Optional – EXTENDED SUMMARY – OFF-SET SECTION (for article: What We See and What We Don’t See) 

Scope:  In another ‘Optional Offset Section’, we provided more details about the origins of the different elementary particles and other basic particles.  And we also explored an alternate ‘bottoms up’ approach.  (A ‘clickable link’ is provided from my article’s ‘main text’ to that Offset Section.)  And some of its intended conclusions are summarized below, as well as some more detailed conclusions from my article’s ‘main text’.

Some Summary Details:  We attempted to conceptualize a model of aether and aether particles that would be useful in addressing at least some aspects of aether behavior.  In a sense, we applied an ‘ideal gas law’, and the concept of ‘equipartition of energy’ ((i.e., perhaps applicable between a spinning proton and a ‘colliding’ aether ‘particle’ (or small ethereal ‘bubble’) traveling at velocity v_ae)).  We thus calculated that a typical small aether mass (m_ae) is 2.8x10^-65 kgm, approximately.  (Perhaps that is typical of many important ‘sub-structures’ often inside a still larger spinning aether structure.)  From that small aether mass and ethereal density considerations; we calculated the typically nearly-void distance between significant aether particles (perhaps sub-structures) to be roughly s_ae = 1.4x10^-15 meter.

More Summary Detail:  A question naturally arises: Why can’t a proton spin at a constant speed and, at the same time, exist in infinitely small sizes, (not just limited by some minimum, i.e., not smaller than a specific ‘quantum’ size)?  After all; with less and less mass, it would not produce a greater outward pressure (if its spinning speed could be constant), and therefore it could still be counter-balanced by the high-pressure aether.

I think there are two possible theories to explain that quantum minimum, one using a ‘bottoms up’ approach and the other using a ‘top down’ approach.  And they are likely theoretically related, although not obvious at a glance:

Theory #1 (a ‘bottoms up’ approach):  We have theorized that the energy of the spinning proton must be approximately equal to the ‘average’ energy of an ‘aether particle’ colliding with it.  So we have attempted to apply that sort of ‘equal partition of energy’ principle to ‘those aether particles’ and the proton.  Thus, a proton acquires a ‘non-decreasable’ (minimum) amount or ‘quantum’ of energy; and the energy is housed in, roughly, the (fixed) highest possible density of material, and in as efficiently shaped volume as possible.  And, thus, it can not exist in infinitesimally small size (and mass) – for the following reasons:

The outward pressure of a body’s surface is proportional to the body’s ‘internal energy’ divided by the ‘volume of its body’.  (Note:  ‘Energy’/ Volume = ‘force x length’/ length ‘cubed’  =  force / area = ‘pressure’ or “units that have the ‘dimensions’ of pressure”.)  Thus, if that ‘fixed’ energy were stuffed into an ever decreasing proton volume; that would cause an infinitely high surface pressure to develop on that proton’s surface, outwardly.  And, thus, that proton’s outward surface pressure would rise; and exceed the aether’s counter pressure; and thus cause instability, (i.e., the proton would ‘pop’!). 

(And, incidentally, if the proton’s volume were decreased without limit, that would also necessitate that the proton develop infinitely increased internal speeds or spins to maintain that fixed quantum of energy.) 

So we might conjecture (in a ‘bottoms-up approach’) this description:  “That that spinning proton, with the fixed quantum of energy, arises and exists – ‘as a concentrated mass (and made of the highest density matter existing), but yet within the least amount of volume and associated mass still allowing that’ without the pressure imbalances arising as described above!”  (I.e., Therefore, the proton consists of a unique ‘quantum’ amount of mass, and not less than that.) 

Theory #2  (a ‘top-down’ approach, inserted 8-15-2006):  This approach is based upon an ‘equipartition of angular momentum’ concept, instead of only an ‘equipartition of energy’ concept.  In our theory #2, there is an average amount of angular momentum associated with the various spinning balls of aether, or vortices of aether, (and, incidentally, that amount relates to the value of Planck’s constant).  And any compact proton (an ‘elementary particle’ to hopefully arise) must acquire an equal amount of angular momentum, i.e., a ‘spin’, to equal the average amount of angular momentum of those ‘spinning ethereal entities’ – so the proton can be stable. 

If the compact (highest possible density of material) proton spins at some fixed speed (say nearly ‘C’); it must spin with a certain minimum amount of compact mass to still be able to match the average ‘quantum’ of angular momentum of the adjacent aether balls or vortices.  I.e., with lesser amount of mass; the proton (even spinning at maximum speed ‘C’) would fail to at least match the nearby aether’s spin; thus imbalances would arise; and, thus, such proton could not exist. 

A reminder:  “(the density of the aether times its ‘average’ velocity ‘squared’) roughly equals (the density of the compact ‘elementary particle’ times its ‘average’ velocity ‘squared’).”  I.e., the limit of the latter’s traveling speed is roughly ‘C’, and its spinning speed averaging perhaps a quarter to half that (C).

(Important:  Maybe the quantum of proton energy, thus created, also helps create somewhat similar quanta of energy in the aether nearby, some with a little more and some with a little less energy.  And, say, ‘puffy’ balls of aether form, containing those energy quanta; and groups of those ethereal balls form fancy ethereal patterns.  And those formed ethereal patterns may be simple ‘close-packed’ spherical patterns, i.e., that fit around one another so neatly and well.  And those fine fits likely facilitate cyclical ‘feedbacks’ and additional stability.   From those patterns, there arises even more structural, stable quanta of energy in the aether, and they may further help maintain the stability of various basic particle masses, and likely even the electron.) 

Optional comment:  Our two approaches, above, (a ‘bottoms-up’ approach and a ‘top-down’ approach) may be related and even inherently ‘intertwined’.  Given a super-energized aether, and given the many smallest major quanta of energies making it up (i.e., ‘aether balls’); the highest density globs (elementary particles) may form and spin around with energy about equal to that of those smallest major quanta ‘aether balls’.  And then, larger volume units of aether may form with such amounts of spinning aether sufficient to match the angular momentum of those (previously mentioned) elementary particles. 

And similarly, except in reverse for the ‘top-down’ approach - the following:  There could be relatively large spinning ethereal balls -- acting to determine the spinning compact elementary particles (that form with such size as to have sufficient angular momentum to match that of those large ethereal balls) – And those elementary particles acting, in turn, to determine such discrete sizes of small ethereal balls (on the twelve or so sides adjacent to each elementary particle) as would be sufficient to nearly equal the energy of that elementary particle.  And nice small ethereal balls form, and larger ethereal ball patterns form around them, “in ‘close-packing of spheres’ patterns”, and feedback and reinforcement occurs. 

So both approaches may reinforce the other!  A reminder again: (the density of the aether times its ‘average’ velocity ‘squared’) roughly equals (the density of the ‘elementary particle’ times its ‘average’ velocity ‘squared’).

---  END of ‘Optional - Extended Summary Section’  ---

Click to return to Main Text -- ‘General Overview’

Home

(Readers’ comments always welcome)
For my Email and address, see my Homepage