Could Quantum Fields be Aether?

Quantum fields give us a feeling as if there should be an ultimate stationary reference frame in our universe since the vacuum is not an empty space but is filled with these fields. This issue is quite non-trivial and I was talking also with professional physicists who were also confused about this topic. In this video, I explain briefly how quantum field theory was created and what these fields mean. It becomes very obvious why these fields can't serve as an ultimate stationary frame of reference in our universe since their Lagrangian densities are invariant under Lorentz transformations.

Attributions for vector graphics used in this video goes to:
lightnings: Designed by macrovector / Freepik

[DanielC]

Best and clearest explanation of quantum mechanics that I've encountered so far. I finally got it!

[monkerud]

it is a bit backwards to say virtual particles are quantum fluctuations, when you really only have uncertainties in the values of quantum fields in the vacuum, the whole virtual particle thing is just a ad hock short hand mental crutch, we never see them we only see their effects in terms of measured uncertainties in terms of changed distributions of outcomes. the idea of vitual particles or really particles at all is a split brained classical intuition threaded through a familiarity with quantum terminology in my opinion. what we really have is a field theory with predictions on the instrumentalist side, and we can't really talk about half way defining a particle ontology, the reason that people do it anyway is because it doesnt make sense to not do it, so we might as well go all the way to looking for a sensible version of qm and actually thinking about the quantum systems as classical well defined variables in some form that have the statistical behavior of quantum mechanics where we have checked it. the pure instrumentalist approach is to think only about effects of measurments apparatuses, and signals sent between them and a black box called nature, in truth the workings of the apparatuses also become a black box, where we only have circumstantial understanding of how they work in terms of having tested their effects, to some degree that is just how science works, but having working theories and ideas about why they work the way they do and the same with nature is necessary for thinking and also doesnt really hamper anything, and if we are to do that it makes no sense to think about that in a half way instrumental way, instead of a properly sound information theory motivated way, namely information in = information out, in all quantum theories the information out is lacking and the information in is lacking. the definite outcomes that we see must have some root in reality, just saying there is necessarily new information being generated is delusional, it is just giving up explaining things in a way that is flattering to the ego of the people who fail to see how to do that, and that is no way to do science, that is a rather scholastic twisting of your own arm to prove a linguistically satisfying answer to a problem you have no idea how to solve, it is our modern day version of sympathies and antipathies. "new information pops up in an experiement you did, and you don't know where it came from? well that must just be fundamental to reality i guess. " that is the kind of nonsense that is the antithesis of proper science. quantum mechanical probability calculus is only a mixture of independent and dependent variables in a classical theory of probability, and there is no reason to say there is anything new, we just think that because the classical version of it with a "statistics over other variables" postulate is crazy or breaks some rules we set for ourselves, that it is sensible to talk about quantum mechanics as something entierly new, when all it is, and all it ever could be is a paculiar theory of variables that depend upon each other and that has a quasi random generator for the outcomes we do not know, so it is like doing statistics over unknowns, with the outcomes depending on each other in the possible ways allowed by quantum mechanics. that could have been explained to you in 1850 by a decent statistician.

[vadymkvasha]

but does this explanation souds the same for the Higgs field? We always mention some speed through space and that speed is never bigger than c

[SampleroftheMultiverse]

Thanks for your interesting video.

Area under a curve is often equivalent to energy. Buckling of an otherwise flat field shows a very rapid growth of this area to a point. If my model applies, it may show how the universe’s energy naturally developed from the inherent behavior of fields.

Your subscribers might want to see this 1:29 minutes video showing under the right conditions, the quantization of a field is easily produced.

The ground state energy is induced via Euler’s contain column analysis. Containing the column must come in to play before over buckling, or the effect will not work. The sheet of elastic material “system”response in a quantized manor when force is applied in the perpendicular direction.
Bonding at the points of highest probabilities and maximum duration( ie peeks and troughs) of the fields “sheet” produced a stable structure when the undulations are bonded to a flat sheet that is placed above and below the core material.

Some say this model is no different than plucking guitar strings. You can not make structures with vibrating guitar strings or harmonic oscillators.


At this time in my research, I have been trying to describe the “U” shape formed that is produced before phase change.

In the model, “U” shape waves are produced as the loading increases and just before the wave-like function shifts to the next higher energy level.

Over-lapping all frequencies together using Fournier Transforms, can produce a “U” shape or square wave form.

Wondering if Feynman Path Integrals for all possible wave functions could be applicable here too?

If this model has merit, seeing the sawtooth load verse deflection graph produced could give some real insight in what happened during the quantum jumps between energy levels.

The mechanical description and white paper that goes with the video can be found on my LinkedIn and YouTube pages.

You can reproduce my results using a sheet of Mylar* ( the clear plastic found in some school essay folders.

Seeing it first hand is worth the effort!

[kylelochlann]

The local vacuum speed of light is a constant for all inertial observers is a consequence of the gravitational field and completely independent of the other fields living on top of it. Any pair of null separated events will have a coordinate speed equal to the speed along the geodesic of the observer (given some world-line with tangent vector, U, the norm of the tangent vector is g(U, U)=1).

[SpotterVideo]

What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein and the exploration of one extra spatial dimension by Lisa Randall and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? Is the following idea a “Quantized” model related to the “Vortex Theory” proposed by Maxwell and others during the 19th century?
In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit).
Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant.

In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.

1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface

137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.

The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)

If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature.

Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton.

[usic_imaging]

Wave equation(ripple) in free space since we can't isolate quanta transit as particle alone. The Unified Field logically is a periodic wave substrate and quanta transit behaviuor seperate from a static reference of any wave field.

[neotower]

I think you need to consider both spacetime separations, and then combine them somehow, this also sort considers an inverse to einsteins fields theory with a metric tensor component to map the time as a distance between the two observers, "Miro"

[marcoantoniazzi]

I don't understand why you can accept that 5:14 "there should be particles created and annihilated all around us" and that 5:23 the energy of the "field" is not zero, but you cannot accept that those particles go from and to the aether, because that is what aether is made of (sort of).

[ivornelsson]

Dear Lucas Rafaj,
I´ve watched several of your videos, and I really like your analytic and a bit critical cosmological sense.

IMHO, we have much too much unsolved and non-revisited cosmological dogmas and theories, including the very important question of Aether, which IMO is drowned in mathematical speculative mental constructs.

If you want a natural example of the aether concept, just take a reentering spacecraft getting heated up through the Earth’s atmosphere = the Earth´s "aethereal substance" by friction in the atmospheric density.

Everything, including light, and other EM frequencies meets a resistance media which slows down the objects and the EM-velocity, thus transferring energy to the media, so NOTHING is constant at all, and this also affects the cosmological disagreement on the assumed “cosmic expansion tension rate”.

OK, I could go on and on with cosmological questions and natural philosophical comments, but if you like a closer collaboration, just leave an email-address and I´ll contact you there.

Best Wishes

[monkerud]

and the ripple analogy is also somewhat wrong because the framework is a probability calculus, a photon is a wave that spreads of in different ways depending on the sources.

[bigbang]

zero point energy is basically ether, just we can't use the term ether because of mostly Einstein

[petroflorence]

When you give it back we're dose it go in its Feld you borrow when something occurs or you look at it through collision and it goes back to its field cos it goes back it dose not keep on its collision order in this area all go back to field if it's property you explain same thing

[readyfireaim]

The idea of the ether as a gas-like medium can also be accepted on the basis of the analysis of the behavior of elementary particles at their interactions.

The question arises how the particles of ether can be held in the composition of the elementary particles of matter, if ether is a gas?

The answer to this question is not difficult if we take into account that elementary particles of matter are toroidal vortex formations of compacted gas-like ether.

The basis for this statement is the fact that toroidal vortex formations are the only form of motion capable of holding a compacted gas in a closed volume.

[MGB-wzjz]

Why is 'promoting' t to operator status not an option? What problems would this give rise to?

[amit.o]

if qft demotes x from oprator to parameter to make it consistent with time then what about promoting time from parameter to oprator

[Gleem]

Also QFT was born from the Dirac Sea/Aether

[williambranch]

Maybe. SR is only true locally and in week gravity.

[philoso]

Remember that e = m*c*c is incomplete, as well as any equation concerning c*c. Complete?
e = m*(e0*u0)^-0.5, here e0 and u0 represents Aether.

It is unnecessary to invent Aether-field unless we are mathematicians wearing a physicist hat.

[raminsedighian]

The modern aether itself is completely virtual and consists of a special granularity other than quantum fields, and it has the ability to emerges space-time and particles from itself ! But in QFT space-time is assumed fundamental!