One of the major requirements for the Theory of Everything is to unite quantum effects and gravity. Quantum effects are dominant at the very small scale and gravity at the large scale (planetary mechanics and such). There’s of course plenty of area in between where both effects must be considered.
In my posts I’ve talked mostly about the very tiny scale. However, upon watching the very well made Einstein and Eddington movie, I realized that the theory of steric refraction should say something about gravity. Both in the movie and in real life, Einstein had devised his general theory of relativity to explain gravity in 1915, but only when Arthur Eddington showed in 1919 with photographic evidence taken during a solar eclipse that gravity bend light as Einstein predicted, did Einstein become world-famous. Prior to 1919 Einstein was quite known among physicists, but not the celebrity that he became after the publication of these results.
So, what did Einstein predict? That the mass of the sun would bend the light coming from stars behind it, passing it on its way to the Earth. Apparently, Newton’s law of gravity also considers mass to bend light, so the discovery was that the amount of bending was better predicted by Einstein than by Newton.
Next, you might ask, “What does your theory predict?” The short answer is: nothing quantitative, yet.
However, I do have a qualitative guess. It relates to the shift of refractive index of air to that of vacuum. That is, in air, the refractive index is 1.000277. This is pretty close to 1, but not exactly one. In a perfect vacuum the refractive index is exactly one. But is there such a thing as a perfect vacuum? The simple answer is, no. The apparent vacuum of space is filled with hydrogen. And hydrogen has a refractive index that is dependent on its concentration.
So, what does this mean, though? Well, if we consider that hydrogen molecules are never separate, but knotted together into supramolecular loops that are folded into supramolecular shells, this means that the larger the shell, the smaller its refractive index. This means that the farther in space from visible bodies of mass (stars, planets, etc.) hydrogen ‘finds itself’, the larger its supramolecular shell. And subsequently the closer to 1 its refractive index is. Conversely, the closer to visible bodies of mass hydrogen is, the smaller its supramolecular shells. And subsequently the furthest from 1 its refractive index is. In all honesty anywhere in space, the refractive index of hydrogen is very close to 1, but even a small difference is important.
We can ignore for a while why supramolecular shells cause light to refract and just consider what this collection of supramolecular shells of different sizes looks like. In this video I took a waterman polyhedron, or a sphere made of spheres, but replaced the outer spheres with smaller waterman polyhedra:
This is an illustration of the near vacuum of space. It shows that the concentration of hydrogen cannot decrease linearly. Rather, there is a hypothetical center, where the hydrogen concentration is extremely small, and the supramolecular shells are very large. And the further from the ‘empty center’ one goes, there is a point where hydrogen concentration is so large that the larger shells fold into smaller shells. When the diameter of the shell is reduced to 1/4, the area of the shell is reduced to 1/16 but its volume is reduced to 1/64. This means that the single large shell split into 16 smaller shells, they take up a quarter of the volume of the original shell.
So how do these supramolecular shells interact with light? Well, this is more or less the core of the Theory of Everything -manuscript: the photochemistry of hydrogen gas. Or more specifically the reinterpretation of the Rydberg formula, based on supramolecular shells of hydrogen. The smaller the shell, the smaller the wavelength of light (or supraphoton) with which it interacts. With very small supramolecular shells, the energy of the supraphoton can be so high that the whole shell dissociates to protons and electrons. However, in the vacuum of space the supramolecular shells of hydrogen are already so large that they don’t really dissociate anymore. In fact, most of the shells are probably so large that they don’t interact with light anymore. This is observed in most of matter being dark matter.
Ok, and what about the Aether in the title? Before Einstein, (luminiferous) aether was postulated as the medium for the propagation of light. The idea was that space was filled with something that carried light and not a vacuum. This was considered necessary, as light was observed to behave like a wave and waves require a medium to travel in. Well, aether is mostly unnecessary, but not completely. I mean, what else is a proverbial sea of gaseous supramolecular shells of hydrogen than aether. However, as the refractive index of these shells can be rounded up to 1, this means that any light that moves in the space of vacuum does not look like a wave, but more like a flat circle of dots (elementary particles of energy).
My current hypothesis for refraction is that a supramolecular shell of gas acts as a really weak lens. If the diameter of the ring-shaped supraphoton (read more here) matches the supramolecular shell, it can be absorbed. If it’s smaller, the movements of the dots in the shell makes the dots in the supraphoton to rotate. For a while I was baffled by the idea of a ‘solid’ ring of dots going through a ‘solid’ wall of hydrogen molecules, until I realized that this isn’t too far off from Newton’s cradle:
That is, a dot in the supraphoton is absorbed by the supramolecular shell and a dot in the supramolecular shell is emitted. To the observer it appears as if the supraphoton passed through the supramolecular shell unaffected, even though some of its dots going in are not the same as the ones coming out.
I think I’ll leave aether at least for today. I still don’t know whether I’ll include any of this in my revised Theory of Everything -manuscript. If I do, I will need to get a better handle on the concept. What I presented here is more like an idea than a proper theory. But perhaps it has what it takes to become one.
Comments