The Aether, Black Holes and the Standard Model (Chapman)

The following post was made originally be Chapman in the Always On Thread

The topic of “The Aether” recently popped up in the thread about the EM Drive. I have much to say on the topic, but I did not want to divert that thread from it’s primary topic, so I will just post a few thoughts and questions here, in the Open Thread, on the off chance anyone else may have any thoughts or insights to share…

To start things off, let me outline a seemingly unrelated problem I can not reconcile, involving General Relativity, The Standard Model, and Black Holes. I say “seemingly unrelated” because while the issue does not directly reference or involve the Aether, I believe The Aether to be the only viable answer.

So, here you go Kids; think on this…

General Relativity tells us all about Gravity Wells. I will not waste your time reviewing all the details – you either understand it, or you do not – but the key takeaway is that gravity actually warps space-time. From this concept we get Gravitational Lensing, Worm Holes… and Black Holes.

Black Holes are depicted with massive accretion discs, are modeled in binary star formations SUCKING the very life out of their nearby partners, and are reported to be the Gravatic foci at the heart of Galaxies.

With Black Holes, you have a sufficiently large mass so as to cause Gravity to completely warp space in on itself. Every straight line originating below the event horizon is bent back and terminates at the singularity. There is no way out, because there is no DIRECTION that points “out”. This idea is far more complex than simply looking at it as a matter of the escape velocity below the Event Horizon being greater than the speed of light, which is TRUE, as a statement, but the CAUSE is the Gravitational bending of space itself. Again, this is THE great insight of General Relativity.

On the other hand, the Standard Model is built upon the idea of Fermions, which are the material particles that serve as the actual building blocks of physical matter, and Bosons, which are particles/quasi-particles that mediate the transfer of the primary forces (EM, Weak Nuclear, Strong Nuclear, Mass, and Gravity) between those Fermions. For each force that works on observable matter, there is a class of boson which is being exchanged between those particles and actually conveying the attraction or repulsion effect of the force in question. The key take away here is that the Standard Model describes forces as being mediated by carrier particles being exchanged between interacting material particles.

So… Do you see where this is going???

Gravity is understood to be mediated by the Graviton. This particle has not yet been claimed to have been observed, but it’s existence is absolutely mandatory according to the physical mechanics upon which the Standard Model is based. And it’s existence is the basis of a whole universe of ideas and theories about Gravitic Propulsion, Worm Holes, Warp Drives, and Anti-Gravity devices.

But THINK about Black Holes for just a moment longer. As stated, below the event horizon space-time itself is physically warped back on itself. All vectors terminate at the singularity. It is a closed space. And THAT means that even GRAVITONS can not escape!

THERE IS NO PHYSICAL WAY FOR SINGULARITY GRAVITONS TO INTERACT WITH REAL-SPACE! There is no path by which the Singularity Gravitons can exchange with passing material particles outside of the event horizon. In short, once a black hole has formed, it will cease to have ANY gravitational influence with external matter. You could STAND 5 feet from the event horizon and feel NO EFFECT. You could not orbit around it, because there is no gravity well at all. This simple fact also means that they can not be the seeds at the heart of galaxies.

Not only would there be no light escaping, and no gravitational emanations, but because the Black Hole would be totally untethered from real-space, it would have no observable mass in real-space. It would no longer maintain “location” in real-space relative to it’s local point of origin. At the instant of it’s formation, the black hole would appear to zip away at high velocity, as it would no longer maintain whatever relative velocity it had as it was moving along with the common velocity it shared with the local neighborhood. It would actually be just stopping in terms of absolute space, but of course the rest of local space would still carry forward along its previous vector, and with whatever velocity it already had.

Just to simplify the idea, we can sum things up by saying that if Photons, just one sample of the boson class, can not escape the black hole, then NONE of the FAMILIES of bosons can either. ALL FORCES ARE DISRUPTED by the same mechanism.

Unless the Standard Model is wrong, and General Relativity is only a philosophy. Simply accepting the Aether would allow Black Holes to work as predicted, and reportedly observed. In fact, with an Aether, black holes would exhibit MORE gravity than the same mass in real-space!

CONCLUSION: Contrary to the current Scientific Theories supporting The Standard Model, FORCES can not be interactions between material particles being mediated directly between those particles by a subordinate set of carrier particles. The only workable answer is that there IS an Aether, and that the observed forces are interactions between material particles and The Aether, or interactions between particles via waveforms within the Aether.

1. EM is mediated by Photons, which are just coherent waves through the Aether.

2. MASS is just an Impedance effect resulting from material particles moving through the Aether, and is actually responsible for the formation of Photons.

3. Gravity is the result of non-coherent waves in the Aether, which drive all material particles towards each other, exactly as is observed by boats in open water.

4. Weak nuclear force is perfectly reasonable EM induced activity on the quark scale.

5. Strong nuclear force is the result of a physical “flow” within the Aether that surrounds all rotating particles, and creates what amounts to a “micro-quasar”. Also, there are no blue, red, and green quarks. Quarks join up in threes because each must align at 90 degrees to each of it’s neighbors in order to have their axial flow not repel.

Grand Unification becomes simple mechanics once you accept the existence of The Aether.

And for the record – Matter and Anti-Matter do NOT annihilate! Get THAT ONE straight, and most of the other mysteries become obvious also…

  • Chapman

    Thanks to the explicit details on the mechanics of the thrust of the EM Drive outlined in the fine paper referenced by our friend radvar in the post above, I see no reason to expect the action of the EM Drive to differ under either condition.

    Basically, the Aether Theory describes Photons as pure waves that nonetheless transfer energy/mass/momentum. The EM Drive would work weather that Photon was an actual particle, or a wave with all the EFFECTS of a particle.

    As long as it does not require superposition or “extra-dimensional quasi-particle tunneling” or such nonsense, then I see no contradictions.

    • Frederic Maillard

      Thanks for your reply.
      My post and Radvar’s have crossed.

  • Ciaranjay

    Hi Chapman
    If you are smart and curious (I think you are) then this is a great time to be alive.
    I am not sure about aether but I agree that (IMO) the underlying explanation will come down to geometry (or a related branch such as topology).
    You may find this discussion of interest.
    It has an interesting critique of the algebraic approach in physics.

    • Chapman

      I LIKE this guy’s way of thinking!

      Thank you for directing me to him. I will dive deeper into his work. He makes straightforward arguments, based on sound physics, that points out much of what I have tried to explain to folks. When you talk about “unconventional” there is a fine line between saying you believed in the existence of the coelacanth vs “I just had lunch with Bigfoot”. In physics, there are many issues that seem totally abstract and contrary to known laws, but really stem from just a single misconception, or applying what is, in itself, a perfectly sound and reasonable and well-documented principal too broadly.

      Rethinking the SCOPE of known principals, and identifying the exceptions that must be recognized, is not the same as denying EVERYTHING WE THINK WE KNOW and insisting that all of science is fundamentally wrong. The problem is that SOME oversights create misconceptions that get amplified over time, as every subsequent theory tries to accommodate the original error. Eventually you get a system rife with errors, but the actual seed of that tree-of-errors is a single, tiny concept someone rushed to embrace without due consideration, or it was adopted because it was the best choice at the time, and then folks are just naturally hesitant to go back and address the matter later, when the contradiction becomes obvious.

      This Guy is just showing how REASONABLY one can come to a few profound conclusions that seem, on the surface, to be outrageous or unconventional.

      I appreciate you bringing him to my attention. I look forward to reading his works.

  • Chapman

    As far as I was every able to determine, the Orbo looked like a variant on the basic Joule Thief design.

    Sucking every possible teeny weeny potential out of ANY energy source can look like magic when you can draw on latent chemical reactions in seemingly dead batteries and possibly environmental RF energy and store/stack that energy in pulses to drive it up to a brief usable potential.

    The issues they had with the circuitry leads me to believe that is what the Orbo was.

    Joule Thieves are impressive as hell, just like a levitron, but neither are demonstrations of “alternative physics”

  • Chapman

    Sorry to disappoint on the matter. I am not disparaging the usefullness of the device, as a piece of tech. Their problem was one of manufacturing standards, and marketing. They simply should have had SOME level of quality control on the manufacturing side, and the lack thereof came back to sink them, and there was no need for them to advertise that it was a breakthrough in science, and a physics phenomenon.

    I can say without any hesitation that I can make you a little black box, about twice the size of a cigarette pack, that has only a single 2025 button cell within, and a single micro-USB wire coming from it – and you can place that box next to the register behind the bar at your local tavern, allowing folks to plug their cell phones in for a few hours at a time, and the device will consistently provide a demonstrable charge to those phones every time, for a LONG time.

    Steorn demonstrated the classic problem of a Valid concept, poorly executed.

  • Chapman

    I am aware that this is an old question. And it is the fact that it IS an old question that STILL has no satisfactory answer that makes it stand out as a hint that something is wrong with our perspective on the issue.

    Every answer I find proposed out there really just boils down to “this mysterious contradiction is simply caused by this OTHER, even MORE mysterious and convoluted theory”. They will then go into a bunch of gobbledygook and doublespeak, all dressed up to LOOK like they are actually saying something, or passing on some insight, but in reality it is just an endless echo chamber of the same keywords and physics catch phrases, who’s substance is such that one has to carefully analyze the content in order to see that there simply is no substance at all.

    All these answers address one mystery by invoking the concept of an even greater mystery that must just be accepted, and memorized, but is beyond actual intuitive comprehension. These answers are no answers at all, just the introduction of additional unknowns, in an endlessly expanding backward cone of chaos and complexity. That is NOT how the real world manifests. Cause and effect results in ever increasing complexity as the scale factor increases, and as a result we see a reduction in the complexity of structures and forces as we peer BACKWARD down that sequence.

    In short, things do not become MORE complicated the deeper you peer. They become simpler, as functions, and we marvel at the way these simple functions create a multitude of diverse effects on the next order of scale.

    Aether theory, on the other hand, does exactly that. And it is to that end that I presented the question! Using this simple question as a filter, which theory, SM/QM or Aether, meet the criteria of demonstrating proper reduction of complexity/chaos?

    • greggoble

      “… they become simpler.”

      This reminds me of the works of Pharis Edward Williams ‘The Dynamic Theory’ and his U.S. DoD LENR Patent. He approached the contradictions you present with the same mindset. I spent weeks exploring Physics and Beyond… a great experience.

      Memorial and Thoughts of a Man with Great Ideas-Pharis Williams”


      Pharis Edward Williams was from Missouri. During his lifetime, he possessed an amazing ability to conceive original technical ideas. He raised questions that others would ignore. This created a ‘new’ perspective that would lead him to increasing knowledge and experience while in the Navy as well as in research laboratories. His Master of Nuclear Physics dissertation demonstrated this prevalent view. He proposed generalizations of the classical Thermodynamic Laws leading to the fundamental principles of what he termed ‘The Dynamic Theory’.

      In this theory, an important role is played by identifying an integrating factor that makes the energy exchange with the environment a total differential and leads to the definition of a mechanical entropy. Equilibrium and stability conditions for dynamic systems are derived and together with the principle of increasing entropy provide a geometrical structure from which the theories of relativity, Maxwell’s electromagnetism, and quantum effects may be derived. By applying simplifying or restrictive assumptions to the main body of the theory, Pharis shows that the major fields of physics are contained within the extensions of this theory. In these extensions, new field quantities appear to become important for systems and technical disciplines.

      Thus, the Dynamic Theory that he created would unify the various branches of physics into one theoretical structure. Only the future can tell what will be the impact of Pharis’ dynamic theory contributions and how engineers and scientists can gain and find new insights.

      Also of interest…

      Welcome to Physics and Beyond: A website dedicated to the work, theories and publications of Pharis E. Williams.

      His LENR patent

      Deuterium Reactor US 20130235963 A1
      Publication date: Sep 12, 2013 – Priority date: Mar 12, 2012
      $25,000 was received in 2008 from NSWC, Indian Head Division, to design experiments, review reports, and analyze data. The experiments verified heating using powered/granulated fuel.
      Inventor: Pharis Edward Williams


      The Deuterium Reactor is a fusion reactor whose design is based upon a non-singular electrostatic required by the quantization of electric charge. This potential allows for a significant reduction in the fusion barrier of deuterium nuclei when these nuclei are held in close proximity, as within a crystal, and preconditioned using a magnetic field. This manner of fusion barrier reduction produces direct fusion of two deuterium nuclei into a helium nucleus without attendant hazardous radiation of classical fusion reactors. The energy released in the deuterium reactor may be used in different ways for different applications and its use will result in a significant reduction in fossil fuel use, a significant reduction in radioactive waste by replacing fission reactors, and a significant impact upon the world economy.

      gbgoblenote – As a United States Department of Defense (DoD) Energetics Center, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Division is a critical component of the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Warfare Center (WFC) Enterprise. One of the WFC’s nine Divisions, Indian Head’s mission is to research, develop, test, evaluate, and produce energetics and energetic systems for US fighting forces.

      Energetics are explosives, propellants, pyrotechnics, reactive materials, related chemicals and fuels and their application in propulsion systems and ordnance.

      As the largest DoD full spectrum energetics facility and leader in the Navy’s energetics enterprise, NSWC Indian Head employs a workforce of more than 1,400, of which more than 850 are scientists, engineers, and technicians dedicated to developing and sustaining explosives, propellants, pyrotechnics, high-energy chemicals and their application to warfighting systems. In addition, NSWC Indian Head has the largest concentration of PhDs working in Energetics in the WFC, including the highest number of synthesis chemists, detonation physicists, and formulation scientists dedicated to the energetics National competency.

  • Chapman

    So now I hear you thinking, “So, what’s his Angle?”

    Well, now we have to think of reflection angles versus thrust vectors. As you know, the angle at which a traveling object approaches a surface, called the angle of incidence, is the same as the angle it will reflect OFF the surface. If it hits head-on, it will bounce away straight back. But if it strikes a glancing blow at 20 degrees, it leaves at 20 degrees. In each incident, the the traveling body has a momentum that has a direct component and a lateral component, in relation to the reflecting surface. The lateral forces imparted to the surface are equal, but opposite, and cancel out, while the direct forces add together and “push” the surface away. But that push is ALWAYS exactly perpendicular to the surface, and has NO relation to the angle of the path of the reflected object, other than in the MAGNITUDE of the force absorbed.

    If YOU were the surface, you would interpret a massive hailstorm of impacts as being bombarded head-on by a large number of “balls” of different size and mass. You would not perceive any ANGLE component in the reflected bodies. They would all appear to come straight at you, but they would seem to range from little rubber balls from a JACKS set, to tennis balls, to base balls, to billiard balls, each hitting you with different force. In all cases, every collision sets you STRAIGHT BACK. The vector of imparted force is always perpendicular to the plane of the surface impacted.

    The MAGNITUDE of that force is determined by the angle of the ball, and what percentage of its momentum is along that perpendicular line.

    This is a critical concept. It does not matter what direction the ball was moving, the direction of the resulting collision imparts force on the reflecting body that is only determined by the orientation of the surface of that body. The direction of the ball only determines the MAGNITUDE of that imparted force.

    We have to POUND that idea into our heads, because it is easy to look at a photon traveling right to left, and see that leftward momentum as being the energy that can be transferred, but this simply is not the case. The dynamics of INDIVIDUAL reflections are fixed by the geometry between the photon and the surface, in a frame of reference that ONLY involves the relative angle between THEM at the point of contact, and are not limited by OUR perception of which “direction” the photon appears to be travelling.

    The side wall of the thrust chamber is angled at, say, 5 degrees to the x axis. This means the angle between the side walls is 10 degrees, and results in a narrowing of the wave guide, and makes for a smaller end plate at the far end. A photon traveling to the right, and glancing off the side wall, imparts a force that is always angled toward the small end. And simple physics tell us that a photon traveling to the left, retracing that exact path BACKWARDS, STILL imparts the identical force on the wall towards the small end. Regardless of the perceived “direction” of the photon’s travel on the x axis of the thruster, ALL sidewall reflections result in some component of thrust being transferred to the body of the thruster in the direction of the small end.

    I will stop for a bit and let you ponder this. There is much more, but this needs to simmer a bit. Work it out and confirm it for yourself, in your own mind. It is NOT the whole picture, but it IS foundational, and easy to lose grip on when things get complicated, once we start actually calculating a photons full “tour” through the thruster.

    • Chapman

      From any starting point, we can see that the refection angle against the side walls, as a photon travels towards the small end, becomes closer to perpendicular TO the next side wall. The angle is slowly shifted, until the next reflection is at 90 degrees, which will reverse the photon and have it retrace it’s path back down to the large end. If properly designed, photons will never REACH the small end plate. The tapered wave guide will act like a Jacob’s Ladder, and photons will rush down the wave guide towards the small end, bouncing from side wall to side wall, in ever steeper increments, until forward motion (I said MOTION, NOT momentum) relative to the x axis is entirely lost, and the photons turns an about face, and start the long path back to the large end plate.

      The NUMBER of reflections across the chamber body, from side to side, for any single cycle is the product of the angle of the side walls relative to each other.

      When the photon gets BACK to the large end plate, there is only a single reflection turning the photon back down the wave guide, and that reflection is NEVER at a full 90 degree approach to the plate. The final reflection off a sidewall will have the photon reflecting off the large end plate at a shallow angle and across to the other sidewall, to begin the process again. The shallow angle of the reflection at the large end plate means there is not even a full quanta of energy imparted negatively on the thruster’s x axis.

      This effect is multiplied in direct proportion to the number of photons. The greater the Q factor, the more reflections you get from each photon you spent your energy budget creating, and the lower the incidence of random absorption, which just pumps heat into the thruster walls without the benefit of coherent thrust generation.

      At this point, it should be obvious that, BECAUSE it is the relative angles of the side walls to each other that creates the thrust, the cross sectional distance BETWEEN the walls at any point is, like the difference between end plate sizes, is only a consequence of the geometry of maintaining a relative angle the full length of the wave guide, and in no way contributes to the generation of thrust. It just makes the thruster footprint large and cumbersome. But we see two things.

      First, the effective length of the wave guide is limited to the angle of the walls and the distance a photon travels “down” the wave guide before being turned back on itself. There is no functional need for the wave guide to be LONGER than that distance.

      Second, there is no need to just allow the side walls to slowly grow farther apart in respect to the direction of the large plate. At any point, the side walls can constrict abruptly, reducing, and resetting, the sidewall separation distance, while not effect the relative angle BETWEEN the side walls. The result is a wall shape that is more a saw tooth. Imagine the angled annular teeth an a hose bib. THAT would be a workable inner surface geometry that compacts the overall thruster diameter, and combining that modification with limiting the wave guide length to the EFFECTIVE WORKING LENGTH of the photon tracks would greatly increase the thrust/volume metric of the thruster system. It would not increase the thrust itself, nor use less power for the derived thrust, but it would increase efficiency relative to the volume the thruster occupies.

      • Chapman

        All this is well and good. Happy days. But…

        I see a problem.

        It is deep in the mathematical weeds, and I am working to resolve it. But I will not state it here for a simple reason.

        I approached this topic based on a simple assumption – that being that it is “reported” that thrust has been observed, and that no clear understanding of the mechanism exist. And when you look into it, the theories proposed all involve theoretical radiations, or misinterpretations of velocity and mass rules. Some theories totally ignore the actual mechanics of the photons themselves, and that just boggles my mind.

        BUT, nevertheless, I was working with the assumption that the thrust is real, and pursuing justification with an undeniable confirmation bias. That is, that there IS a way that the EM Drive produces thrust. From an agnostic perspective, it is entirely true that the whole thing may well be false! So, I looked at it with a certainty that there WAS a solution, and first had to impose filters in order to quickly weed out all the ideas that could NOT be the answer, and then delve deeper into the potential causes that could not be immediately eliminated.

        This warped my objective view.

        So, here you have seen the mechanism I conclude COULD produce thrust, and I find it to be the most likely direction toward the solution, IF indeed there is a solution.

        And I have also “chummed the water” by announcing that I know of a flaw, so you will look at this solution NOT trying to accept it as perfect and not being critical in your own analysis, but LOOKING FOR THAT FLAW! It is like a “Where’s Waldo” poster. Can you spot Waldo?

        I assure you that MY flaw is real. I am not sending you down a rabbit hole. But I want YOUR mind to be able to:
        1. Fully follow the details of the proposed action,
        2. Fully understand the thought process that lead me to this conclusion,
        3. Look critically for errors, without thinking there are none to find
        4. Identify OTHER errors that I do NOT see because of my own mind being locked in the train of thought it has adopted.

        The problem YOU find may well NOT be the one I am already wrestling with, and just might be an unconditional negative proof, which will save me the effort of resolving the minor glitch I am working on.

  • Chapman

    Well, there are 377 papers there, and a few of them are a little deep, so I will need time to assimilate them all.

    I have only made it through a couple hundred so far, so let me get back at you after diner when I am done…

    • Chapman



      That is a HELL of a resource! It will take me MONTHS to sort through, but I am scanning the titles to find the papers of highest interest to chew on.

      Thank you for a great link to papers that harmonize with the base tones of my own internal science-perspective melody.

  • Charles

    What’s with Stoyan Sarg and his BSM – SG?. I’m not bright enough to figure it out?

    • Chapman

      His BSM (Basic Structure of Matter) theory IS an Aether theory.

      His whole point is that “space” is not, and CAN NOT BE a classical vacuum, such being defined as “an area with nothing in it”.

      QM begrudgingly admits to a Quantum Foam, which is a scale at which particles condense briefly, in pairs, from the universal “fields of force” that span the universe, before fading back out of existence – and basically only sticking around in THIS reality if they are disturbed while “here” and their process is interrupted.

      I ADMIT!!! This is a VERY simplistic and imprecise description of the deep physics of the QM model, but it IS the concept. Matter does not “exist” now as a primordial substance that has history. Matter “pops” into existence from the energy realms. The physical population of particles we call “matter” are only the current occupants of local space. They came from nothing, and will return to nothing. And the VACUUM of space REALLY IS JUST EMPTY SPACE.

      The contrast between QM and Any of the many Aether theories, is best reduced down to one idea, which one can credit to Ridley Scott. Yes, THAT Ridley Scott!

      “In space, no-one can hear you scream”.
      To that we simply add,
      “But even in space, you can STILL take a baseball to the crotch”.

      The critical concept here is that in a vacuum, there can be no waves, because it takes a medium for a wave to propagate through. Sound is a waveform, and in space there is nothing to CARRY sound between Screamer and passive observer. As a result, the only interaction between two objects is via a force being mediated by yet another, smaller, object being exchanged between them. This is the basis of the Standard Model classification of Fermions (the objects) and Bosons (the “Others”). And then QM goes on to insist that ALL these particles are just static “kinks” in energy fields, and that they form, and dissolve, constantly. And better yet, where there is NOW a particular particle, like say a Higgs Boson, that boson may spontaneously dissolve, and the energy may then miraculously REFORM itself into a couple of Quarks, or a couple OTHER bosons, and then They may dissolve to pure energy again and then reform into yet a third entity.

      Aether theory, on the other hand, says that ALL those particles are REAL. As real as you and I, and the Sun and the Moon… and baseballs. AND, that all those particles are just composite clumps of smaller particles, and those are made up of a collection of even SMALLER particles, all the way down to the Planck Scale. At 10^-35 meters, space is a real liquid mass of SOMETHING. Waves propagate THROUGH that liquid, and bits of the liquid can solidify and start the hierarchical sequence of particle constructions.

      And THIS is a key idea – that every particle IN that liquid is interacting WITH the liquid it is floating in. The liquid forms a meniscus upon the SURFACE of those particles, like the rim of water climbing the inside of a glass of water on your counter. This creates a particular type of drag, where the energy of the motion of a particle THROUGH the liquid is being STORED by the liquid around the particle, and returned to the particle on passing. This results in what WE see as MASS. It is exactly the same function we see on a larger scale as Impedance in electronics, which is different from Resistance. Resistance is energy lost. Impedance is Energy applied, transferred, and returned. This can ONLY happen if there is a STUFF that the particle is moving THROUGH.

      Anyway, THAT is what Sarg is talking about. That forces, like Gravity, Mass, and Radiation, are just the result of what we see as “Matter” interacting with the fluid it floats in, and that THAT liquid is a grid-work of Planck level primary particles that serve as the canvas that the perceptible “portrait of reality” is painted on. But do not mistake this with some “holographic universe” theory. The Aether is a REAL thing. A real liquid. And particles may build up to ever bigger constructs, like a pearl forming in an Oyster, but just as that pearl is STILL made up of a bunch of calcium and other atoms, so too those particle constructs are just collections of smaller bits, right back down to the Planck scale. And the total AMOUNT of those particles, way down there, never changes that we can see. God does not constantly work on creation. He is not constantly “fiddling” and adding NEW stuff to the universe. What is, is. What was made, was made, and is HERE, and is just swirling around, combining and recombining, exchanging energy by waves, direct collision, and alignment. That’s it.

      And it is all driven by one single force, which we see in OUR scale, as being the electromagnetic force. All the other forces are just “effects” that we observe due to that force playing out on all those levels of scale from the Planck up.

      Now you can see why Aether theorists see the idea of QM finding a grand unified theory as a joke. The forces are unified BECAUSE of the Aether, which is the one thing in ALL of the universe that they ADAMANTLY insist does not, and can not exist. These guys believe that superposition allows, through probability, that a pink unicorn CAN spontaneously manifest itself right in the Oval Office on a particular Sunday morning, but the idea that there is a “there” there, and space is REAL…. well, that just makes their heads explode.

      • Charles

        Chapman, what a great piece of work. I cannot thank you enough. This ought to keep my mind occupied for a while. Thanks again.

        • Chapman

          You are quite welcome. Be sure, after you stew on the topic and make discoveries elsewhere, to come back and share your insights. I never tire of the subject!

  • Chapman

    So, speaking of the Aether, and the idea of STABLE wave-forms propagating linearly, and without loss, in a liquid medium (pssst… think “photons”, ok?), It occurs to me that a little VISUAL is in order.

    And WHO better to instruct, AND amuse, than the master himself – Matt Parker!

    (For those who do not follow Matt, or know who he is, well… Leave it to the Brits to genetically cross Stephen Hawking with John Cleese!)

    Curious, yes? WITH an Aether, you can have a photon that is NOT a particle, but rather a wave, but one that truly exhibits the PROPERTIES of a particle, in terms of precise linear motion, self-contained energy, mass, and momentum transfer.

    Without an Aether, these properties must be explained by complex theories bordering on magic. But WITH an Aether, they are simple structures that elicit nothing more than a “well, of course…”.

  • Alan DeAngelis