> "I placed an ad on my website for someone to develop the mathematics for a Unified Field Theory based upon the Aether," said Bourassa. "David said he not only could do it, but already had." <
Placed an ad on his website? That should be a giveaway right there.
Wonder if these guys are affiliated with the Raelians.
Typical cynicism. People like to smear the work of others without looking at the actual work.
unless this unified theory ALSO explains where the disappearing sock goes (AND how to get it back), I'm not buying it.
More useless cynicism.
Life is to short to read his "theory". I stopped at "Within three weeks, he discovered the simple, empirically based equations, which produce the Unified Force Theory." It has all the signs of a crackpot.
This is an example of the prejudice we typically encounter. There is a preconceived idea about how complex physics must be in order for it to be accurate.
Thank you for your submission to New Journal of Physics. However, we do not publish this type of article in any of our journals and so we are unable to consider your article further.
Thank you for considering New Journal of Physics.
Yours sincerely
Sarah Towell Senior Publishing Administrator New Journal of Physics
This is typical of the non-specific denials we get when submitting to peer reviewed journals. Generally, it seems the word "Aether" results in automatic rejection, regardless of how well quantified it is.
Be very careful about this. If they are not doing statistical mechanics they are operating at an undergrad level.
The Aether Physics Model is completely discrete. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is moot when the precise geometry of space-time and subatomic particles is modeled.
Is there a problem with this scenario? ... They have developed "quantum units of space-time" derived through "easy-to-understand Newtonian equations".
Once again, the complexity of quantum physics is prejudged to be a law of the Universe. It is as though modern science has ruled out the possibility that quantum physics could be simpler than what they have made it. Yet common sense would tell us that if the complex Universe built from simpler structures, then the simplest structure should also be the simplest to understand and quantify. The fact that QM in its present incarnation is so complex is actually a sign that the basic understanding of quantum structure is flawed.
One the one hand, they claim they have a theory that "predicts" physical constants, but on the other hand, they state they discovered "empirically based" equations on which their theory is based. If the empirically based equations have fundamental physical constants implicitly embedded within them, it should come as no surprise that they can then use them to "predict" the fundamental physical constants to a high degree of precision. It's no prediction at all, but but rather regurgitating what was already implicitly buried in the empirical data.
This reasoning is correct, except that through the Aether Physics Model it has been possible to also show where some of the empirically measured constants are slightly wrong, such as the neutron g-factor. Similarly, we show the Casimir equation is likely incorrect by a magnitude of about 3%. These are serious examples of how the well-structured Aether Physics Model confirms and corrects the empirically-based, fundamental constants of quantum physics.
The other thing that smoked my BS meter is the fact they are publishing their findings in "Infinite Energy" instead of a respected peer-reviewed physics journal. My guess is these guys are a bunch of "Ether-freaks" -- folks on the fringe of physics who have been chafing for over a century in their zeal to restore the Ether to it's former glory after it was derailed by Michelson and Morely, among others.
There is a tremendous amount of prejudice toward Aether theories. Michelson and Morely presumed a rigid, physically particulate Aether. The so-called "null result" was not a "zero result," but was consistent with a fluid non-material Aether. The Aether of the Aether Physics Model is fluid, not rigid. As for publishing in Infinite Energy Magazine, it is a magazine of researchers who have similarly encountered irrational resistance to new ideas. Should a theory be discarded or ignored simply because the scientific establishment is prejudiced against it?
It smelled funny to me (aether theory??) - just to make sure, I checked the SPIRES database for publications by either of the primary 'authors' - there are no publications by Jim Bourassa; there are publications by a David Thomson (or multiple David Thomsons), but nothing related to any of the work claimed in this article, and nothing between 2001 and 2005.
This is another example of prejudice in science. Science is supposed to be about the scientific method, about quantifiable hypotheses, and experiments that demonstrate the hypotheses.
Regardless of the previous education or publications of a science author, if a quantified theory is presented, the only test for the theory is the theory itself, not the authors qualifications, or lack thereof.
I also looked at the paper in the link for a few minutes - nothing more complicated than high school algebra,
If the algebra is not that complicated, then why aren't people checking out the accuracy of the theory's predictions and commenting on the accuracy of the theory?
Once again, preconceived notions about what a valid theory should look like clouds the judgment of scientists. Common sense tells us that quantum physics should be simpler as the complexity decreases. The fact that the Aether Physics Model requires nothing more than high school algebra for explaining quantum structure is a sign of its success, not its failure.
If the xxx is true, have you calculated its xxx? What is it?
The Aether Physics Model is the quantification of quantum structure. It does not follow that since we have quantified quantum structure that we have answered every conceivable question related to physics. Originally, the Aether Physics Model was only that which is presented as the Aether Physics Model.
However, we have now begun quantifying the mechanics. Our first quantum mechanics breakthrough is in quantifying the electron binding energies.
We are always glad to answer questions about the theory itself.
The likelihood that these guys have discovered the fundamental nature of physical reality by observing the behavior of Tesla coils is pretty much nil.
What is it about modern physics and probability theory? Is everything really a probability? What is wrong with studying the theory and pointing out any errors in math or data that might be found? Tesla coils obey the fundamental laws of physics, why would they not be useful for making discoveries?
It's so full of errors that I don't have nearly the time or the inclination to address them all. To quote Pauli, "not only is this not right, it isn't even wrong."
The theory will fall with just one error in the math or data. Point out just one wrong equation, one wrongly derived geometrical model, or just one constant that doesn't belong where it is used.
"Then black holes wouldn't evaporate."
Of course they do. Black holes are implosion events where matter becomes so dense that it rips the Aether fabric apart spilling out all the angular momentum. The visible matter thus returns to its dark matter state. The Aether units, being quantum rotating magnetic fields, simply disappear forever.
The fluid Aether fabric is evidenced by the inward spiraling of all galaxies. There are more implosion events (black holes) occurring where mass becomes the most dense. The Aether collapses and spills the visible matter back to dark matter, thus creating an effect not unlike pulling a plug out of a full bathtub. In the meantime, the Casimir effect is causing dark matter to be absorbed into newly generated Aether units elsewhere in the galaxy. Thus the faucet is turned on while the plug is also pulled. Hence, we get a perpetually spiraling galaxy. I could go on more about this, but the point is simply that when the Aether is considered black holes are quite easy to understand.
I'd be interested in reading what you have to write regarding the gravitational force assertions in the paper.
One of the most important gravitational assertions of this theory is that the gravitational force is orthogonal to the strong force. That is why we can produce Einstein's simplified field equation (GR) from first principles, except expressing the equation in terms of electrostatic charge, electromagnetic charge, and the fine structure.
Does your theory predict that it should be possible to extract usable energy from the aether field?
The Aether Physics Model quantifies the Casimir effect as the conversion of dark matter into visible matter. The form that the new visible matter takes is first as a photon. The photon can then be absorbed and produce electrons via the photoelectric effect. The electron can then be put through a load and thus put to work. If you consider the end result of the work to be energy from the Aether, then yes.
But technically, the answer is no. Energy is merely a unit of work, it is not a thing like subatomic particles that can be stored in a bottle. We can generate photons, which can be converted to subatomic particles, which can be put to work, but we can't extract energy from anything.
"According to the Aether Physics Model, all normal matter is gravitationally attractive with normal matter but gravitationally repulsive to antimatter."
Wouldn't this effect already have been observed at CERN, Fermilab, and other facilities that do experiments with antimatter?
These experiments have not been done, yet. However, they are on the drawing board and I do believe I read that at least one such experiment has been funded. If I remember correctly, there is the engineering problem of getting subatomic particles close enough to measure the gravitational force without the electrostatic or strong force taking over.
As for predicting the gravitational repulsion of matter and antimatter, I am not the first person to propose this. I have read about it in the peer reviewed literature, as well.
Yeah, that's a possible red flag, but on the positive side they haven't played the "our brilliant revolutionary discovery is being suppressed by the conspiracy of Established Science" card yet.
And we won't. We fully expect the immediate negative reaction to this new theory. That is exactly how science should work, or at least, that is how it has worked for centuries. There is no conspiracy to suppress our work. We have to contend with serious scientists whose time is very limited. But given enough time, our theory will prevail. It is solid science and is solidly quantified.
Also, you'll notice we're not pretending to have credentials that we don't have. I'm being forthright about my extremely weak credentials. I would rather contend with immediate incredulity toward my credentials than to later have to explain a planned deception. Once people get over my non-existent resume and look at the theory, they'll forget all about my weak background.
Wouldn't the effect of "negative gravity" already have been observed in the day-to-day work with antimatter at CERN, Fermilab, et cetera?
The gravitational force is something on the order of 10^45 times weaker than the strong force. No, nobody would notice a gravitational effect at a particle accelerator with the velocities of the particles that are used.
I don't have time to go over it in detail now, but does it do away with the infinities?
The Aether Physics Model is entirely empirically based. That is, there are no infinities, no equivalence principles, no probability functions, no imaginary force particles, and no numerical-only equations. All equations have dimensions or are geometrically specific (fine structure, pi, Phi, and other geometrical constants).
The Aether Physics Model is the Classical Physics version of quantum physics.
Home schooled quantum physicists?
Have you ever heard of Michael Faraday?
This is some pretty crazy stuff.
And wave/particle duality, probability particles, and force particles are not? Nothing is more weird or crazy than the equivalence principle, which claims that a dimension (mass) is equivalent to a unit (work).
Before you claim to have a THEORY OF EVERYTHING, you should have a basic understanding of underlying physical concepts.
I understand quite well how the Standard Model works. But does that mean I have to agree with the SM interpretation of the data? Am I forbidden to find a new interpretation of the same data, which makes more sense? Before you judge the Aether Physics Model, you need to study it. You can't simply make the argument that since our interpretation is different from the SM interpretation that it is inherently wrong. Physicists everywhere already agree that the SM cannot be the correct interpretation of the data.
I also don't understand how you are trying to talk about "electron plasmas" and the relation to the electron "strong force". A plasma in the standard sense contains ionized atom and therefore has both positive and negative charges that renders it electrostatically neutral. There is no need to invoke some fictitious strong force for the electron.
The sun ejects large clouds of electron plasmas nearly everyday. There are no atoms in this cloud, just pure electrons.
As for the strong force of the electron, We show clearly that the Casimir equation is the transposition of the strong force equation for the electron. The Casimir force has been verified. Our strong force equation quantifies the attraction between electrons at close distances. This is solid evidence in favor of an electron strong force.
Your model is based upon discrete events!!!! OMG! LOL! Do you even know the difference between discrete and continuous functions? So your model is based upon snapshots of time.
Laugh it up. But that is exactly what our theory predicts, snapshots of time, only they are not snapshots at the quantum level, it only appears as snapshots to our macro level of existence as half-spin matter. Time is constant at the quantum level, but it oscillates between forward and backward time. One complete cycle of forward and backward time is the basis for the snapshot of time. During that cycle, subatomic particles spin only in the forward time half of the cycle, which is why they appear as half spin particles.
Do you have a concept of division by something so infinitely small, the quantity approaches infinity.
If you would read the paper you would see that this quantum cycle has the frequency rate of c/w.C, where w.C is the Compton wavelength. You would also see that every single quantum constant is perfectly factored by both the quantum length (Compton wavelength) and quantum frequency (c/w.C). There is an abundance of evidence presented in this theory that strongly supports a quantum frequency, which is the basis for the quantum time.
There is no rigorous theoretical calculations or experimental evidence to back up your theory.
The Aether Physics Model is based entirely upon the same rigorous data as the Standard Model. All the constants used to determine the geometrical structure of the Aether and the subatomic particles are the same constants used everyday by physicists everywhere. You can't say that we have theoretical calculations. In our case, the data was well established. All we did was provide a more informative interpretation of the rigorous data at hand.
Physicists agree that the Standard Model is incomplete, not wrong.
Physicists agree that an object cannot be its own wave. That is not saying wave/particle duality is incomplete, it is saying wave/particle duality must be wrong.
An electron-proton bound state already exists in nature. It's called a hydrogen atom, not a neutron.
As we have quantified in our theory, there are two types of charges, and hence two charge-based forces. The hydrogen atom is an electrostatically bound electron and proton. The neutron is an electromagnetically bound electron and proton. If the strong force exists for the proton, it must also exist for the electron. Nature is not selective about what types of subatomic matter will experience forces. Whenever selectivity does occur, it is a sure sign of a fault in the theory, such as in the SM.
The interpretation of the neutron in the Standard Model persists because the experimental evidence supports that idea.
The interpretation of the neutron in the Aether Physics Model exists because the experimental evidence supports that idea. Further, the quantified neutron in the APM also quantifies the extra angular momentum of the anti-neutrino from first principles, i.e. the folding of space-time.
'The strong force law was, before this paper, unknown to modern physics.' This is also false since there exists an expression for the potential between two quarks, from which you can easily derive a force law.
There is no strong force law in QCD or any other branch of physics. If there were, it could be united with the gravitational force law and the Coulomb electrostatic force law. Well, I have to qualify that. Hendrick Casimir discovered the strong force law for the electron, but didn't know what it was and ended up inventing (in people's minds anyway) the Casimir force.
Discussion 
