| |
|
|
Burago S.G. A Concept Of Aether
The concept of non-empty space lays in the basement of Aether theories. Non-empty space may be named physical vacuum, physical field, aether,.., and so on as you like. Such concept is attractive for those people who are not inclined to believe in mistic long distance interaction between material objects
There are a lot of reasons to be dissatisfied with the current interpretations of Physical Theory, which represents a set of separated phenomenological recepts for mechanics, for thermodynamics, for electrodynamics and magnetism, for gravitation, for optics, for atomic physics and quantum mechanics, astrophysics, cosmology and so on. The recepts are very nice, some parts look like very pretty theories (thermomechanics, for instance). But there is no unifying idea. Multiple attempts of extrapolation of existing Physics representations onto space - time scale borders lead to very strange and shocking conclusions, which can bring into the mental dead end every normal people. Many boundary parts of Physics look now like mistics or religion: Big Bang Theory, Longitudinal anf Transversal Mass Concept, Hidden Dark Matter Hypothesis, Primary Atom and so on. Very often the theory of Physics is substituted with very complicated mathematical formalism without clear explanations and the appeal to believe in such mathematics follows just because by somebody's opinion it represents real phenomena. For example, the theory of quantum mechanics recommends to imagine the elementary particles as Schredinger's wave functions. Then the quantum fields theory proposes overminded mathematics for understanding elementary particles interactions. After being familiar with these theories one can remember about known calambur about too complicated things: everything, which is too complicated, is often useless or wrong. Very good Lacmus paper test for quality of physical theories is the number of patches which these theories require in order to be in agreement with observation data. If some theory requires new and new additional corrections and additional postulates in order to stay alive then it is not a satisfactory theory and it should be reformated on the basis of some new foundations or may be on the basis of some old but well forgotten foundations
In the mean time the concept of non-empty space may be the key to the general basement for physical laws. It can help to understand why the Physical Laws are as we have found them and not others. The understanding of how everything is arranged in the Universe is the target of my research.
The terms "Aether Theory" and "Aether" have multiple meanings like the term "finite difference method". Therefore the phrase "The theory of Aether is rejected by the Science" is so much indefinite as the phrase "The finite difference
method is inefficient". Which one from Aether theories? Which one from finite difference methods? There are hundreds of them. It could be much more correct if we say "Until now attempts to explain Physical Laws on the basement of concept
of Aether are not successful". And it is true. Until now each attempt led us to some physico-mathematical nonsense.
Unfortunately, the concept of Aether is compromised by huge number of emotional amateur publications filled with unsubstantiated thoughts which are supposed to be accepted for granted as some kind of religious postulates. This is of course unacceptable. There are also great number of publications with foggy mathematical constructions which lead to nowhere and have no clear treatment and explanation. Very often such developers ("Aetherians") take the mission to destroy and reject existing Physical Theory in order to advertise their belief in paranormal phenomena. Therefore "Aetherians" have the reputation of lightminded unserious people and are not accepted by the scientific community.
Nevertheless the concept of Aether is so attractive, that taking a risk to get the label of "Aetherian", I publish here my variant of Aether Theory, which is able to perform the synthesis of the Physical Laws and to give them
the unified explanation. In my work I use the scientific cognition method and develop the Aether Theory on the basement of small set of initial hypothesises by means of further accurate logical considerations in a usual physical and
mathematical manner. But of course the theory under construction is not trivial. Simple ways of theory construction were investigated far ago by other scientists and did not bring desired results. Hence it is required some unusual decision on the border of common sense. I hope that such solution of the problem is proposed in my
works on Aether Theory.
My variant of Aether Theory may be critisized on the level of initial settings and imaginations. If they are acceptable then all further theoretical conclusions can be easily checked and verified by any qualified physicist. I think about Aether as about ideal (inviscous) moving universal media of high density (in contrast with other known aether theories), which is subjected to the hydrodynamic laws. In ideal continuum media the friction forces are absent. According to well known D'Alambert-Euler paradox evenly moving through ideal media body meets no pressure resistance regardless the media density. The ideal media resists only to the accelerated body motion. Acceleration forces may be calculated by well known method of joined masses. Because of high density of aether these forces may have big values and are qualified in Physics as inertia forces.
In my theory barion (common) matter is represented by vortex structures of gasous aether. In the centers of these vorteces the dense kernels of liquid aether are situated. At the kernel borders the phase change of gasous aether into liquid aether occurs. This provides the infinite continuous in time process of absorbtion of gasous aether by all material objects on the level of elementary particles. This is striking difference of my theory from other similar theories. During absorbtion the radial flow of aether to the every material elementary particle center takes place and it creates the gravitaion action on other material objects. Electro-magnetic interactions are explained by common properties of vortex structures. It is known that vortex structures in ideal (non-viscous) continuum media exist for ever. And only under definite conditions the vortex structures may appear, disappear, may be separated or merged. So they demonstrate the behavior of common material particles. The analogy can be continued farther. The mathematical model of hydrodynamics allows to explain all basic Physical Laws. This concept I try to develop.
My variant of "aerodynamic" description of Physical Laws is developed successfully and no dead end is observed. The use of Aetherodynamics as the basement of Physics indicates that the Laws of various parts of Physics have unique explanation. If my theory is correct then it means significant step forward in cognition of the nature of Physical Laws. It is very remarkable fact because nowadays existing Physical Theory does not explain but just fixes the laws on the level of phenomenological description. Let us take for example the Law of universal gravity. Nicely working Newton's formula does not have explanation. How one body acts onto another through empty space? What is mass? Why we have square of distance in the denominator? Why formulas for gravity and electric forces look similar? Existing classic theory gives no answer. It only says something about "field", but what are these "fields"? - Again nobody knows. Mathematical definition of fields explains field behavior but says nothing about its nature. My Aetherodynamic treatment of Physical Laws gives simple and clear understandable answers on all of such questions. And these answers are not only qualitative but also quantitative.
For understanding of my Aetherodynamics it is necessary to be familiar with classic course of Physics for Universities and with basic laws of hydrodynamics.
Since my first publication on the Aetherodynamics (1997) already about ten years passed away. The theory step-by-step becomes known. The opinions are various (from "remarkable" to "absurdous"). Most misunderstandings appear due to the huge density of Aether gas and liquid. By definition the value of density is the mass included into the unity volume. The mass of one cubic metre of aetherial gas more than million
times exceeds the mass of one cubic metre of water. Why? Many people could not understand this and be in peace with the fact that material bodies have "porous" structure. Interatomic distances are for many times higher than the sizes of atomic nucleus. The most of aether flows through material objects as through a mesh. Accordingly to the joined mass method the actual inertial and gravitational mass of material body is very much (million times) less than the mass of aether in the volume of this body. This small joined mass represents inertial mass of the body.
For me any critics especially qualified critics is very valuable, useful and interesting. I collect critical remarks and try to take it into account.
It is necessary to point out that the idea of universal aether, which lays in the basement of my work, is proposed before me in many studies by many various authors. The review of research history may be found in my books. Here I recommend also the books of
professor Vladimir A. Atsukovski, who is the enthusiast and the popularizer of moving universal aether idea.
|
