Hi Cheezle,
I want to give you a very clear picture of what I have in mind. In my view, the laws of physics exist because of a medium called the luminiferous aether. This luminiferous aether contains the medium of our space-time and our universe (where speed of light c = 3x10^8 m/s). And it contains other mediums/space-times/universes where the laws of physics are different. Two mediums can overlap in the same space at the same time. Generally energy does not transmit from one universe to the other; but it's not impossible either.
Why do I have to drag this information about your theory out of you. Take a look at quant’s theory. He lays it all out for everybody to see. His write up may not be his complete theory but it is enough to let us all know the basics. You on the other hand seem to hide parts of your theory. Like this multiverse view of your aether. You have been using the word aether for a long time in these forums and we only now learn this aspect of how you define the word. As I drag this information out of you, who knows what else you hide.
I like science fiction and the idea of traveling through hyperspace. For this to be possible, the medium of our universe, our space-time, will have to overlap with a coexisting hyperspace universe, coexisting hyper-space-time. I believe that the big bang occurred within a much larger hyperspace universe.
You do realize that the word fiction means ‘made up’. It seems that you are creating a fictional physics for some fictional universe and presenting it in this forum as a real physical theory. You call me a scoundrel an troll and it turns out our roles are reversed. You should put a disclaimer in front of your posts telling us that your views are based on sci-fi books, TV shows and movies.*
I got the idea for a wave aether from the wave-function description of theDouble slit experiment. When both slits are open, the particles will pass through the slits creating an interference pattern, even if the particles were fired one at a time. You could fire one particle every 24 hours. It might take a while, but eventually you would get the interfeence pattern. That lead me to believe that the wave-function existed even when no particle was being fired. In the article, there is the equation $$Dsin\theta = n \lambda$$. I think nature really does use wavelengths to measure distance because the geometry of space-time is made of wave functions with wavelength and frequency.
Ahh, here you change your theory again. You say that nature really does use wavelengths to measure distance but being a measure of something is not really the same as being made of that same thing. You really need to try and stay consistent.
If aether wave function is f(x) and electromagnetic wave function is g(x), ...
Wave functions are just mathematics. The mathematics that describes the laws of nature is certainly useful, but it's just mathematics.
Three statements you have made:
1) Wave functions are just mathematics.
2) Mathematics is just a description.
3) Aether is made of wave functions.
I will leave it to you to make some conclusions from these statements. Your inability to express your ideas comes from the fact that you are making this all up on the fly. You don't really have a theory. You should not be posting this in Alternative Theories. You should be writing a sci-fi book because everything you are talking about is fiction.
When something is reduced to mathematics, than you're not thinking about what it is that you're really counting.
Mathematics is not about counting. A subset of mathematics called Arithmetic is about counting things. Geometry is not about counting. Topology is not about counting.
Mathematics hides the natural characteristics of what you're counting. For example, try counting paper clips and compare that with counting jelly beans. How accurate will your counts be if someone walks by and eats some of your jelly beans? Jelly beans are physically real things that have characteristics that might not be accounted for by just mathematics (like the characteristic of being food that someone might eat.).
You like to say that Mathematics is just a way to describe things. Isn’t that your purpose on these forums? Communication? Now, you might say you prefer to use English to describe things. But there is a problem with that. English (human language in general) is very poor at describing physics. In fact it is very poor at communicating everyday life. For instance, if I say, “The man saw the woman with the telescope.” Who had the telescope? The man or the woman? This statement is ambiguous but most people who hear it will say the man had the telescope. But not all people will think that. Different people have different contexts.
Mathematics is a language can be used to describe things in a very rigorous way. But mathematics is not just a language. That is why some people group maths in the sciences. Mathematics is also a body of knowledge. A shared context. And this context is non-ambiguous. If you have two matrices M and N and you multiply them together, the context of the body of maths tells us that MxN is not necessarily the same as NxM. (notice I am not counting things here). People who have taken Linear Algebra understand this. And they understand that if you rotate an object in 3-space and then rotate it again, the final state of the object may not be the same if you did the rotations in the opposite order. This fact is not a description. It is a fact about the world we live in. This knowledge is a context physicists share so that the two rotation matrices M and N can be understood to behave as I described. Now, I described this in English and that is why I had to provide you with the context. I could not assume that you knew this fact. In mathematics it can be assumed that you already knew that 3-space rotations do not commute. More generally under multiplication matrices do not commute. I don’t have to explicitly give you that context when I say MxN. Notice that this makes mathematics a from the standpoint of meaning very very dense. A short mathematical statement can say a lot.
I use the aether because I'm trying to describe characteristics of space and space-time, characteristics that may not be accounted for by the mathematics. For example, how much energy does it take to curve space-time in such a way that you create a 1g acceleration field the size of a pencil? What if you don't curve space-time using the stress-energy tensor? The mathematics of the Einstein equations don't address this kind of question. But if space-time is a medium, particularly a medium made of aether waves, then it might be possible to curve space-time.
An aether wave f(x) is a naturally occurring ontological physical thing that is described by a mathematical wave-function g(x). Aether waves have physical properties like permittivity and permeability.
Your theory, PIDOOYA.