Aether Linear Thread

[junglelord]

More quotes from Dirac''s Sea of Negitive Energy....its very clearly quite similar in its approach to primary angular momentum of APM. This really is an explanation of APM Casimir effect in which matter is created.

The Miracle of “Creation”
However, for Heisenberg to put physics into the “creation”
business is something else entirely. In what form does a
“relation” loan out “pure energy”? Cash, check, or money
order? And since there are unlimited numbers of epos around
every charge at all times, it doesn’t matter how briefly each
individual epo exists, this amounts to a permanent loan of
infinite energy. “Creation” is the proper term for it: only God
could have that much energy to loan.

There are further conservation problems with any “creation”
process, even one where the mass-equivalent energy
is supplied by real, 0.511 MeV photons. For both electron
and positron have spin (angular momentum) energy equal
to \/2. By any assumption as to the size of electron and
positron, this is much more energy than that supplied by
photons at “creation,” or taken away by photons at “annihilation.”
Somehow the “created” electron has something like
sixteen times more energy than the photon that “created” it.
This spin energy is real energy. It is the angular momentum
needed by the electron to set up a stable standing wave
around the proton. Thus, it alone is directly responsible for
the extension and stability of all matter. Ultimately, it supplies
the hn energy acquired by a photon when an electron
jumps from one orbit to another. This half-integer energy is
the cause of Fermi-Dirac statistics, of the Pauli exclusion
principle, and ultimately of the periodic table of elements.
In mathematics, if you set two things spinning in opposite
directions, and take the average, the spins average to
zero. But in the physical world, giving two real objects large
amounts of angular momentum takes real energy. Instead of
honestly facing this gross abandonment of conservation,
current theory dubs particle angular momentum an “intrin-
sic attribute.” All that says is, “This energy is there; we don’t
know where it comes from, so let’s not talk about it.” Calling
it an “intrinsic attribute” is supposed to close the subject,
like the Stephen Leacock aphorism: “‘Shut up,’ he
explained.” Naming and agreeing to ignore it makes this
1600% violation of conservation go away. In effect, current
theory proclaims a miracle every time “creation” or “annihilation”
is invoked—perhaps 10100 or more times a second.
This demonstrates that conservation is merely paid lip service
in the present practice of physics—something to be
respected if it agrees with the current paradigm, but thrown
to the winds if it proves inconvenient.

Even ignoring these massive violations of conservation, it
seems hopelessly naïve to suppose that complex entities
such as electrons and positrons, with spin, charge, and a
number of other properties, could be “created out of nothing”
but “pure energy.” This is like supposing that if we put
a bunch of electronic components in a box, and shake them
hard enough (i.e. add “pure energy”) the result will be a computer.
“Pure energy” can never supply the exact and specific
information necessary to make the highly complex little entities
that we call electron and positron. After all, we don’t
know how to make either electron or positron. What is
“electric charge”? We haven’t a clue. Why are their spins
quantized in half-integer values? No idea. Where do they get
their immense, anomalous angular momentum? Beats us.
And how on earth do they manage to pack all this into a
zero or near zero radius? Yet we baldly suppose that “pure
energy” knows how to do all these things we can’t do!
Given all these problems with Heisenberg’s “window,”
wouldn’t it have made sense to at least look at what two of
the most successful equations in recent scientific history
mandate? They say that electron-positron pairs already exist,
everywhere. Instead of being “created” in pair production or
around every ion, which as we have seen involves massive
violations of conservation, they are merely raised in state
from negative to positive energies.

We will later look at this question more closely, and show
why this “raising in state” requires no additional energy,
resulting merely from the ion’s unbalanced charge. First we
need to look at more problems with “annihilation.”
When an electron approaches a positron, they don’t just
rush together and disappear. Instead, they approach until
they are a distance apart that is the width of the electronic
ground state of hydrogen. At this relatively large distance
(some 56,000 times the diameter of a proton) they start to
orbit around each other in the configuration called
“positronium.” (This in itself should have told us that
something other than “annihilation” was going on.) They
never get closer to each other than atomic distances. After
orbiting each other in this pseudoatom for a time that
depends on whether their spins are parallel or opposed,
they emit two or more photons that total all of their positive
energy. After that they are no longer detectable, and
conventional wisdom says that their charges and spins
have “cancelled” and that they have “annihilated” and are
no more. But since they never get closer to each other than
56,000 times the diameter of a proton, how can they possibly
“cancel and annihilate”? They never get anywhere
near each other, and nothing passes between them. For
them to “annihilate” would be action at a distance, a direct
violation of causality. Doesn’t it make more sense to suppose
that they still exist, as the Dirac equation requires,
merely lowered in state to negative energies?

Another problem: to say that something has charge means
that it has potential energy with respect to every other
charged particle in the universe, and vice versa. For an electron
and positron to “annihilate” while they are a large distance
apart means that, according to Maxwell’s equations,
the potential energies of every charged particle in the universe
must change instantaneously, except for those that are
exactly equidistant from both of them. This violates conservation
not only locally, but universally. It is real action at a
distance, violating causality as well. But again the problem
would seem to be solved merely by taking seriously what the
Dirac equation says: that the spins and charges still exist,
merely lowered in state to negative energies.

What the equations call for validates the conservation of
charge, which is violated by “creation” and “annihilation.”
Just as conservation of mass-energy means that mass-energy
can neither be created nor destroyed, so conservation of charge
means that charge can neither be created nor destroyed. (We
will later look at other supposed creations of charge, such as
beta decay, and show that in each case the supposed creation
was merely the separation of an existing epo.)

http://openseti.org/Docs/HotsonPart1.pdf

[junglelord]

More quotes from Dirac's Sea of Negitive Energy.

Since he does not quantify Charge like APM, his aether model is like Meyls, the dual opposite electron-positron spiral pair.

Very interesting, without the identification of the Gforce and the three force model, he sees aether like Meyl.

And it turns out that the simplest possible quantum
field would necessarily be populated with all possible numbers
of strictly identical, neutral, spin-zero bosons. Such particles,
as noted above, can have either positive or negative
energy. To quote Gribbin (1998b), “In the quantum world a
field must give rise to particles.” (Emphasis his.) However, no
such field of unlimited numbers of neutral, spin-zero positive-
energy bosons exists. Why not, if a field must give rise to
particles? However, as we have argued above, a “sea” of negative-
energy, neutral, spin-zero bosons is a requirement of
quantum mechanics itself: of the energy equation, and of
the Dirac equation of the electron. Two of its solutions call
for negative-energy electron-positron pairs, which would
necessarily associate as neutral spin-zero bosons. Thus the
simplest possible form that the Vacuum Electromagnetic Field
could take would have as its unique solution exactly the
same result as the Dirac spinor field: a “sea” of unlimited
numbers of negative-energy electron-positron pairs. We
have now approached this from three different directions,
and they all point to the same result.

[StevenO]

This could be easiest understood by realizing that each single "point" in our universe is "broken" into two "regions", which can be seen as the "time domain" and the "space domain". The ratio between the two can never be 1 again, though each point is always trying to restore that universal symmetry. As such it will either "expand" into the "space" side or "compress" into the time side. As material beings, we only observe movements on the space side, while time progression can only be interpreted as a universal scalar progression (the arrow of time). Observed this way the instant results of the time domain side movements are interpreted as as creation/annihilation, an "underworld", a "sea of negative energy", "a sea of virtual particles", the aether, wave/particle duality, instantaneous force and radioactivity.

The time side is also has structure, something that is revealed by "quantum coherent" behaviour (e.g. lasers, superconductivity).

[junglelord]

Hydrogen Gas created in a Vacuum. This is a potent reminder that the world of solid state and the little black box really does hide a lot. Vacuum tubes will reveal much more to the observer then solid state especially when considering the aether and its properties.
http://www.newenergytimes.com/FIC/J/JNE1N2.PDF#page=108