Well if you consider all of the possible interactions that could happen with so-called virtual particles (whatever quantum field theory might call them) it calculates the exact value and is the "most successful calculation/prediction in physics". I can't judge the relative value of the model you mention but I would argue that even if it somehow explains away for example Lamb shift, how would other phenomena that give evidence of a substantive and energetic nature to space be discounted?
For example the Casimir effect, are you saying this isn't a result of eliminating certian frequency modes in the Quantum field? And the permitivity of free space and displscement current in a vacuum, are you saying there is nothing in the vacuum to be displaced? (polarized) There is a lot more than just Lamb shift that nerds to be explained away. On Wed, 12 Oct 2022, 1:23 am Jürg Wyttenbach, <ju...@datamart.ch> wrote: > So we know that the electric field from the Nucleus of a Hydrogen Nucleus > can polarize the virtual particles and cause partial shielding, this > results in the Lamb shift. > > This is standard model word salad. Virtual particles are just a > mathematical construct an thus never something real. > > > Lamb shift only happens inside a field so this is a forced interaction. We > can exactly calculate the Proton fine structure frequency (See basics in > Mills but needs some metric added..) from first principle and there we use > no virtual particles. > > All non circular orbits have two extremes what explains the shift in > min/max energy. > > Hence no ether or other fantasy needed. > > J.W. > > > On 11.10.2022 11:01, Jonathan Berry wrote: > > I would like to hear any counter points to these arguments. > > Firstly the Aether I am talking about IS NOT NECESSARILY the > Luminiferous Aether/Ether considered disproven, though some arguments will > go in that direction also. > > Hence the "Aether" in question could be Quantum fields theory, virtual > particles, cold neutrinos, dark matter, Dirac sea etc... or *anything in > or of space* (or space-time) besides matter and light/radiation. > Therefore there isn't really any reason to discount it based on the label > Aether as it is being used as a catch all, some of which are beyond doubt. > I would also note that the space of General Relativity is affected by > matter and light and motion can be induced in it, such as frame dragging. > > And also I will be first addressing that light might potentially affect > such phenomena. > > > So we know that the electric field from the Nucleus of a Hydrogen Nucleus > can polarize the virtual particles and cause partial shielding, this > results in the Lamb shift. > Also displacement current through a vacuum and the very > dielectric properties of the vacuum suggest there is something to be > affected. > Many have entertained the ideas of Bearden and Scalar waves which propose > to affect space with electromagnetic fields interfering. > > Matter is 99.99999% empty space and so if matter has any potential ability > to affect anything in the vacuum likely that would be from the 99.99999% of > the volume that is just electromagnetic flux, also if Matter plays a > necessary part, as long as the experiment is not performed in a vacuum > matter will be present even if it isn't the structured component. > > Light manifests a tiny gravitational field according to conventional > theory, indeed it must due to the fact it carries momentum and can be > diverted by gravity if Newlon's laws are to survive.. > > Light introduced into an otherwise massless perfectly reflective box > would, due to Doppler shift imbalancing radiation pressure, inertial mass > now be apparent. > > Light has the ability to push, warm and cut matter so why should we doubt > it's influence on other phenomena? > > > > So we should all be able to agree on two things: > > There are phenomena in the background of space that certainly DO exist > that aren't matter or light. See also > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kCtiOS_F_M&t=7s > And Light (EM) could conceivably influence said phenomena. > > So first a little consideration to a Lumiferious Aether. It is known > that the speed of light is C, but those who dig a little deeper recognize > that the claim is only related to the 2 way speed of light, the round > trip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k > The thing is Lorentz contraction (Lorentz Aether Theory, LET) was only > conceived of as a means to make the round trip constant and it made no > pretense that it could keep the one way speed of light constant. > Well, the thing is Special Relativity has absolutely no mechanism that can > make the one way speed of light constant! It just argues that you cannot > measure the one way speed of light so live with it. > It plays a game of "if you can't easily measure the difference it doesn't > exist, but this is impossible, it is a cheat and it is a cop-out. > > However, because there is no possible, no conceivable mechanism by which > the one-way speed of light can ACTUALLY be C in all directions in all > frames, then we must accept that it is in fact NOT equal in all frames even > if we have difficulty proving what it is or finding said frame. > > So as the speed of light is actually dependent on the frame you are in, we > can also put aside all the other impossibilities of Special Relativity, we > can now consider that time dilation is an absolute thing and this is good > as there are easy ways to create impossible paradoxes. > > Anyway if you want to, you can actually measure the one-way speed of > light. What you need to do is Synchronize 2 or more clocks when they are > together, now if you can establish the direction of your motion through the > prefered frame that is great as moving each clock away from each other > perpendicular to this axis motion through the prefered frame so any time > dilation is equal, if you have not established this (and don't want to > repeat the experiment in multiple different orientations then sure the > clocks will go a little out of synch but that's not the end of the world. > > Then when the clocks are apart you install them in either end of your > train laboratory, then you accelerate to a significant velocity when both > clocks read the same time. > The reason this works is because the amount of desynchronization that > occurs when the motion relative to the prefered frame is tiny only a very > tiny desynchronization occurs (if any at all), but once our laboratory is > moving at a significant percentage of the speed of light any efforts to > separate synchronized clocks leads to much greater disparities. > > But again, if the clocks are separated perpendicular to their motion > though such a prefered frame (medium) then the time dilation would be equal > and not desynchronize them in the least. > > If you wanted to try and establish what the prefered frame is, you could > put some very accurate high frequency clocks around a wheel, and to make it > simply let's think of this in 2D. > As the wheel rotates a given point on it is moving directly opposite the > motion through the prefered frame and as such the time dilation is the > greatest as the motion through the frame is the greatest, and then 180 > degrees around the motion would be in the same direction and as such the > velocity would be the slowest relative to the prefered frame and as such > time would move the fastest. > As such one could learn the exact axis of motion through the prefered > frame. > > There are also ways to prove that time dilation must not be relative > because if it were parties on opposite sides of a rotating carousel would > agree the other is always moving relative to themselves and each would > expect the other to experience the slowest time, the fact is that time > dilation being relative breaks down completely as long as communication is > not in the direction of movement, as this removes Doppler effects which > confuses matters. Communication transverse to the velocity creates either > over moments or on opposite sides of a rotating platform for as long as you > want an unresolvable paradox. > > > Ok, so there must be a prefered frame because SR has no mechanism by which > the speed of light can be the same in all directions in all frames. > And for this reason and the unworkability of time dilation without a > prefered frame then we have both time dilation and length contraction as a > result of moving through a prefered frame. > > This begs a question, is the prefered frame affecting matter, time, and > length but is itself unaffected by matter?! > It seems inconceivable that length, time could be affected without the > frame being affected. > > And therefore we can assert that the prefered frame (The > Luminiferous Aether) is compressed by matter, but it seems undeniable to > say that it is therefore dragged and generally impressed upon by matter. > > As such it is an impressionable medium. > More-over so should anything else... PhD Comics video linked earlier: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kCtiOS_F_M&t=7s > > Of course when it comes to my own fringe efforts, there is another hurdle > or 2, the fact that the human body can detect such phenomena though not > unreasonable and not unpresidented (every culture has a claim and practices > for such an energetic phenomena), it still has to be addressed. > > And then there is possible doubt that even if you accept the existence of > something to be affected (you must), the ability of light to have an effect > (you should), and the ability of the human body to detect such an effect > (you could), why would the specific designs I have do anything? > > All I can answer is to say that many have felt it. > > Maybe you will too? > https://www.reddit.com/r/Aetheric_Engineering/comments/xy8th7/stupidly_strong/ > > Place your palm to the screen, some will feel it, some won't. It might > take a minute, the center of the palm (somewhat tensed) to the center of > the design moving to and from the screen. > The reason the effect can project from the screen is because the dynamics > when setup in a 2D form project the influence out, this also happens > generally from a metal ring, and certainly from an extended form like a > cylinder (think cloud buster) which does project the form out the end. > > Anway, not really expecting 'converts', but I would like to know what if > anything I might have got provable wrong? > What was unclear? > > Did anyone read any of this? > > Jonathan, every few years I post here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Jürg Wyttenbach > Bifangstr. 22 > 8910 Affoltern am Albis > > +41 44 760 14 18 > +41 79 246 36 06 > >
