Is There an "Ether" ?? Can We "See" the Elements Which Compose It ??

Reads: 204  | Likes: 1  | Shelves: 0  | Comments: 0

More Details
Status: Finished  |  Genre: Non-Fiction  |  House: Booksie Classic


Based on theoretical work by Dr. Ernest Sternglass and Dr. Menahem Simhony, one can argue that there is in our universe an aether-like substance ["epola"] which physicists have already "seen" by
using particle accelerators ("atom smashers") in experiments which "discovered" some of the heaviest sub-atomic "particles". Because the standard model denies the existence of any kind of
aether-like substance in our universe, this interpretation of these experiments has been overlooked.



Physicists believe that they have "discovered" many different unstable "particles" during the past hundred years, such as unstable baryons known as the "bottom lambda," the "bottom sigma," and the
"bottom xi." Note that the word “discovered” appears in quotation marks because these objects might have been [not discovered, but] “created” by the experimenters themselves --- by causing some of
the elements which compose the epola to vibrate energetically, giving the appearance of a "particle."



Thus, the "discovery" of "particles" such as the above-mentioned unstable baryons might in fact be evidence for the existence of unseen elements which compose an ether-like substance which Simhony
calls "epola" --- rather than evidence for the actual existence of three different kinds of "particles."

Submitted: July 18, 2017

A A A | A A A

Submitted: July 18, 2017

A A A

A A A


 

IS THERE AN "ETHER" ?? CAN WE "SEE" THE ELEMENTS WHICH COMPOSE IT ??

 

by  Mark Creek-water Dorazio, ApE (amateur physics enthusiast),  

Chandler, Arizona, USA,  12 July 2017

email:  MARK.CREEKWATER@gmail.com


 

SUMMARY [i.e., "abstract"] OF THE ESSAY

 

Based on theoretical work by Ernest Sternglass and Menahem Simhony, one can argue that there is in our universe an ether-like substance ["epola" --- short for “electron-positron lattice”] throughout our universe, which physicists have already "seen" --- in experiments which used powerful particle accelerators ("atom smashers").  Because the standard model denies the existence of any kind of ether-like substance in our universe, this interpretation of these experiments has been overlooked. Physicists believe that they have "discovered" many different unstable "particles" during the past hundred years, such as unstable baryons known as the bottom lambda, the bottom sigma, and the bottom xi.  Note that the word “discovered” appears in quotation marks because these objects might have been [not discovered, but] “created” by the experimenters themselves --- by causing some of the elements which compose the epola to vibrate energetically, giving the appearance of a "particle."

Thus, the "discovery" of "particles" such as the above-mentioned unstable baryons might in fact be evidence for the existence of unseen elements which compose an ether-like substance which Simhony calls "epola" --- rather than evidence for the actual existence of three different kinds of "particles."

 

Key words:  aether, de Broglie wavelength, electron-positron lattice, epola, ether, Simhony, Sternglass;

 

DEFINITION:  "Epola" is the ether-like electron-positron lattice in the model of Dr. Menahem Simhony.  "The epola is not an aether as originally defined, and far from being aethereal ... but a dense aggregation ... of leptons [i.e.,  of electrons and positrons]" [Ref. #3a, in section 5 of the FAQ (frequently asked questions) link, titled "Is the epola model an aether theory?"].

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Part 1.  "ETHER" MIGHT ACTUALLY EXIST

 

Firstly, the writer wishes to quote two Nobel-prize winners regarding the possibility that there might be an ether-like substance which permeates our universe and inter-penetrates all the ordinary matter in it.

 

Nobel-prize winner Frank Wilczek says that "There is a myth, repeated in many popular presentations and textbooks, that Einstein swept [the concept of ether] into the dustbin of history."However, Wilczek says that, on the contrary, "the truth is more nearly the opposite" --- and that today, "renamed and thinly disguised, [the ether concept] dominates the accepted laws of physics"  [Ref.#1].  {HINT: the "renamed and thinly disguised" ether to which Wilczek refers is today known as a "field" ----- or as a combination of several "fields"}.

 

Nobel-prize winnerRobert B. Laughlin of Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:

"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed ... The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum ... Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry ... It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo" [Ref.#2].

 

And Einstein himself supported the idea that there is an “ether.”  In 1920, at the invitation of his friend Paul Ehrenfest, he said this is the LAST PARAGRAPH of a speech:  Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether.  According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there ... would be no propagation of light” [ http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html ].

 

 

Part 2.  SIMHONY’S “EPOLA” MODEL

 

Dr. Menahem Simhony [Ref.#3] has postulated the existence of an ether-like substance in our universe, which permeates all the space in our universe and inter-penetrates all the ordinary matter in it.  According to Simhony's model, this ether-like substance is composed of nothing but electrons and positrons, and the elements which compose it are so near to each other that there are more than 10,000 of them between the nucleus of a sodium atom and the nucleus of a chlorine atom in a salt crystal !!  

 

According to this writer’s interpretation of the theoretical work of Simhony [Ref.#1] and that of Dr. Ernest Sternglass [Ref.#2] one can postulate that the SIZE of each of the tiny elements which compose this ether-like substance, (which Simhony calls "epola" --- short for "electron-positron lattice"), is such that its radius is approximately only 4.11 x 10^(-15) cm [= 4.11 x 10^(-17) meter] [Ref.#5].  This is a very tiny size: much smaller than a proton. In fact, it's so small that one would need a very powerful "electron microscope" to see one of the little rascals.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

{Note1:  Some of the "particle accelerators" which physicists have used to discover the characteristics of the many unstable "particles" are, in effect, powerful "electron microscopes" --- in the sense that they use very speedy and very energetic electrons to "see" what these objects look like, and how they behave.  Sternglass describes this in his book [Ref.#4] in the chapter where he describes collaborating with Robert Hofstadter at Stanford University during the 1950s. He says that the 150-feet-long particle accelerator ---("atom smasher")--- which they used was one of the first machines with enough power "to begin to disclose the size and structure of the proton" [p.113, Ref.#4].  Hofstadter later won a Nobel prize (1961) for this research}

 

{Note2:  The numeric value for the radius was calculated on the assumption that the mass-density of the epola-element is approximately 5 x 10^(15) grams/cc [Refs. #5, #6], where a "cc" is a cubic centimeter, and also that it is shaped like a little donut (i.e., like a torus).  See the POSTSCRIPT1, below, for the alternative possibility that they are sphere-shaped rather than torus-shaped}

 

{Note3:  One can find an object whose mass is that of an electron and whose radius is approximately the above-mentioned numeric value [4.11 x 10^(-15) cm] in Table 1 of Sternglass’s book [p.234, Ref.#4].  This implies the possibility that this particular [pun intended] object might be identical to the elements which compose the electron-positron lattice in the writer’s interpretation of Simhony’s model, which is detailed in Refs. #5 and #6.  Note that this object is not actually in Table 1 as it appears in Sternglass's book, but that one can extend the table, (down into the part which Sternglass would call “stage 28”), to find it there. Note that, if one actually does this calculation, then he or she should remember to divide by 137.036, the inverse of the fine-structure constant, to account for the relativistic shrinkage of the smaller objects in the table, as Sternglass details in the book}

 

{Note4:  Just to illustrate how small these little hypothetical objects ("epola-elements") are, (if in fact they exist):  one could put more than a billion billion of them inside the space which a single hydrogen atom occupies}

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


 

Part 3.  ELECTRON MICROSCOPES ??

 

An "electron microscope" works by accelerating electrons to a speed almost equal to the speed of light, to give them an energy ["kinetic energy"] which causes their so called "de Broglie wavelength" to shrink down to a tiny size equal to the tiny size of the object which one wants to "see".  In fact, an "electron microscope" cannot "see" objects which are smaller than the de Broglie wavelength of the speedy and energetic electrons which it uses. One can calculate the amount of energy which each of these electrons would need, to be able to "see" something as small as 4.11 x 10^(-15) cm, by using de Broglie's famous formula for the wavelength of "matter waves".  {Please google "de Broglie matter waves" if you need to}

 

The calculation is easy: m = h / (WL x c),  where "m" is the mass of the object,  "h" is Planck's constant, "WL" is the object's de Broglie wavelength, and "c" is the speed of light.  Using numeric values  h = 6.63 x 10^(-27)gram.cm.cm/sec, WL = (4.11 x 10^(-15) cm) x (2 x pi) = 2.58 x 10^(-14) cm, and c = 3 x 10^(10) cm/sec, one calculates a mass of 8.55 x 10^(-24) gram, approximately the mass of five [5] protons.  Please note that one multiplies the radius 4.11 x 10^(-15) cm by (2 x pi) to get the appropriate "wavelength" to use in the calculation.  Note also that the mass calculated in this way is the "relativistic mass" of the electrons which the "electron microscope" would use.

 

Using Einstein's famous  E = mc2,  i.e.,  E = m x c^2,  one can translate this mass to energy:

E = [8.55 x 10^(-24) gram] x [9 x 10^(20)cm.cm/sec.sec] = 7.69 x 10^(-3) erg,  which is equivalent to 4.8 gigavolts [4.8 GeV].  This is the minimum energy-content which the electrons in an "electron microscope" would need, to be able to "see" one of the elements which compose the epola.

 

One doubts that any experiments of this kind to look for the elements which compose the epola have ever INTENTIONALLY been done, for the simple reason that most Ph.D-holders are totally unaware of Simhony's theoretical model.  However, there have been many experiments in which electrons were accelerated to that energy, and to greater energy, while looking for other objects and/or for other reasons. These experiments have resulted in the "discovery" of many kinds of "particles" during the past 70 years, although the word "particles" is misleading, because these so called "particles" "decay" after less than a millionth of a second.  Now you see it ... !!!POOF!!! ... now you don't.  In reality, they are merely tiny blips of energy, with VERY SHORT lifetimes, not "particles" in the common sense of the word "particle."  In other words, one might more accurately characterize the unstable baryons as [not particles, but] tiny blips of energy --- because they decay so quickly.

 

 

4.  UNSTABLE BARYONS ??  

 

These objects have names like “lambda” & “sigma” & “xi” & “dogma” ---(just kidding about that last one), and there are so many names for the many different kinds of these objects that Enrico Fermi is supposed to have said that --- if he could remember the names of all the different "particles" --- then he would have been a botanist !!

 

Thanks to the internet, one can easily find lists of these objects, and their masses, i.e., their energy content.  When I did this, I found three [3] different "particles" of this kind whose masses are close to the relativistic electron-mass calculated above:  the "bottom lambda", the "bottom sigma", and the "bottom xi" (also called "Cascade B"). These weigh in at, respectively, 10.01 x 10^(-24) gram, 10.35 x 10^(-24) gram, and 10.31 x 10^(-24) gram, equivalent to 5.62 gigavolts, 5.81 gigavolts, and 5.79 gigavolts respectively   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_baryons].

 

Please note that, according to the list which I looked at, there is no known "particle" of this kind [an unstable "baryon"] whose mass (i.e., whose energy content) is greater than this, except for the "bottom omega" --- which is slightly heavier.  Theoretically, and also logically, it would make sense if the tiniest objects in our universe, (epola-elements), would manifest themselves as observations of the some of the heaviest unstable baryons known to science.

 

Please also note that, if one looks at a list of mesons. there are, likewise, several kinds of "B mesons" whose masses are in this range, and that these, too, are the most massive objects in the list, except for the "bottom eta meson" --- which is approximately twice as heavy.

 

Compare the energy-values of the above-mentioned unstable baryons to each other:  they are almost exactly the same. Compare them also to the minimum energy-content of the electrons in the "electron microscope" --- calculated in part 3, above:  they are all slightly larger.

 

Compare these energy-values also to the energy-content which physicists have assigned to the so called "bottom quark":  4.18 gigavolts. Note that this is slightly less than the amount of energy which the electrons in an "electron microscope" would need to be able to "see" an epola-element, according to the above calculation.  


 

CONCLUSION

 

Perhaps the real meaning of these experiments, (which are supposed to have discovered many different kinds of "particles"), and the correct interpretation of their results, is this:  perhaps each of the three little blips of energy referred to above as "particles" (bottom lambda, bottom sigma, bottom xi) is in fact a manifestation of the presence of the epola, in the sense that the measured energy-content of the "particle" is close to the theoretical minimum energy-content of the electrons in an "electron microscope" powerful enough to "see" the elements which compose the epola.  Perhaps the "bottom lambda" and the "bottom sigma" and the "bottom xi" are [not particles, but] in fact a measure of the amounts of energy associated with several of the ways in which the high-energy electrons, moving at almost light-speed, cause the epola in their immediate vicinity to vibrate, resonate, and/or oscillate.

 

In other words, and to summarize the previous paragraph:  perhaps the fact that scientists have observed "particles" like the "bottom lambda" and the "bottom sigma" and the "bottom xi" is in fact evidence that they have been able to "see" the elements which compose the epola in Dr. Simhony's model [Ref.#3].

 

As Dr. Robert Laughlin says:  “studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part." pp.120-121, Ref. #2.  Perhaps the fact that high-energy particle accelerators have made visible “particles” such as the "bottom lambda" & the "bottom sigma" & the "bottom" xi are in fact evidence that they “knocked out a part” of the lattice.

 

 

POSTSCRIPT1

Due to some theoretical considerations which are too tedious to detail here, {for details, see Refs. #5, #6, #7}, the radius [4.11 x 10^(-15) cm] in the above calculation is that of a torus-[donut]-shape, on the assumption that that is the shape of the epola-element.  If in fact the little rascals are sphere-shaped, then their radius would be even smaller, on the assumption that their mass is that of an electron and their mass-density is approx. 5 x 10^(15) grams/cubic centimeter [Refs. #5, #6]. Using that smaller radius in the calculation above gives for the minimum energy content of the high-speed electrons a numeric value which is even nearer to the energy content of the three unstable "particles" mentioned above.

 

POSTSCRIPT2

In a more recent essay [Ref.#8], the writer suggests that the theoretical minimum energy content for the high-speed electrons is even nearer to the energy content of the three unstable "particles" mentioned above, based on the possibility that the little rascals which compose the epola in Simhony's model might be even smaller than the 4.11 x 10^(-15) cm given above.

 

REFERENCES

(1) Wilczek, Frank, essay:  "The Persistence of Aether" Physics Today, vol.52, January 1999, pp.11-13;

(2) Laughlin, Robert B., book:A Different Universe (2005), pp. 120-121;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

(3a) Simhony, Menahem, internet site:  www.EPOLA.co.uk;

(3b) ibid., internet site:  www.EPOLA.org;

(4) Sternglass, Ernest, book:  Before the Big Bang (1997,2001);

(5) Dorazio, Mark Creek-water, essay:  "Size of the Epola-elements",https://markcreekwater.wordpress.com/2015/04/23/appendix9-size-of-epola-elements-appendix10-a-radical-speculation/

(6) ibid.,  essay: "Regarding 'Neutron stars' as a Way to Test the Theoretical Work of Sternglass and Simhony",  https://www.booksie.com/513478-regarding-neutron-stars-as-a-way-to-test-the-theoretical-work-of-sternglass-and-simhony

(7) ibid.,  internet-site:  https://markcreekwater.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/a-new-proton-model-2/

(8) ibid, internet-site:  https://www.booksie.com/543018-larmor-precession-calculation-shows-connection-between-theoretical-work-of-sternglass-and-simhony

 


© Copyright 2018 Mark Creek-water Dorazio. All rights reserved.

Add Your Comments:

Comments