Electric Universe & Quantum Physics
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sat May 04, 2013 7:04 pm
Electric Universe & Quantum Physics
Does the Electric Universe theory and plasma cosmology support or refute Quantum physics as accurate? I was thinking that EU did not support quantum theory but in the recent youtube panel discussion one of the guys was saying quantum physics is correct and we live in a quantum universe.
-
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:37 am
- Location: Massachusetts
Re: Electric Universe & Quantum Physics
Kollserp, I will give my take on your question, as to whether our universe is "quantum or not?" -If one accepts Quantum Theory (QT), the most prevalent interpretation of QT is that everything is made on atoms that in turn are made of solid subatomic particles, and that a key feature of their dynamic effects is "particle spin." But if you don't want to accept this model, the only alternative would have to be some sort of ether model. The concept of a universal ether which mediates energy and physical phenomena in the universe was generally accepted by science until the late 19th century, when an experiment was done by two investigators named Michelson and Morley, who did a famous experiment to test whether a fluid ether produces a so-called "ether wind." The experiment did not show any ether wind. As a rersult, science threw out the ether theory, after which Einsteinian Relativity and quantum theory were generally accepted. -It might be mentioned that the ether theory was thrown out because there was no experimental evidence of a fluid type of ether. An ether acting electrically would still be possible. -Today, physicists mostly will not even consider theories that disagree with Quantum Theory and Relativity Theory. However, it has still not been disproven that the universe operates via an electrical ether. -I think that the initiating force or first-cause would have been an oscillation of space, leading to point-pairs in space ("yin-yang"), and that our universe developed from that, with an ether made of space-derived (non-solid) energy units that interact in a simple elemental way. This kind of model would lead to a very different explanation of things like gravity, time, and other phenomena, than QT and GR (general relativity). The idea would be that physicists are basing their present theories on measurable forces whereas etheric forces are not detectable yet are producing the detectable forces as "spin offs", from the simple elemental forces.
-
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am
Re: Electric Universe & Quantum Physics
I think one of the problems with the Electric Universe movement is that it has grown this culture of attacking all mainstream science that has nothing to do with plasma cosmology.
- tayga
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am
Re: Electric Universe & Quantum Physics
I'm not sure where you get that impression although it is important to distinguish between plasma cosmology and EU which is a far larger subject. In the realm of cosmology, EU conflicts with Relativity and its products: Big Bang, black holes, neutron stars, dark, matter dark energy, etc. which are all components of a single paradigm. Maybe you could give some examples of other areas?chrimony wrote:I think one of the problems with the Electric Universe movement is that it has grown this culture of attacking all mainstream science that has nothing to do with plasma cosmology.
As Michael Anteski implied, there is no fundamental incompatibility between EU and QM. I'd disagree with him only on the framework of the Michelson Morley experiment which looked for signs of a static ether. If they had considered the ether fluid and elastic, the MM result would not have been null. In fact others, such as Dayton Miller, have confirmed the existence of a fluid ether which is partially entrained by the bodies moving within it. My own view on QM is that it is probably a very accurate description of phenomena but hasn't penetrated to the underlying mechanisms, possibly a type of fluid mechanics. In fact, one of the greatest proponents of QM, Richard Feynman, was pretty clear on this point: QM is absolutely robust but explains nothing.
Above the most fundamental level, however, there is AFAIK no conflict at all between EU and QM.
tayga
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman
Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman
Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
-
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:37 am
- Location: Massachusetts
Re: Electric Universe & Quantum Physics
tayga: I am not sure why you said that the theory of neutron stars is an outgrowth of RT. Wikipedia gives the mechanism for formation of a neutron star as being due to "gravitational collapse of an ordinary star into a neutron star..." which doesn't sound like it is related to Einsteinian relativity, at least not directly. In the ether model I work with, a neutron star would originate as follows: an ordinary star's energy wears down to a critical point (the star becomes "tired"), and then, rather than it collapsing gravitationally as stated in standard theory, it resonates with another star in its galactic neighborhood, and this resonation causes the two stars to collide very forcefully. The violence of the collision is enough to erase all atomic signatures, freeing up protonic, neutronic, and electronic energic units. There then ensues a like-to-like resonance among these energic units in the context of a violent, chaotic, flux. Inasmuch as electrical resonance could not occur in such a chaotic flux, the like to like resonance probably occurs via unit size, forming (1) a neutron star, (2) a new protonic star (Nova), and electronic cosmic radiations. The cosmic rays go off into space, the neutron star also goes off according to spatial neutronic attractors, and the Nova resonates as before with other ordinary stars in its galactic neighborhood.
- tayga
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am
Re: Electric Universe & Quantum Physics
You’re right that the neutron star isn’t a direct product of Relativity, more a result of a gravity-only universal model. For the record, I doubt neutron stars exist at all. They were originally an attempt to explain supernovae and pulsars in non-electrical terms. Proposing their existence a) relies on stellar evolution theory, which is questionable, and b) invokes unusual physics to make neutron stars violate laws that atomic nuclei follow.Michael Anteski wrote:tayga: I am not sure why you said that the theory of neutron stars is an outgrowth of RT. Wikipedia gives the mechanism for formation of a neutron star as being due to "gravitational collapse of an ordinary star into a neutron star..." which doesn't sound like it is related to Einsteinian relativity, at least not directly.
tayga
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman
Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman
Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
-
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:37 am
- Location: Massachusetts
Re: Electric Universe & Quantum Physics
I thought I'd reply to tayga's post concerning ether drift and experimental results by Dayton Miller that he feels show the existence of a "static ether." -For me, the key question about a universal ether is, fluid or electric. I believe an electric ether could be thought of as "static." The impulse is conducted via interacting units along a pathway. The force is what "moves." -My concept of the ether is that of elemental resonances between elemental etheric units which resonate via nodes of vinration which interlock. The vibrations were derived first-causally from point oscillations of space, which led to yin-yang point pairs due to oscillational fatigue, then re-equilibration of the yin yang pairs with the oscillational setting distorted space leading to directional forces, vibrational as derived from the oscillational. Such an electric ether model is simple, all resonances occur elementally and are uniform. Larger "particle capacity" units represent spin off forces from the elemental interactions. Measured forces are all spin off effects and useless for formulating a universal Theory. -All those experiments, Michelson Morley, Michelson Gale, Dayton Miller, I regard as just more examples of mistaken extrapolations and misinterpretations stemming from unappreciated elemental forces which admittedly are impossible to demonstrate experimentally, but that makes the most sense to me.
- tayga
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am
Re: Electric Universe & Quantum Physics
I probably didn't make clear enough the distinction between my preferred concept of the ether and the assumptions on which the MM experiment was based. To clarify, MM were looking for evidence of a rigid, static ether through which they thought ponderable matter passed, the two phases co-penetrating each other. I'm far more convinced of the possibility of a compressible fluid ether which behaves according to familiar fluid dynamic principles, including the Bernoulli effect, and through which ponderable matter moves as a fish through water entraining some of the medium as it moves. This idea is not mine, of course, but belongs to Gerald Lebau.Michael Anteski wrote:I thought I'd reply to tayga's post concerning ether drift and experimental results by Dayton Miller that he feels show the existence of a "static ether."
I'm still studying and researching various areas but our concepts are probably not vastly different. In any case, we agree that careful consideration of the basis of physical reality shows that the present standard model is worse than wrong but that QM is an accurate description of phenomena.
tayga
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman
Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman
Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
-
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:37 am
- Location: Massachusetts
Re: Electric Universe & Quantum Physics
Tayga, I think the main problem all theorists, including "static ether through which moves ponderable matter" would always be a key question, "where did the ponderable matter arise from?" Whenever I have dialogued with theorists with various models, and I ask them "where did this "mass" or "matter" come from, they always refer back to hypotheses and assumptions based on concensus views in turn based on experimental data with their own extrapolations added in, but it never makes sense to me. I have to base my model on a first cause, which only makes sense to me based on oscillation of space in the beginning leading to elemental forces. I have an idea to test my model but it would have to attract more attention than it has so far.
- tayga
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am
Re: Electric Universe & Quantum Physics
For me, the idea that everything is matter makes sense. Mass is a property of matter and not all matter is ponderable; the non-ponderable matter is ether. The origin of mass as a function of charge also fits well into this model.
tayga
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman
Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman
Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
-
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:37 am
- Location: Massachusetts
Re: Electric Universe & Quantum Physics
I think Tayga and I could argue back and forth about the ether and the nature of matter or mass, but we wouldn't accomplish anything in the broader sense. I still believe that our tech methodologies that rely on atomic systems are missing the correct view of Universe, Time, Gravity, and first cause because those are core processes and ether based rather than atomic or quantal-scale based. There actually is a possible test to prove an ether but I would need to find a sponsor to fund it. It would measure decrease in density at the end of a series of elements designed to amplify etheric energy according to the system's elements which would be of a certain composition, placement, and other factors. But experts in science won't condescend to entertain their perspectives need drastic changing.
-
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:03 am
Re: Electric Universe & Quantum Physics
As far as I know, there is no conflict between the EU and quantum physics.
Perhaps in the speculative areas such as the nature of gravity, where things get down to particles and so on.
Ironically, quantum physics is all about electricity but they give it fancy names like "negative and positive energy", and "spin".
Quantum physics itself is far from mature, and seems to have hit a dead-end.
Particle physics came out of vacuum tube experiments with electrical plates.
They electrons and protons were identified and measured with electricity.
But as far as I know, there is no conflict as of now between quantum physics and the EU model, except where relativity and the big bang may come into the mix.
Perhaps in the speculative areas such as the nature of gravity, where things get down to particles and so on.
Ironically, quantum physics is all about electricity but they give it fancy names like "negative and positive energy", and "spin".
Quantum physics itself is far from mature, and seems to have hit a dead-end.
Particle physics came out of vacuum tube experiments with electrical plates.
They electrons and protons were identified and measured with electricity.
But as far as I know, there is no conflict as of now between quantum physics and the EU model, except where relativity and the big bang may come into the mix.
-
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:37 am
- Location: Massachusetts
Re: Electric Universe & Quantum Physics
Just Curious: It might indicate the kind of rationality- dissonance between quantum theory and ether theory I alluded to if I give an example of how quantum theory (which classifies magnetic fields as "still mysterious") is one-upped, rationality-wise, by ether theory. -Take the example of an electric current passing through a wire. The wire is an artificial situation compared to the magnetic fields in the universe, but is analogous for the purpose of showing the difference. The current passes from one pole to the other, and there is a magnetic field associated with it in space around the wire. Quantum theory attempts to explain what is happening by postulating a flow of electrons in space which is contiguous with a flow of electrons in the wire, but how this occurs specifically is not clear. -In the ether model I propose, the entire process including generation of the magnetic field as well as the passage of the electric current occurs due to identical energic etheric-scale units. These are elemental etheric units much smaller in size scale than "electrons" which are actually merely "particle capacity" units formed due to aggregational resonance of the elemental units. All energic resonances occur at the level of these elemental etheric energic units. The resonance is mediated vibrationally. (The elemental etheric energy formed originally after first-causal spatial oscillations; "vibrational" energy as derived from "oscillational" space.) The electric current passes through the wire due to instantaneous resonations between the elemental energic units. "Electrons" are merely incidental, but happen to be the smallest energic units we are able to detect with our quantally mediated instruments. The magnetic field is mainly comprised of the identical elemental units and the field "balances" the artificial energic condition created by the passage of the current through the wire. -This is a more rational and unifying model than the quantum mechanical model which postulates "flows of electrons."
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests