Toggle Menu


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 Relativity theories.
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 Everything. 

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  Professor Art Hobson with his article in the American Journal of Physics "There are no particles, there are only fields" 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 be correct.
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.

© 2015 Bo Nyberg Template designed by David Miller Background starfield designed by Background Labs