This blog follows a series on the history of the death of the luminiferous aether and opens a new series about the reconception of the physical universe, including quantum fields and spacetime, as a true material with evident elastic properties. This is not a new theory, but a reimagining of extant theory and mathematics.

In this introductory piece, I’m first going to explain the utility of an old idea - an elastic conception of the physical universe. Next, I’ll show the relationship between elasticity and quantum models of atomic behavior. Finally, I will briefly introduce my proposal for an empirically-consistent atomic structure – an elastic atom that’s capable of generating the evident dynamics of atomic motion including light and gravity. This final section represents, effectively, a mechanical interpretation of quantum mechanics that finally offers an explanation for the existence of electromagnetic fields as the observable action of a hypothesized, subatomic fiber. 

As this is only an introduction to the topic, other blogs will soon follow. The goal is to interpret and physicalize spooky quantum effects surrounding gravity, light, and all the rest.

1. Physics Needs A Material Mediator to Explain Fundamental Field Effects

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the exiting model obsolete” -Buckminster Fuller

Sound waves are speed-limited because it takes time to propagate the forced deformation of a thick gas or liquid. Similarly, phonon waves in condensed matter are speed-limited due to the necessary deformation of a lattice. In all empirical cases, the speed-limit of propagating waves is explained by the action-reaction rearrangement of subunits within the specified material, be it dense gas, liquid, or solid. Equations describing the relationship between speed of sound closely mirror Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetism(see Table 1 from Martins). Even exotic phases of matter like those quasi-liquid plasmas at the surface of the sun display seismic propagation of speed-limited waves. Wave is an action that requires an actor!

We know, from every empirical investigation, that light also propagates as speed-limited waves. This is has been empirically apparent in the motions of stars since the early 20th century. It is reiterated as a fundamental axiom of contemporary fundamental physics. And yet, for somewhat nebulous reasons, science no longer expresses curiosity about the substance that hosts the waves of light. 

Wait! I know what you’re thinking – light is now understood as a self-propagating electromagnetic field. While I’m aware of the accuracy of this description, we must agree that it is incomplete since a ‘field’ is not actually a material through which a wave can propagate. Recall, a field is merely a region of activity – be it electromagnetic fields, gravitational fields, temperature fields, or anything else you wish to parameterize into a beloved field. A field can only be rationalized as a set of locations where some thing is doing something. Hence, retiring to the position that a field (effect) caused the effect of light is a rather tautological position – is it not? What is that ‘thing’, which is doing the field’s work anyways? For centuries, scholars asked this very question.

Actually, throughout most of post-enlightenment history, light was understood much the same as any other propagating wave in a material. It wasn’t until the advent of relativity, the photoelectric quanta, and the supremacy of “fields” in 20th century that light waves lost their host. Why did that happen? Probably because “fields” are perfectly sufficient for engineering tasks. Indeed, there has been a lot of confusion about the different methods necessary for science versus technology. For engineering, a simple quantitative schematic is usually sufficient to build fantastical machinery. For instance, so long as we possess Ohm’s Law to relate our charge-based measurables - Voltage, Current, and Resistance - we can design and construct all sorts of useful electrical circuits without even the faintest idea of what the operative word, “charge” actually means!

For ages, Western natural philosophy and physical science was predicated upon the assumption of an invisible mediator of the mysterious phenomena of light, gravity, electricity, and magnetism. I’ve begun telling the long story of the life and death of the aether over here and will continue that saga in due time. For now, what is important is to understand that the Aether was killed by expert consensus around the turn of the 20thcentury. This was in large part due to a) physicist’s inability to detect the elusive substance and b) the proficiency of relativistic theories to describe dynamic appearances without undetectable physical mediators. 

When physicists couldn’t detect a substance that spanned the distance between atoms, they resigned all hope for ever doing so. It occurs to me, however, that the reason they couldn’t detect this substance was largely due to the fact that the mysterious substance was perfectly capable of rearranging in response to any perturbations. This boils down to the 19th century’s disintegrated conception of the aether material: the late great thinkers had imagined a substance wholly differentiated from that of the atoms themselves. In other words, the null result of the Michelson & Morley (MiMo) aether tests had merely disproved the existence of a separate medium acting as backdrop to the matter of everyday reality.

But – as an alternative, what if everything, atom and mediator, was cut of the same aetheric cloth? In this case, there would be no way to detect the substance through inferometers or any other method for the simple reason that the aether, an integrated extension of the atoms themselves, would instantaneously rearrange in response to any material probe. In looking back over history, it becomes quickly apparent that many of the most powerful philosophers and physicists pondered this solution by degrees. The modern notion of quantum vacuum action is a great example – it is clear, for example, that the vacuum is not truly empty but truly ablaze with all sorts of detectable energetic occurrences. Some remain hard at work on the problem, while most have apparently enjoyed the mediatorless paradigm popularized since Einstein.  

See, Einstein saved the day for the 19th/20th century aether detectives, because his mathematics accurately described the dynamics of bodies and light without reference to any mediator whatsoever. This was an extraordinary coup for mathematically inclined theorists: quantum mechanics could make progress towards increasingly refined quantitative models without worrying about the physical conundrums that remained in the wake of the null MiMo result. Interestingly, despite the divergence between theory and reality, today’s go-to model for gravity, General Relativity, is completely consistent with a physical interpretation of the empirical findings of quantum theory (see Section 2).

Undeterred by the lack of a physical foundation for quantum, many theoreticians remain happy to reify the relativistic variables time and space into an “as if” physical fabric. But dig into the notion and it quickly becomes apparent that the fabric of spacetime is a mere analogy – an index of events that cannot comprise a physical material. 

The unanswered question at the bottom of all this, is how can we be satisfied with a physical science entirely devoid of physical actors? Is that not the proposal of the mystic and the showman? Einstein, himself seemed to understand this initially, as he revealed during his speech at Leyden. He said:

“What is fundamentally new in the aether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the aether of [the past] consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places…”

The statement here concludes with “connections with matter,” indicating that Einstein made the same mistake MiMO succumbed to, believing the aether was separate from atoms (matter) despite recognizing the apparent interconnectivity. This mistake subsequently snowballs into an important mistaken conflation of material substance with the gravitationally defined quality of mass*. Later, we will explore the possibility that we ought not expect sub-atomic to display mass, for the simple reason that the composite atomic architecture alone can explain gravitation. 

Regretfully, this particular mention of a connective aether by Einstein is among the last allusions to the mechanical we will find his writings. His elegant yet heavy mathematical papers opened the floodgates for a new world of physical theory entirely devoid of material actors. Einstein seems to have gone along with it – perhaps the fame was too intoxicating, or perhaps the momentum was just too great for the later reassessment of basic fundamental notions. 

Some may remain under the illusion that the quantum atom is built of material actors, since the word “particle” is often used to refer to subatomic processes like the electron or proton. But what you will quickly learn after a week in a basic quantum physics course, is that a quantum particle is simply a particular solution to a dynamic wave equation. Particles are measurements that emerge from the state of a field, where a field is actually a predictable set of dynamic effects. Therefore, the particle is a rather circular reification of an action into an actor. If you still remain unconvinced that a Higgs boson, or any other quantum particle is an action rather than a substance,you should have a look at the evidenceI’ve laid out in a separate piece.

Maxwell, father of electromagnetic theory and the notion of the mediatorless light wave, wrote,

“… sciences are founded on the relations between physical laws and the laws of numbers.”

This seems to be quite a popular misconception. In actuality, sciences are founded on expression of cause and effect. While a law or numerical relationship might capture and parameterize events as they unfold, it cannot be regarded as causal. Physical sciences require physical actors for causation – any insinuation to the contrary demands the invocation of the supernatural. Hence, I am not surprised to find the same man who penned the above quote as also having said:

“I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen that none will work without God.”

As a biophysicist by training, I find this historic transition away from physical materials in physics to be eerily disturbing. Cells don’t perform their tasks through math or other abstractions, they build structures and exert pressures upon them. These structures, ranging from actin filaments to vesicles, function as mediators of all the cell’s activities. Even the somewhat abstract notion of chemistry, is predicated upon atoms, which are at base surface-bound actors in various phases of dynamicity. A rational mind requires physical structure to the universe – the alternative is expressly incoherent.

To summarize; Einstein’s physical relativism is the most accurate description of gravitation. Electromagnetic activity, including light, emerges from the very same field equations. Quantum mechanics – our modern description of the atom – turns out to be anything but mechanical. This means we, as a civilization, possess an essentially complete quantitative statement of the laws of basic atomic-scale phenomena. And yet, our esteemed model does not even attempt to address the underlying physical actors at play – nor does it make mention of the mechanism by which these actors accomplish their elusive feats. For such a picture to emerge, physical interpretations of the empirical science are required.

2. An Elastic Interatomic Web Physicalizes Spacetime and Field Effects  

“Fundamental progress has to do with the re-interpretation of ideas.” Alfred North Whitehead

Columbia University was the birthplace of much of our modern atomic notions so I was extremely excited to be doing my graduate studies there back at the start of 2013. Thinking practically, I had avoided a heavy theoretical mathematics track to pursue what I perceived as the extremely pragmatic biophysics. 

The experimental component of my PhD revolved around a tool called the atomic force microscope (AFM). The idea is simple, using piezo electronics, you drive a tiny elastic micro-cantilever into resonant oscillations and scan a surface to produce nano-scale 3D images of a surface. All rigid structures are subject to such drive oscillations, each object with a unique fundamental frequency, or tone. Architects designing skyscrapers utilize this knowledge to avoid over excitation during seismic events – and are keenly aware of their structure’s resonant frequencies. 

I began to see all structures as elastic by degrees - including atoms. Afterall, the best model we have for the shape of atomic orbitals is derived from harmonic vibration of a spherical model of the hydrogen. Like the AFM cantilever, each atomic structure must be excited into vibration through connectivity to a wider grid. It occurred to me that this elastic network model jives quite nicely with the popular ‘fabric of spacetime’ worldview concerning the fundamental nature of our universe. 

Going deep into the history books I found that were it not for the MiMo catastrophe, we might already be sitting on an elastic conception of the universe. The early light-as-wave proponents, Fresnel and Huygens, each originally conceived of the aether as an elastic substance. A 19th century Irish mathematician, James MacCullagh, even derived an entire electromagnetic work-up of Faraday’s experimentation based on the aether as elastic solid. Gareth Samuel, over at SeeThePattern has done a great job telling this story, so please go down that rabbit hole when you have time. The modulus of elasticity, is actually named for Thomas Young, who coincidentally developed of the first mathematical descriptions of light that could adequately address diffraction. 

These classical physicists had no problem conceiving of the aether as an elastic material. Were it not for the failure to detect this substance we might have never been buried beneath the preeminence of physical relativism. But did the relativistic treatment of spacetime actually replace the elastic aether? Not at all - the two concepts are absolutely equivalent. I highly recommend Science Asylum’s (SA) rundown of this equivalence. Here’s another version of the derivation. I’ll summarize the idea here:

Elasticity can be defined as reversible strain per unit effort. Hooke’s law, an empirically derived relationship which states, F=kx. More appropriately x=(1/k)*F outlines deformation mechanics. Here, deformation of an elastic material, x, is proportional to the force applied, F, multiplied by the inverse spring constant. A strong force applied to a highly elastic material will result in a great displacement. This is your basic spring scale. 

Einstein’s conceptions of gravity, the famed field equations, also show this Hookean pattern. The famed physicist John Wheeler, coiner of the term “black hole,” summarized Einstein’s laws as “Space-time tells matter how to move; matter tells space-time how to curve.”  Deformation of spacetime is therefore determined by the force of matter/energy, and when we rearrange the field equations appropriately, we can see the parallels (Fig 1). 

From a Hookean perspective, spacetime deformation Guv results from the momentum of the materials involved Tuv. In Hooke’s equation, the spring constant (k), tells us the stiffness of the material that is being deformed. In Einstein’s field equations, the analogous elastic modulus 1/(8piG/c^4) is extremely high (~ 4.815 x 10^42 N), meaning that if there is a material-in-motion represented by spacetime, it is extraordinarily stiff.

Kirk McDonald at Princeton has calculated stiffness of spacetime differently, based on classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, and cosmological sound waves and suggested extreme stiffness, which may be frequency dependent, ranging from 10^20 to 10^113 Pa. VERY VERY Stiff stuff. And that makes sense, since spacetime must structurally support enormous bodies like the Earth, Sun and all the other astronomical marvels. You wouldn’t build a skyscraper out of Jell-O.

Clearly the elastic conception of existence is compatible with state-of-the-art science and mathematics. Integrating Einstein’s laws into a physical conception of spacetime is extremely simple and goes a great distance toward physicalizing action-at-a-distance or every sort as well as light, magnetism, electricity, and other phenomena that have been historically relegated to the quantitative realm of mathematics. Failing to physicalize these phenomena leaves the door wide open to all varieties of supernatural interpretation and mysticism. 

Fortunately, physicalizing spacetime requires very little changes to extant theory. We simply reimagine a more mechanically integrated vision of the atom - one to include observations of action at a distance and wave propagation. We must also, as a civilization, welcome the understandable mistakes of the past as an inherent feature of progress.

I believe the evidence speaks clearly that the elastic aether was erroneously abandoned. The mistake is forgivable on account of the facts that a) the MiMo experiment failed to detect an untethered aether and b) the discipline of atomic physics had a very real technological need to move on and schematize Nature without explicit physical mechanism. I and others advocate that MiMo experiment merely disproved that there is an aether separate from atomic material itself, not that there is a true void between atomic surfaces altogether. What falls out from this is that atoms cannot be viewed as distinct in composition from the photogravitational material that hosts them. Once we realize that the aetheric mediator and the atom are of the same substance, at least transiently and in effect, the universe begins to make a lot more sense. 

“Science, my lad, is made up of mistakes, but they are mistakes which it is useful to make, because they lead little by little to the truth.”

 – Jules Verne

3. The Radial Elastic Model (REM) of the Atomic Web 

Nobel laureate, Robert Laughlin wrote: 

"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed. The word 'aether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum."

Laughlin’s words highlight the recognition that light and gravity require physical mediator. The radial elastic atomic model I introduce here to address that issue is built on the shoulders of giants. Huygens, Descartes, Faraday, and other beasts of science advocated as much prior to the 1927 Solvay conference, which ratified a mathematically exclusive perspective on physical reality through advocacy of the mystical duality explanation for the Compton effect. 

That modern mathematical physics is entirely predicated on the amalgamation of subjective perspectives, also known as relativism, is a well-known problem for philosophers (also here). Often the distinguishing feature of a material versus an idea, property, or description converges upon the ability to point at physical things, whereas this is impossible for abstractions (see umbrella view). Therefore, a successful conception of the physical universe must capture fundamental empirical features, while simultaneously explaining phenomena through the exclusive use of concrete physical actors – surface-bound things which possess a singular location (see section 1.2.3).
 
What follows is an elastic conception of this connective material that satisfies empirical mathematics while explaining phenomena with physical actors. Again, this is simply a way of visualizing electromagnetic behavior in a truly mechanical manner. MacCullough, Young, and other aether scientists were keen on the necessity of this type of practicable interpretation. All of these thinkers recognized that the atom is resonant and that resonant vibration is defined by periodic deformation of a composite elastic structure.

We understand elasticity as a macro scale behavior that requires sub-unit rearrangement. At the molecular scale, elasticity can be traced to reversible deformation of atomic bonds. But the atom itself also reveals resonance and vibration, even in the gaseous form. State-of-the art mathematical models of the hydrogen atom’s surface are derived from the harmonic vibratory modes of a sphere. We must conclude that the atom accomplishes its resonant architecture via subunits capable of periodic rearrangements.

Not being able to resolve the absolute sub-structure of the atom itself, I hypothesize that atoms are connected by, and comprised of, a vast array of fibers capable of articulating, relocating, and ascribing the apparent periodic deformation harmonics apparent in their behavior. Ideally, technological advances will eventually allow the probing of actual atomic substructure. The fiber bundle of mathematical topology seems to be the preferred term for the fundamental units of existence, so I retain the term fiber for subatomic subunits to reflect this convention. The philosopher Peter Forrest does a systematic analysis of various different aether subunit configurations – “extended simples” being most in-line with the present fiber proposal. 

Presently, I imagine an elastic, contractile, atomic fiber, which likely bears some resemblance to other fibers found throughout nature (see Fig 2 below). This contractility requires that the fibers themselves are comprised of catch-bound fibrils capable of increased load under tension. This quality affords composite materials like atoms the ability to continually form and break connections to the wider fibrous web. The term “fiber” underscores that the atom is constructed of physical material, not abstract point-particles (i.e. solutions to dynamic field equations), which must perform cyclic tensile, contractile dynamics in service of light, gravity, and other apparent atomic phenomena. 

When we interpret the MiMo results to indicate that the atom and aether are cut of one cloth, action-at-a-distance logically implies that the surface of the fibrous atom extends to extraordinary distance. The wave-function for the electron actually implies that the atomic surface extends without bound. The well-defined process of quantum entanglement seals that deal, describing how atoms attach to one another at great distances, linking empirical evidence to what Einstein called aetheric “connections with the matter.” Entanglement is, with increasing frequency, illustrated as linked atoms (here, here, and here. See Fig 3). I take this finding quite literally in order to imagine what qualities the aetheric connecting structures must possess.

The Quanta Magazine illustration from Fig 3 gives up one important clue: displaying a wavy ray at the heart of the inter-atomic connection. Indeed, the ray-nature of light, with its rectilinear propagation demands that if inter-atomic connections are to host light and gravity, they must sail straight (I will address special cases of “bending” light in separate blogs). For these rays of stiff elastic material responsible for photonics we also note that the momentum of light has a twisting quality, perhaps best exemplified by the Schrodinger equation for unbound free particles.

From the wave equation we note that the electron is most frequently detected close to the nucleus but can also be found at extraordinary distances (see Fig 4A). To reflect this quality, I give a thinned filamentous quality to extensions of the orbital (Fig 4B). These ray-like portions of the atom’s electron are used to explain action at a distance, including light and gravity (Fig 5). Furthermore, the ray-like structures are given a twisted form to reflect the angular momentum of the photon itself (see Fig 4C, D). Note that others have applied similar logic to visualize various particles as twisted (here, here and here). The twisted structure also reflects how deformations during light can be both transverse and longitudinal, as observed. I call these struts of elastic material that span the distance between atomic shells filaments in order to draw parallels to the extant use of the term for other twisted processes in Nature, including cosmic filaments (also here), and the shape of Birkland currents, as well as biological structures like actin filaments, DNA, or phenomena like the integrated path of the human sperm cell.

It is self-evident that translational motion of atoms also necessitates that connections are continually formed and broken between composite atomic bodies. Additionally, taut interatomic filaments must transect one another continually as atoms deform and rearrange within their environments. These qualities are only satisfied by a composite interatomic material, where fibrous subunits provide a continuum of articulation and disarticulation points. 

Transient atomic tensegrity also neatly explains gravitation, whereby separation distance dictates the quantity of new filamentary connections between any two atoms. With a radial atomic surface, assuming approximately equal surface areas and equivalent quantity of radial filaments for a given atomic species, distance alone logically specifies connectivity, as shown in Fig 5 C, D. This explains the scaling of Hooke and Newton’s inverse square law of gravity, whereby gravitational intensity is a product of the relative proximity of bodies to one another. This video here explains the idea in greater detail.

In an elastic system, the continual breaking and forming of connections, cannot occur without rupture dynamics. I hypothesize that filamentary atom-filament rupture kinetics promotes a ratcheting effect whereby the orbital is jerked back and forth in a cyclic fashion, which systemically lends itself toward push-pull resonance. This alternating push and pull upon the wider filamentous network constitute waves of light (detailed piece and video to follow – see Fig 5 A, B). Continual filament-atom rupture during atomic translation explains the tendency of all bodies to produce light even in their lowest energy states. Of course light is also produced when the atom changes energy states, but this makes sense because the surface of the atom changes shape in an oscillatory fashion called quantum jumping, which must periodically tension the wider network with waves of light. We can also understand thermal emission from this model, because increasingly frenzied motion of the orbital logically deforms the wider filamentary network.

In summary, I introduce and advocate for a resurrection of the elastic model of the atomic web. The elastic web is best conceived as comprised of material fibers arranged into filaments, not zero-dimensional particles. However, the radial elastic model (REM) is not a novel theory, but rather an illustration of a lost conception and subsequent visualization of all contemporary empirical evidence. I believe the REM reconciles the MiMo null result, showing how the atom and interatomic material are not comprised of separate substances. Deformation of that same material inscribes a speed-limit for light consistent with other material wave-dynamics. The REM also explains why no atomic body can outrun light since photons are re-conceived of as deformations of those same atoms stretched from their source. Finally, REM atomics are consistent with modern mathematical physics, as reflected by a Hookean elastic interpretation of Einstein’s field equations. Future pieces and videos will expand on these ideas and illustrate atomic phenomena in greater detail.

“All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.” -Galileo Galilei

Notes & Acknowledgements

*Note that that today the quality of ‘mass’ is generally defined indirectly via electrical displacement (i.e. the electron volt) during atomic level experiments.

Thanks to Neil Creamer, Oliver Seigel, Daniel Cunningham, Ivor Catt, and Shamus Mac for input ideas and reading of the manuscript.

Thanks to Serge Kim for suggesting use of the term “fiber” for the subatomic actors responsible for empirically defined field effects.

Thanks to everyone at our DS Facebook Discussion group for the unending ideas, criticism, and dialogue. Keep ‘em coming!

Thanks to one of our mentors at Columbia, Dr. Ozgur Sahin for teaching us how to see resonance in terms of elasticity and entertaining heretical musings about the atom.