Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Vibration, density and the aether

  1. Oct 1, 2007 #1
    I have had an idea now for a while and am just wondering if the direction along the path of thinking that I am using is followed in any well established theorys.

    The basis for my thoughts is that mass/particles are ultimately vibrations of that which the vaccume of space consists of.

    Similar to how hot air is vibvrating more than cold air and is thus less dense than cold air, mass is vibrating and thus less dense than that which the vacuum of space consists of. Following that gravity is the result of the pressure of the surounding vacuum acting on mass. One object would attract another because there would be less of the vacuum between them and thus less presser exerted form the other objects directon.

    I think that this type of model may also be able to explain black holes.
    Heavier matter is heavier because it's vibration is more intense. As very heavy bodies becomes compacted localized vibration becomes more intense, but when matter becomes too tightly compacted, it has no more room to vibrate. At the center of the black hole, mass has been converted back into vacuum. Outward from its center mass is at maximum vibration.

    I know that this is highly imaginative, I'm not trying to advertise my own theory, I'm just wondering if there exists any credible theories that attribute mass as vibrational energy?
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 1, 2007 #2
    I wasn't trying to say that I had a theory. When I said I was not trying to advertise my own theory I meant that this isn't a theory. Thanks for your answers though. I was just wondering based on my preconceved interpretations, which is the direction I would be most interested in pursuing research. Not that it is going to lead me anywhere special or that I will end up accomplishing anything special. I'm just bored. A appreciate not being too hard on me though.
  4. Oct 16, 2007 #3

    I've got no idea if it goes with any known theories, however would these mass vibrations not disperse in the mass of vacuum around them...like with your analogy, hot air will turn cold. Also I think pressure in your situation is a result of gravity, not gravity creating pressure. Why would there be less of a vacuum and thus less of a pressure between masses? I believe this would imply gravity is a repulsive force as opposed to attractive. But anyway you could think of the vacuum as a sea of liquid and the mass vibrations as less dense balls of gas for simplicities sake. As soon as there was any pressure deviation in this liquid/vacuum, it would disperse over the whole system, so liquid/vacuum pressure will remain pretty constant, and not allow gravity...however you interpret it. I think there are a few other flaws, however I like the creativity of your idea, and I think you're heading down the lines of aether to a degree.

  5. Oct 16, 2007 #4
    Lol yes you would be heading down the lines of aether, considering you mentioned it in the title.
  6. Oct 16, 2007 #5
    mass x (speed of the light in vacuum)^2 = h (Planck's constant). frequency of the wave

    Relativity<--------------------------------------------------> Quantum Theory

    Don't know if you have some ideas concerning the two theories mentionned above.
  7. Oct 17, 2007 #6
    I guess mass would be a standing wave of some sort. Because I'm not completely familiar with standing waves I should probably stand back on this though.

    I'm not sure what would conditions would be necessary to create mass as a standing wave, but if I had to guess, I would say maybe it is a phenomena of momentum and inerta. Maybe the wave length that is required for electromagnetic waves to form particles is much shorter than say gamma rays. Maybe at a certain point, an electromagnetic wave can be short enough to become a standing wave. This may seem to also go along with observation of atomic bombs, stars etc. When atoms split, they release the shortest wave lengths we see. Maybe spliting atoms involves shortening the wavelength enough to let the energy escape.

    Hot air rises in colder air because of a higher state of vibration. What makes air in a higher state of vibration less dense? There is more of the vacuum of space per square centimeter of area. What does this vacuum do? It trys to pennetrate mass. The denser the mass, the less penetration. Less penetration, more gravity.

    On the atomic level I have suggested though that atoms are made of the vacuum and exist as perpetual vibrational motion of the vacuum. I guess the problem I see now is:
    If atoms and vacuum are of the same thing, then what pennetrates. Would there need to be more to the vacuum than one thing? For example vacuum in vibration would be less dense than vacuum at rest, but what would fill the extra area created by a less dense area of vacuum? Less vacuum in it, more of what?
  8. Oct 18, 2007 #7


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Think of mass as a tiny spacetime volume with inertia. It's a very useful concept for geometrical treatments. All the tiny inertial points attract each other.
  9. Oct 19, 2007 #8
    Correct in that hot air rises as is less dense, but moreso that the denser air will sink as has a greater force acting on it....i believe anyway. No gravity and it will not rise. It is not because there is a vacuum pressure decrease directly above the hot air.

    Ok so if gravity was a result of surrounding vacuum pressure, how do you explain the lower vacuum pressure between them, and then how do you explain that this low vacuum pressure exists only in the area between masses and does not level out. I.e. imagine a container that has a vacuum inside it (the vacuum in the container representing the lower vacuum pressure and the air representing normal vacuum pressure). Imagine this container magically disappears, so you are left with this difference in pressure. The vacuum will cease to exist pretty quickly as the air molecules fill up the vacuum occupied area. So in your case you need some way to show that this does not happen with your lower pressure of the vacuum between the masses.

    Maybe if you switched it round and left gravity as per normal, and made the vacuum less dense (which it is) as vibrates more, and normal mass has little vibration (or temperature). However this model is simply classical physics, with a few unnecessary add ons so I suppose you'll have to stick with your idea.

  10. Oct 19, 2007 #9
    The deeper underwater you go, the more pressure. Not because the water really becomes denser, but because there is more water pushing down on you. Try to imagine the vacuum as an ocean and it is always pushing on matter from all sides.
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2007
  11. Oct 19, 2007 #10
    you can imaginatively give 'vacume' any properties you want, but you cannot change the tested facts.
    kcodon is right, and you cannot look at it as an ocean. It is devoid of matter. Therefore, lacking in material things like mass, weight, pressure, energy, ETC.
    Yes you are on the right track, but do your research. If you cannot afford schooling or are not of age yet, there are ample resources on the internet. I would also suggest subscribing to Scientific American Magazine. They are the leading public magazine in publication of scientific advancement, and have an almost sqeeky clean reputation. Research and you will find that you are not totally wrong. Do not get discourage, for I belive you have such the mind that you can do greater things in this world than you have previously imagined.
  12. Oct 20, 2007 #11
    First of all it is not true that the term pressure cannot be used to describe the vacuum of space. It may not make sense in classical physics, but Einstein's cosmological constant uses the terms "pressure" and "energy density" of the vacuum, and how they relate to eachother to explain the accellerating universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

    The other point I was making was not that the vacuum is a literal ocean, but that it is not just empty space. Whatever it is made of must have properties.
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2007
  13. Oct 22, 2007 #12
    TR345 what I was meaning was that the only reason there is water pressure (as an example) is that there is a force acting on all the water molecules, notably gravity, which yes causes there to be this increased pressure on you. Imagine there was no gravity, there would be a constant pressure throughout the ocean, no matter how deep you went. My question to you is where is this constant force that can cause the pressure in the vacuum, in the same way gravity causes pressure. And then assuming you do have such a force, your vibrating masses could only move against the direction of this force, in the same way hot air moves against gravity. If it was a multi directional force then how do you explain the localised low pressure zones, as with my last post...which you still have not answered as of yet.

    If for example, we say there is a vacuum pressure, analogous to the universe being a big balloon, and the air pressure inside being the vacuum pressure, then yes you could have low/high pressure zones due to vibration of the aether, however it would cause no movement, as the pressure would be equal from all sides; unless you can explained the reason for a lower pressure zone between masses. This low pressure zone would then directly influence masses beside it, and the force acting would not be toward the center of mass, so falls short in this area i think.

    Also I too like the idea of the aether, though haven't read any papers to know if it makes scientific sense yet...it makes intuitive sense is all. The idea of one constituent particle is appealing, say in its normal state composing the vacuum through which EM waves travel, and in some other altered state, becomes mass. This other state could be due to vibration, or it could be to do with any other factors, for example the mass being a "constituent particle sink" pulling all these constituent particles that make up the vacuum in to it. Other matter becomes entrained in this motion of the constituent particles, and voile la, gravity. Thats off the top of my head there using my imagination, like avemt1 stated, but I do like the idea of aether, and theres some interesting sites out there.

    I used the term density loosely, as water is uncompressible obviously.
    The idea of aether.

  14. Oct 22, 2007 #13


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Einstein was opposed to ascribing ponderable properties to the vacuum of space. Read this brief transcript and see what you think:
  15. Oct 24, 2007 #14
    In fact it actually depends on the pov you adopt: within a conformal approach of the relativity (Einstein) vacuum is a synonym for "nothing", except perhaps the space-time continuum. If you look at the principles developed by the quantum theory (for example the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle; position-speed or energy-time), you can think of a permanent mechanism of creation and destruction of pairs of (particle-antiparticle) in vacuum. This mechanism plays a significant role in physics inside the matter.
  16. Oct 24, 2007 #15


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The vacuum of space is ascribed two properties in modern physics- permittivity and permissivity. Both properties serve to constrain the speed of light [which apparently would otherwise be inifinite]. You could consider these as 'ponderable' properties, but, this would insinuate a volume of empty space has a mass equivalence, however small. Observational evidence does not appear to support this premise.
  17. Oct 25, 2007 #16
    Effectively... but (and I know that such intervention is not wellcome; so I formulate it without any agressivity) where do you situate the dark energy in our universe if not in some of the volumes ? Just a question of someone who want to learn. I also know that some specialists do not need the dark eneergy problematic to get a coherent universe.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook