That General Relativity and Quantum Physics might form
part of a theory of everything on equal terms is a bit
unexpected considering the problems regarding any eventual
compatibility between these two pillars of contemporary
science. It has rather been a matter of deciding which would
rule over the other.
However, as these pages aim to show, the physics guiding
both originate from the dynamics and properties of a rather
traditional aether of the type rejected as a result of the
Michelson-Morley experiment and the advent of Einstein's
The common factor is the fabric that form their stage and
time is the clue to how it works.
Posted July 11th 2017
At one time most physicists agreed that the universe had to
have a body. The Ether or Aether. Detecting this was high on
the agenda at the time and several "aether-drift" experiments
were undertaken to find and to prove the existence of aether.
Some of these like Sagnac 1913 and Miller 1933 claim to have
found conclusive evidence to this effect but the general
understanding was, and to a large extent still is today, that
the aether hypothesis is incompatible with Special and General
Relativity, so in order to save Relativity the community
choose the less precise experiments by Michelson-Morley back
in 1897 and in 1927 to prove there is no aether. Since no one
could provide any sensible alternative explanation to the
almost negative results of the Michelson-Morley experiments,
the aether-idea gradually became less attractive until it was
excluded from the mind of most physicists. So much so that
those still pursuing such ideas from then on more and more
were referred to as cranks.
Time will tell, but this state of affairs could change if the
Sagnac and Miller experiments were to be repeated and found to
be as conclusive as Sagnac and Miller claimed. If so they may,
along with the explanations regarding the probable origin of
time as described on these pages, form the base of a Theory Of
If eventually the Aether is detected, then what is a particle?
We know about the alleged duality between particles and waves,
but are they in truth particles or are they actually waves of
some sort? This question has in my view been settled by
with his article in the American Journal of
Physics "There are no particles, there are only
" regarding what we may see from a Quantum
Mechanical viewpoint. This, as it turns out, is also the
present paradigm as may be illustrated by this you-tube video
by David Tong, Professor of theoretical Physics, Cambridge
University: "Quantum Fields: The Real Building Blocks of
the Universe - with David Tong"
Recorded at the Royal
Institution. "According to our best theories of physics, the
fundamental building blocks of matter are not particles, but
continuous fluid-like substances known as 'quantum fields'.
David Tong explains what we know about these fields, and how
they fit into our understanding of the Universe."
In January 2017 Professor Art Hobson published "Tales of the Quantum"
, where he
explains how quantum fields are part of the standard
model. show that the ideas about time as presented on
these pages provides a possible path to a Standard Model
version of Quantum Gravity.
According to my ideas the elastic qualities of The Dynamic
Present is the single origin of all these quantum fields,
where different oscillation patterns in the fabric would allow
different particles to pop out from the very same fabric,
staging an illusion of different "continuous fluid-like
substances known as 'quantum fields'."
For reasons not immediately obvious but related to the
phenomenon of respectively sonoluminescense and Einsteins
energy equation (e=mc^2) I suggest that the wave of a fermion
particle is longitudinal, similar to a sound-wave. But how
does it wave? Well, that is where our clue comes in along with
e=mc^2. However, it would need to have a field to wave in, but
after pondering over this for a while we realize that any such
longitudinal wave would die out pretty fast, so just any field
does not make our day. What we need is a field that will keep
the occupant waving for as long as it takes, and in the case
of protons, decay experiments suggest that may be for the
complete remaining age of the universe.
So what keeps them going?
Again, think of our clue, and of the quanta and of the Big
Bang and of the eventual fabric of our universe and also about
the problems haunting the aether models. One large problem the
aether-physicists had to get past was to explain how the earth
or anything ay all could move in the aether. At that time
nobody know about the Big Bang. Had they known I'm sure they
would have come up with the same explanation I have arrived
at. Certainly a lot more elegant as well.
As it was, this idea did not surface. After various tries to
explain the absence of friction between the aether and moving
matter by tuning the properties of the aether failed,
"consensus" eventually decided that there is no aether.
Time is now about to change that.
The clue is that the process in charge of ordering events can
actually be discontinuous without leaving any obvious
indications about this state of affairs. Lately I see a rising
interest in the idea of discontinuous time, and that is
certainly where to look. Discontinuous time suggest that bulk
oscillations in the elastic fabric of the universe, or the
aether, may be interpreted as time because they would allow
motion during each oscillation. Discontinuous motion, that is,
and hidden from us the same way as the discontinuity of time,
but not completely so.
The property of spin, associated with fermions and bosons is
in my view a visual effect of the relative phase of
oscillation between fermions and bosons on one side and my
proposed oscillations of the aether on the other.
So what might have caused these oscillations? Suggesting the
Big Bang may not merit a Nobel Prize but it is the best
candidate so far despite the fact that we may never be able to
understand why it came about.
You may well think that this is all speculations and you would
The only way to move science forward is to speculate, and you
are welcome to join in with your own speculations or/and
challenge mine at the comments page.
[ Back to top ]