21 Noise

The first clue that the aether might be ‘noisy’, even dominated by noise, is in the question of light detection. Light spreads out in the manner of a wave, and this means that very little of the emitted energy is available for detection at any point. Current theory accepts, incorrectly as it appears, that all the emitted energy arrives at a single reception event. Since it considers any existence between emission and detection as more mathematical than real, it talks about this detection as the ‘collapse of the wavefunction’, and the destruction of a photon. The new model does not support any of this. Unphysical talk about light sounds like nonsense because it is nonsense.

Both aspects of wave detection suggest that the background medium is noisy to the point of being ‘full’. This is a further postulate, that most emitted energy escapes the local area, creating a high noise level in the aether. This in turn is available to add to a local signal elsewhere, permitting a low level signal to trigger a detection event.

Note that this background energy will also trigger reception noise, changes in detection apparatus that are not related to a specific light emission. These ‘spontaneous’ detections are well known and have to be accounted for in interpreting data. Aspect called it ‘subtraction of accidentals’.

This is what we mean by the background being ‘full’ of wave energy, to the point where it spills over into spurious ‘detections’. The key element of this that needs further testing is that a low level signal can trigger detection, with most of the captured energy coming from the noisy background. This has further theoretical consequences, as we shall see.

And the idea that the ‘background’ might be noisy is far from new or fringe, even in a science that purports to abhor a background medium. Paul Dirac, discussing quantum electrodynamics, says: ‘The vacuum state must contain many particles, which may be pictured as in a state of transient existence with violent fluctuations.’[i] Indeed, this idea is essential to his successful theory.

Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, in their epic work on ‘Gravitation’, agree:

‘No point is more central than this, that empty space is not empty. It is the seat of the most violent physics. The electromagnetic field fluctuates. Virtual pairs of positive and negative electrons, in effect, are continually being created and annihilated, and likewise … pairs of other particles.’

‘The enormous factor from nuclear densities ~1014 g/cm3 to the density of field fluctuation energy in the vacuum ~1094 g/cm3, argues that elementary particles represent a percentage-wise almost completely negligible change in the locally violent conditions that characterize the vacuum. … In other words, elementary particles do not form a really basic starting point to the description of nature.  Instead they represent a first order correction to vacuum physics.’[ii]

Noise is also the suggested solution to another problem hinted at earlier. In the observed world, particles of matter have a longevity that is not evident in macroscopic vortices, and is undermined in this model by the continual loss of both wave and rotational energy to the surrounding medium. What we need is hard evidence, just one substantial example will do, that a noisy environment can re-supply energy to a rotational structure, enabling that structure to endure. We have one in the Great Red Spot of Jupiter, and indeed there are recreations of this energy supply effect in the laboratory.

This implies an equilibrium between the noisy background and the vortex ring particle, which further suggests that the sizes of these particles are determined by their noisy environment, producing the uniformity of particles that we observe. Misner et al state that ‘No acceptable explanation for the miraculous identity of particles of the same type has ever been put forward.’[iii]

One test of this suggestion would be if an extreme environment produced significant differences in these otherwise identical particles. Professor Humphrey Maris, a British physicist and expert in liquid helium from Brown University, Rhode Island, gained notoriety through his claims that the electron has been ‘split’, albeit under unusual conditions[iv].

[i] Paul Dirac, ‘The Principles of Quantum Mechanics’, page 308

[ii] Charles W Misner, Kip S Thorne, John Archibald Wheeler, ‘Gravitation’ (WH Freeman, NY, 1973). Both quotes are from page 1202.

[iii] Gravitation, page 1215

[iv] Humphrey Maris: “Electrons and Cavitation in Liquid Helium”, (with J. Classen, C-K. Su, M. Mohazzab), Phys. Rev. 57 (1998) 3000

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments are closed.