Wednesday, 3 June 2009
A Ball Out At Sea
I'd like to step back a little and get some background on the current mechanism which science thinks generates heat: the kinetic theory of matter. The kinetic theory of matter states that all matter is made up of atoms and molecules, that these atoms and molecules are in constant motion, and that collisions between these atoms and molecules are completely elastic, and that it's this motion which releases heat. This differs to the darnfangled theory of the aether, where atoms are indeed in constant motion, but they are not colliding all over the place - they're atomic vortices which remain in position like a gym-bike; it is the fluid of the aether which is in motion, and therefore, the motion of the aether fluid which produces heat.
The kinetic theory of matter is something which is inherited from an observation of "Brownian" motion - named after the English botanist Robert Brown, whom in 1827, noticed that pollen grains suspended in water jiggled about under the lens of the microscope, follow an irrational, zigzag path. This continous random motion was attributed to the pollen grains colliding with fluid molecules which also move in a continuous random motion. I think we might have been a bit hasty in supposing that the molecules beneath the particles mirror the erratic, wobbly movements we see under the microscope. Does the movement of a ball floating out at sea mirror the exact movement of the waves beneath it? Would the ball wobble on the surface of a cool, calm lake?
In 1889 G.L. Gouy found that the Brownian movement was more rapid for smaller particles (we do not notice Brownian movement of cars, bricks, or people). In 1900 F.M. Exner undertook the first quantitative studies, measuring how the motion depended on temperature and particle size. In 1905 Einstein suggested that the random movement of particles suspended in liquid could be explained as being a result of the random thermal agitation of the molecules that compose the surrounding liquid.
In his doctoral dissertation, submitted to the University of Zurich in 1905, Einstein developed a statistical molecular theory of liquids. Then, in a separate paper, he applied the molecular theory of heat to liquids in obtaining an explanation of what had been, unknown to Einstein, a decades-old puzzle. Observing microscopic bits of plant pollen suspended in still water, English botanist Robert Brown had noticed in 1828 that even tinier particles mixed in with the pollen exhibited an incessant, irregular "swarming" motion — since called "Brownian motion." Although atoms and molecules were still open to objection in 1905, Einstein predicted that the random motions of molecules in a liquid impacting on larger suspended particles would result in irregular, random motions of the particles, which could be directly observed under a microscope. The predicted motion corresponded precisely with the puzzling Brownian motion! From this motion Einstein accurately determined the dimensions of the hypothetical molecules.
Sometimes I wish I was better at maths. Maths simply ain't my bag, baby. I think there's something about Einstein's calculations for these "hypothetical molecules" which will also be able to be applied to the aether. I don't think any of these maths have to be thrown away, I think it's a case of re-evaluating the model.
The following article caught my eye....
In recent years, biomedical research has shown that Brownian motion may play a critical role in the transport of enzymes and chemicals both into and out of cells in the human body. New research, however, posits that what appeared to be a deliberate towing action along the microtubules is actually a result of random motion controlled by ATP-directed chemical switching commands. It is now argued that kinesins utilize rectified Brownian motion (converting this random motion into a purposeful unidirectional one).
In my Universe, Brownian motion is a revelation about the motion of the fluid of the aether. This would be a fairly organised motion of the fluid as it moved through the atomic vortices. There's no bashing or crashing about - it's a lot more precise, much more rational. I'm only wondering out loud, but perhaps these kinesins do not have to rectify Brownian motion, and that the fluid of the aether has always followed a motion which is purposeful, and unidirectional...
Atomic and electron physics By Benjamin Bederson, Wade L. Fit
And for that wonderful pic - thankyou.