respect to our universe and how it might work in the manner that it does as well. I do not follow the debate well enough to offer comment on it in this youtube video.

4. In this respect I also suggest that you acquaint yourself with a book I recently imported from the United States of America. The book “The Einstein Myth and the IVES Papers. A counter revolution in Physics”, considers the ideas of Ives as to how he felt Einstein’s Relativity theories might have been inappropriately evolving between the periods of the 1920s and late 1940s. You will note that I have cited Ives in the text.

The following are the four quotes supporting Dayton Miller that I cited earlier

Quote 1.
“… >> While Miller had a rough time convincing some of his contemporaries about the reality of his ether measurements, he clearly could not be ignored in this regard. As a graduate of physics from Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society and Acoustical Society of America, Chairman of the Division of Physical Sciences of the National Research Council, Chairman of the Physics Department of Case School of Applied Science (today Case Western Reserve University), and Member of the National Academy of Sciences well known for his work in acoustics, Miller was no ‘outsider’. While he was alive, he produced a series of papers presenting solid data on the existence of a measurable ether-drift, and he successfully defended his findings to not a small number of critics, including Einstein. His work employed light-beam interferometers of the same type used by Michelson-Morley, but of a more sensitive construction, with a significantly longer light-beam path. He periodically took the device high atop Mt. Wilson (above 6,000′ elevation), where Earth-entrained ether-theory predicted the ether would move at a faster speed than close to sea-level. While he was alive, Miller’s work could not be fundamentally undermined by the critics. However, towards the end of his life, he was subject to isolation as his ether measurements were simply ignored by the larger world of physics, then captivated by Einstein’s relativity theory.>>>”

Quote 2.

“Dayton Miller’s 1933 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics details the positive results from over 20 years of experimental research into the question of ether-drift, and remains the most definitive body of work on the subject of light-beam interferometry. Other positive ether-detection experiments have been undertaken, such as the work of Sagnac (1913) and Michelson and Gale (1925), documenting the existence in light-speed variations (c+v > c-v) ….” [my addition, Fizeau verified this using moving water and a light beam]

Quote 3

“What is it with scientists, why does “unacceptable” data cause the destruction of a researcher’s work and their life…
Theory is just made up BS, its the facts, that count, the results of experiment and observation…. the theory as history has shown so many times in science is just made up and should be easily discarded… never…”

Quote 4 (probably derived form a professional scientist)
“…>> Miller’s observations were also consistent through the long period of his measurements. He noted, when his data were plotted on sidereal time, they produced “…a very striking consistency of their principal characteristics…for azimuth and magnitude… as though they were related to a common cause… The observed effect is dependent upon sidereal time and is independent of diurnal and seasonal changes of temperature and other terrestrial causes, and…is a cosmical phenomenon.” (Miller 1933, p.231)

Poor bloke…. he found the spin alright…. and just got destroyed for excellent work and telling the truth. Such is the illusion Einstein has created over the whole world…… amazing.

“>> There are several newspaper accounts indicating a certain tension between Albert Einstein and Dayton Miller, since the early 1920s at least. In June of 1921, Einstein wrote to the physicist Robert Millikan: “I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards.” (Clark 1971”,

>> precautions taken to eliminate effects of temperature and flexure disturbances were effective. The results gave no displacement as great as one-fifteenth of that to be expected on the supposition of an effect due to a motion of the solar system of three hundred kilometres per second. These results are differences between the displacements observed at maximum and minimum at sidereal times, the directions corresponding to … calculations of the supposed velocity of the solar system. A supplementary series of observations made in directions half-way between gave similar results.” (Michelson, Pease, Pearson 1929)

One fifteenth of 300 km/sec. is 20 km/sec., a result the authors dismissed as they apparently had discarded the concept of an Earth-entrained ether, which would move more slowly closer to sea level. A similar result of 24 km/sec. was achieved by the team of Kennedy-Thorndike in 1932, however they also dismissed the concept of an entrained ether and, consequently, their own measured result: “In view of relative velocities amounting to thousands of kilometres per second known to exist among the nebulae, this can scarcely be regarded as other than a clear null result”. This incredible statement serves to illustrate how deeply ingrained was the concept of a static ether. >>>”

End of quotes.

Source:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/physics-without-einstein.33219/page-2

Alternative links that indirectly complement this blog:

I care to talk about entanglement

The inescapable duality of all “things”

The now famous Michelson and Morely 1887 experiment

The history of special relativity

My blog about Reg Cahill

The Sagnac effect in detail

This blog forms a unit of information with respect to my conceptual unity theory.