Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Welcome to a Return to Physics!
Here on my X profile you will find an alternative approach to fundamental philosophy and physics. The starting point is a return to an objective reality with physical models. We’ll work from a flat 3D space and a separate and independent time. We’ll return to the aether. We’ll see that this will all make sense, that all experiments are consistent with the new theory, that problems with the existing theory are eliminated, and that new tests can be done.
“But wait!”, many protest! Didn’t the Michelson-Morley test disprove the aether? No, it did not!
The Lorentz Transformation (LT) was developed by Lorentz in his Lorentz Ether Theory (LET). LET describes both length contraction and time dilation as objects move through an ether, and this fully explains the Michelson-Morley result. The LT also leads to light having a constant speed with respect to any observer; this was known before special relativity. Einstein took this known effect of constant light speed, raised it to the level of a postulate, and ran the derivation backwards to arrive at the LT in his special relativity (SR). LET and SR are completely identical mathematically: they use the same LT! So, we see that the ether is not disproven by Michelson-Morley at all, it is mere politics to say that it is.
So, who am I to question the status quo? My credentials include a Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin in accelerator physics; I’ve had positions at leading universities and national labs; I’ve designed several particle accelerators and built two (not all designs are funded); and I have many publications, including three sole-author Physical Review Letters. (PRL is one of the most esteemed publications in physics.) Here are the papers on the novel works (not published in PRL): the quantum luminiferous aether – larsonism.com/V2.06.pdf; the ABC Preon Model – larsonism.com/ABCUpdate.pdf; Aetherions – larsonism.com/Aetherions.pdf; A Realist QM – larsonism.com/5Larson.pdf. Hence, with this resume I hope you take my work seriously and look forward to any comments and criticisms you may have.
A frequently asked question is: You have a new theory, but what new tests can be done? My response is that the theory does have new tests, but it also accomplishes much more. In my opinion, new tests alone are just one aspect of how we should judge a theory.
Theory Support I. My theory agrees with the vast majority of empirical evidence since it derives the foundational equations presently used, but it does so from an aetherial standpoint. Similar to the Lorentz Ether Theory, I assume an aetherial footing and I derive from the foundational equations from there. Importantly, due to the different foundations, I arrive at some empirical explanations different from the status quo and I also arrive at several predictions for further testing.
1) The theory is quite specific on where dark matter should be found, once leptonic and hadronic matter positions are known. As described in the long paper, larsonism.com/V2.06.pdf, as well as in posts that will be coming here on X, the theory does a good job with the bullet cluster, stellar orbits distant from galactic centers, and ultra diffuse galaxies. This alone should be a big deal.
There are several other predictions from my work.
2) Freed aether quanta are shown to construct preons, which in turn are shown to construct all known leptons and hadrons. Additionally, specific new resonances are predicted with rather specific energies and signatures. Such resonances should be able to be found in HEP experiments.
3) Since light is an aetherial wave, an atomic clock immersed in an intense RF field should slow. Unfortunately, the theory does not predict the magnitude of this effect, and it may be too small to measure. But it is possible.
4) The theory should allow for eventual formation of aether outside of the solid background. Such a development would lead to tremendous potential inventions as will be described in later posts here on X.
Support II. But beyond the issue of new empirical testing, the theory allows for a resolution of several long-standing problems in physics. That success should not be minimized by just asking "what do you predict?", even though yes, as mentioned above, the theory does predict. More importantly, in my opinion, is the fact that the theory solves several long standing problems without paradox and it provides long-sought-for derivations. This should also be considered meritorious even if there were no new testable predictions. My work has several such breakthroughs:
A) A derivation of Maxwell's equations from an aetherial physical model. This was a goal of physics for quite some time, including a goal of Maxwell's, until relativity discarded the ether.
B) A derivation of the Lorentz force equation from that same aetherial physical model.
C) A derivation of the Newtonian gravity equation from that same aetherial physical model. This unifies gravity and electromagnetism under a common footing.
D) A theoretical discovery of two field masses from that same aetherial physical model. Coupled with breakthrough C, this results in an explanation of perihelia advance, gravitational clock retardation and the Shapiro effect. Note that gravitational light bending is also explained, but it required specification of a flow law independent of what led to A, B and C.
E) Explanation of the three generations of particles. The ABC Preon Model shows how leptons and hadrons are built from sub-particles (preons) clearly explaining generations as excited states of an underlying system. The more recent publication in Physics Essays on aetherions shows how freed aether constitutes the preons. Not only does this explain the generations of particles, but it also leaves physics with a very simple model. Two aetherions, five fields, and waves upon the solid aether make up all physical matter.
F) By returning to absolute space and time, and by proposing modifications to the Planck and de Broglie empirical relations, a realist quantum mechanics can be derived that is understandable. Bell’s theorem tests and the two slit experiment are readily understood.
Support III. While not necessarily true, since nature may be complex at its roots, it is often nonetheless believed that simplicity is the hallmark of scientific progress. My theory is very simple. Rather than over 150 terms and 19 free parameters as in the standard model, the new theory has just two elemental aetherial quanta and five fields. All known particles and forces result from this extremely simple basis.
On my timeline here on X, we’ll go through these topics in turn, plus more! But to get started we’ll begin with some basic philosophy.
English
