Physicist Peter Morris and Prof. Reg Cahill seem to think so. There are also others!
Today I talk to the topic in a broad sense. I have found it difficult to more completely consider and write about than I originally expected it to be. I might make an attempt to rewrite it one day. At the moment I have had enough of it. My post is probably best read as being within the informal context of a single block of random Quantum Information. This might then make it a less distracting and confusing to read. Thank you for your patience!
As a Sub-quantum physicist I broadly agree with Morris and Cahill, but for different reasons. Before you proceed I urge you to take notice of a recently held meeting of some of the worlds most highly acclaimed physicists. This was on the island of Heligoland in Europe in June 2025. The underlying theme of the get together was to discuss what quantum mechanics is in physics and what does it mean. This has been the mysterious case for a hundred years.
It is against this back ground my conversation today is to share why I believe that Morris and Cahill’s theories and their subsequent experiments are probably correct. This is as well as my two reasons why this might be the case. The first is my deep seated theory relating to what I see as being the fundamental short comings of Relativity physics. I am not saying it is wrong! What I am saying is that whereas Albert Einstein’s Relativity modelling is pertinent to his four part space continuum theory it is significantly incomplete. This is by it setting aside non local cosmic phenomena by referring to it as being, amongst other descriptions, ‘hidden variables’. I see such variables as being embedded within quantum information and so is its allied local (like temporal) information. I also suggest that all ‘things’ relating to wider cosmic reality can be considered in much the same way. In other words I believe that Einstein’s modelling might fit well into David Bohm’s Implicate/Explicate Holomovement theory. If this is the case Einstein’s General and Special Relativity theories relating to objects, movement and cosmic events can still be independently described within three spatial co ordinates that include within clock and speed of light time. In such circumstances both Albert Einstein’s and David Bohm’ theories would remain independently relative to each other. In this process this is as separate properties of a combined universal theory. Bohm’s ideas are supported by the highly respected Bell’s theorem in physics which allows for such phenomena type separateness. This also includes within Quantum Information theory as cited above.
Further to this Bohm and Einstein have similar views about holistic reality physics. This commentator says “…In this letter from Einstein to David Bohm, Einstein discusses the importance of connecting a key principle of the relatively new theory of quantum mechanics (the “Born interpretation”) to physical quantities that can be measured in the real world. To him, it is essential that mathematical theories be connected to measurable quantities. In this letter, Einstein’s uneasiness with quantum mechanics is apparent, saying that validation of the seemingly random quantum mechanics …can only be done on the basis of classical mechanics.” Without this validation, quantum theory has essentially “no controllable meaning ”
My second reason is this.
I suggest that if you care to understand the phenomena of all inclusive ‘reality’ you might care to consider the following words. First employ the meaning of properties (make things tick in the manner that they do) in physics, and then add the words influences and effects to it. An all encompassing definition of properties might then be entitled “Properties refer to characteristics or attributes that describe local and non-local phenomena, like temporal materialist and ontologically metaphysical. This is as they relate to, with time, information as it is pertinent to matter, systems and events. This is as well as information that is, without time, ‘metaphysical’. I see such combined properties as helping us to understand how such attributes interact within the holistic universe. This includes the hidden variables of what ever ‘reality’ might be and mean, including us.
An example of this is cosmic particles (tiny bits of matter) that can either be waves or particles”. In this instance the properties of waves become entangled with the properties of an already existing particle or packages of particles that are not already in a wave format. This is within any given set of circumstances. By connecting these three described words this means that when the single word properties is employed it becomes an accurate informationally representation of holistic reality. In this sense all such properties are informationally entangled with each other.
In summary my position is that every unit of information entangled within the universe can be seen as being a single package of properties. Every influence and effect in the universe are representations of properties. Properties do not relate to individual ‘things’. They relate to the influences and effects of things. They represent never ending change within the universe which means the infinite creation of new properties, influences and effects is continually taking place within the universe. These include the properties of energy. This means changes and movement of properties that are always within a perpetual continuum with each other within it. These suggestions extend to not only the items discussed but also personal metaphysical events such as our attitudes towards creating new ideas and more comprehensively living our lives. Every thought that we have has some sort of influence and effect, no matter what it is and take action or no action in accordance with. From this we might say that the universe, within the wider reference frame of ‘reality’ is in a perpetual state of creative effervescence. This is more especially so as it entangles within itself all phenomena that is metaphysically non local. This means it cannot be specifically observed and measured but might be predictable. This is via sub quantum information that is mathematically predictable and obtainable through Quantum Mechanics theory.
In order to demonstrate how and why I believe that my description of properties might be related to the wider every day workings of the universe I will provide an example of this.
Curvature of space is by means of the properties of mass and energy entangled within the continuum properties of space time. Within this entangled process these properties of information are, for what ever reason or purpose, drawn to the properties of each other. These include the entangled properties of metaphysical non-locality. These properties include substantive differences of the properties of universal gravity. The influences and effects of gravity, in one way or another, influence all phenomena in the universe. These include the properties of electromagnetism. From this it might be argued that the properties of gravity are the common fingers and toes between all other influences entangled within the universe, but not necessarily so with wider ‘reality’. The properties of Quantum Field theory, via quantum mechanics, might mathematically represent how this could occur.
I think that it is interesting to consider that if the influences of properties are also entitled ‘opportunities to do something’ then the effects thereof become actuality realism’s. From these are realism’s emanating from such opportunities we may then be entitled to suggest that such realism’s are effects indicative of hidden variable ‘energy-force’ within the universe. If this is so we might also be entitled to say that such phenomena are the properties of a type of cosmic ether. These packaged properties might also be called fields of cosmic information.
Because such hidden properties are demonstrably real, of the universe, and because there is only one packages of properties that entangles the whole of the universe, from hereon in will I refer to such an influence, and its associated effects as being ether. By this I mean cosmic dark energy. I believe that this is appropriate for the following reasons, I think that this is especially so when it is linked to my ideas about the holistic influences and effects of properties that entangle the whole of the universe.
I also believe that a such a theory may not be as unbelievable as you might think. It appears that physics theorists are currently speculating that dark energy emanates from wider Black holes that seem to connect them to another cosmic entity-process. This might be an adjunct universe to the one we exist in. If this is the case can we assume that such a connection brings with it non-local phenomena as well? Are the properties of extreme gravity emanating from black holes the source of the properties of gravity throughout our universe? If you are interested in this theory you might see this link interesting. The link between dark energy and black holes
Dark energy is well known in physics, albeit it not well understood. It is believed to dominate the universe and is causal to its ever increasing rate of its expansion. In doing this the weakening of the density of the universe relating thereto it replaces itself. In this sense it could be said that the properties of dark energy dominates the whole of the universe. I believe that from the research already conducted by various physicists, that the metaphysical properties and mysteries of the universe emanate from the relationship between dark energy and universal entanglement. Quantum entanglement has been proven by experiment. I speculate from my research that the properties of this entangled relationship also influence the properties of universal gravity and its hidden variable (metaphysical) properties. This might also be the reason why the properties of this wider entangled relationship are so difficult to detect and are invisible. They can be demonstrated. You might see from these words that my use of the properties of dark energy in relationship to the properties of an argued ether might be a reasonable one.
Albert Einstein seems to suggest much the same thing when he said…
“…Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable inedia, (where a living entity does not drink liquid or eat food) as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it…”.
I suggest that ether is static unto its own properties. Such properties are, as I have said, already entangled with the wider properties of the universe any way. Remember I am not discussing specific objects or events or the relative arrangement between such individualised phenomenom.
I see this self organising and self referential universal system as being over lapping fields. It is as if these fields, represented by the unified properties of properties within my debate are not only aware of themselves but also what each other units of informational-properties in the universe are doing. This is under any set of circumstance. The properties of intelligence of the overall cosmic system come into this equation. These words mean that ether is a dynamic process that is guided by the holistic properties of universal dark energy and its entangled partners as I have discussed. This is also conjunctionally with its ‘more minor’ entangled properties of radiation. In a broad sense this is combined relationship might be seen as being along the lines of Penrose’s theory .
In my opinion, what Morris and others like him, including me, are demonstrating is that the properties of the earth are moving forward in relationship to the properties of universal ether. that I This is not the commonly known properties of Einstein’s space time models. In this sense I cannot disagree with Morris. This is because such properties (possibilities) already exist within the holistic properties of the universe anyway. They are informationally predetermined and are not related to space-time.
The predictions of collective Quantum Computer theories seem to validate these points. Lorentz transformation theory also seems to, as does Multi-Universe theory. Various experiments, including those using optical light speed anisotropy interferometers and zener diode quantum detectors also seem to support Morris’s findings. This seems to imply that my properties ideas do too . As you might note from Morris’s work, and others such as Cahill cited in the two references, Random Event Generators also do this. All these mechanical tests support Morris’s theory that the properties of the earth, travelling through the properties of cosmic ether at the rate of around 502 k/s. As you peruse what follows you might see the contradictory nature compared to with what I have just discussed.
What interests me in this debate is if Morris’ findings are correct why is it that the Dayton Miller 1927 ether experiment findings continue to be set aside by main stream physics today? Miller’s findings were published in Nature magazine in February 1934. If you are interested in this area of physics you will find his magazine submission here.
By way of back ground to this contradictory issue it seems to me to be scientifically pertinent to discuss the following words. In 1887 two physicists, Michelson and Morley (MM) , conducted an experiment to determine if cosmic ether existed or not. This was in the basement of the Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio in the United States of America. Cleveland is slightly elevated above a nearby flood plane. It had long been assumed in science that there was ether. There were other related phenomena which they were testing as well. At the time it was determined by various physicists that the results of this ether experiment was inconclusive. MM employed apparatus was a self made interferometer which had two measuring arms, on an axis. This location is important. Shortly, I will explain to you why. Main stream physicists today mostly say that the result at the time were nul, not inconclusive. This means that there was no ether detected.
Miller’s later interferometer apparatus was very similar to MM. Having read the literature Miller’s positioning of the apparatus was seemingly more modern and considered. This is in respect to its construction and operating properties. As I have indicated, the properties of their locations and on site positioning were different. Miller’s was on a mountain, not a basement, and he was atop it. The mountain, which is Mount Wilson in California, is 1740 meters high.
In this sense I suggest that Miller was probably in a better position to measure the earths motion in respect to the sun as well as gain more predictable and measurable temperature readings. I am talking about if the earth is being ‘dragged’ along by ether in space and at what rate. This is in respect to the wider atmospheric conditions at the time. There may have been other benefits as well.
From my perspective these multitudinous numbers of properties-variables (physicists refer to them as being hidden variables), it seems inevitable to me that Miller’s experimental findings were more reasonably correct than those of MM. This is that Miller seems to have confirmed that the MM inconclusive experimental findings in 1887 had at least some greater merit than their critics had alleged at the time. This is especially so as MM announced their conclusion as-follows:
“…Considering the motion of the earth in its orbit only the observations show that the relative motion of the earth and the ether (as it was considered to at the time) is probably less than one-sixth the earth’s orbital velocity and certainly less than one-fourth. That is, it is less than 71/2 kilometers per second…”
De Meo and others seem to agree with Miller’s 1934 published findings, but not for all the above reasons. If you care to know more about Miller’s original experiment, and how he set it up, you will find it here. A major problem for Miller is that he could not explain to his peers exactly how it was that he could not explain how his findings were as comparable to MM as they were. This is the specific and all inclusive properties related to his findings as they were. . At the time he could only speculate. It is only around these times today that physicists know otherwise. These include Morris and other physicists like him such as Cahill and many others that I have discovered and briefly written about.
I consider that this history is the back drop to where present physics theories sit today. It is well recorded that there are many international disputes about it. They all point to the incompleteness of the Standard Model of Physics, not its over all credibility. The Standard model is widely respected and in my opinion should be seen as such! As I have implied it seems to me that the fundamental problems in contemporary physics is that it is continuing to try to set aside what I consider to be the dominate role of non-local (sub-quantum) phenomena in their theoretical modelling. This is in lieu of, for the want of a better description, strict temporal materialism. I am saying that such physicists are trying to squeeze mechanical modelling into modelling that it will probably never fully fit into. This seems to be as reflected by the numerous contemporary interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. At last count there is fourteen versions of Quantum Mechanics, they cannot all be right.
As I understand from the debates, if Albert Einstein had modeled the properties of his Special and General Relativity theories upon the properties of Lorentz relativity theory the path of physics would probably be quite different than it is today. Lorentz was a peer of Einstein, he released his own relativity model in Amsterdam in 1904. Einstein released his Special Relativity in 1905. Lorentz originally embodied ether as being at rest in his model. It seems that if Einstein had built his ideas upon certain properties of Lorentz’s original 1904 model (including ether at rest within it) he would never have had to take ether out of his theories in the first place. This is ether as it had been considered as being typically valid for many hundred of years.
If this is correct, both Einstein’s and Lorentz’s models would be more valid and workable, Lorentz’s less so. This is because it is more difficult to work with. With these words in mind I draw your attention to a quotation from one of Lorentz’s writings around the time.
“…That we cannot speak about an absolute rest of the aether, is self-evident; this expression would not even make sense. When I say for the sake of brevity, that the aether would be at rest, then this only means that one part of this medium does not move against the other one and that all perceptible motions are relative motions of the celestial bodies (like galaxies) in relation to the aether…” (I italicised the text)
“…What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places (it moves and can vary in types), which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields (not so with ether) is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same…” This is a static ether.
I feel that the Lorentzian relationship is like an entangled single field of properties of cosmic actualities. This means realism, not just theories. I believe that such Lorentzian arrangement can be supported by Euclidean geometry as if multi dimensional, space geometry. This is in lieu of the more commonly employed Minkowski geometry that is usually employed in Einstein’s space time theories. I see this as applying to Morris’s theoretical ideas too.
What I find especially interesting in this discussion is that in 1921 Albert Einstein wrote a letter to Robert Milliken and allegedly said, quote “… I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller [Dayton Miller] experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards …”. Source
Furthermore in in a letter that he wrote to his friend Edwin E. Slosson on the 8th of July 1925 he said “My opinion about Miller’s experiments is the following. … Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory.”
You might draw your own conclusions from these words. In my opinion what Einstein seems to be saying is that if there is a cosmic ether his two Relativity models would not work. This is as he originally planned and described that they would in his earlier modellings.
As earlier stated the international physics community continues to debate many of the issues cited herein.
I draw your attention to what I consider to be the most pertinent features of this presentation.
1. There seems to be sound evidence to suggest that the earth is being ‘dragged’ through space (I say ether) at 502 k/s
2. There appears to be significant anxiety within the international physics community. This seems to be in respect to community’s inability to soon being able to say that it has worked out the ‘ingredients’ of a theory of everything (GUT).
3. There seems to be a wide spread reluctance in the physics community to accept the notion that there is merit in publicly acknowledging that there is valid room for sub quantum (non-local) phenomena to be employed within their modelling theories. This includes saying that metaphysical phenomena is understandably real, and without it in physics does not make sense. I understand that Quantum Theory is still attempting to address this position.
4. There seems to be sound reasons why physicists should seriously consider the importance of building a single, non-local, continuum upon which to build their physics modelling upon. This is particularly like that of Bohm’s Implicate Order theory.
5. The existence and associated influences of ether in the universe is necessarily real and that Albert Einstein and others support such a notion. Einstein employed electromagnetism and not an inherently segregated holistic system.
6. The existence of a universal reality-ether has been subjectively described and demonstrated.
7. The properties of universal reality-phenomena has been demonstrated and described.
8. Politics within the international physics community has never been helpful unto itself, or the wider interests of the community.
9. The usefulness of mechanical tools and instruments to help to explain the validity of ideas and theories contained herein have mostly been mechanically demonstrated and explained.
Notes:
I acknowledge that, apart from Morris, I continue to identify with Cahill’s Process Physics model theories as well as those of David Bohm. I also acknowledge that this presentation lacks adequate referencing. I apologise for this. I take the view that my overall message is of greater importance to my readers. I may re write it this work one day. This is my second effort. In this sense my ideas should be treated as a broad based conversational presentation. Please treat my words as being indicative. Please respect my copy right privileges. I have employed a great deal of consideration and time explaining them. Keep in mind that my words are those of a sub quantum (non local) physics theorist.
Reference 1
Evidence for Cahill’s dynamical space (relating to ether)
Peter C. Morris
Adelaide, South Australia. May 19, 2017
(I do not fully understand its contents)
Quote:
“… Prof. Reg Cahill has reported [1] that Random Event Generator (REG) devices can detect passage of dynamical 3-space waves. Herein we describe an attempt to find addi-tional evidence for this discovery, using data from a REG located in Perth, Australia and from another in Manchester, U.K., for fifteen days centered on each full moon during a period of one year. For each day we applied correlation analysis to determine travel times for putative waves. Then wave speed and direction, over each 24 hour period, were determined by fitting to the observed travel times, theoretical curves of how travel times would vary with Earth rotation. We thereby derived an average incoming RA, declination, speed and associated standard deviations for the waves of each day. Following this we examined the directions and speeds to determine if they were consis- tent with a real physical phenomena, rather than being artifacts of random correlations. To this end we made use of probability density plots and other statistical techniques. On the way we recognized that wave orientation is not the same as 3-space flow direction and that it is the latter rather than the former which is of principle interest. Geometryimplies that variation of flow speed will cause the detected speeds of wave fronts mov-ing parallel to 3-space flow to have standard deviations than those moving across the flow. On this basis we preferentially selected the 50% of days with the largest speedstandard deviations as being the most likely proxies for space flow direction.
A probability density plot of directions for these days exhibited a peak near RA = 4.5 h, consistent with previous determinations of incoming 3-space flow direction by Cahill[3] and Dayton Miller [9]. Moreover, removing Earth orbital and gravitational in-flow velocities from the observed velocities allowed a peak of higher density to be obtained, which is consistent with what one would expect of a real physical phenom-ena.
The peak indicated a most probable galactic flow direction of RA = 4.14+0.83
−0.81 h,
dec = −77.8+2.7
−2.1 deg, and wave speed of 500+20
−10 km/s.
I emboldened the text.
Reference 2 (also written by Morris)
In Prof. Reg Cahill’s theory of dynamical space [1], gravity is caused by acceleration of space into matter. The equations governing this process are nonlinear and nonlocal (note non local)and predict fractal dynamical 3-spacewaves. These are a type of gravitational wave but differ from those predicted by General Relativity. Random Event Generator (REG) devices generate random numbers by detecting the quantum to classical transition of electrons tunnelling through a barrier in a tunnel diode. According to the standard inter-pretation of quantum theory the transitions should be completely random, however Cahill’s theory and experiments [1] suggest that this is not the case and that the transitions are driven by passage of dynam-ical 3-space waves (this is akin to my Properties-gravity and radiation arrangement). If so, then the random numbers output by different REG devices may not be 100% independent and correlation analysis of data from two spatially separated REG devices, approximately aligned with wave direction, should be able to reveal the travel time of waves that influence both devices. To test this possibility we obtained data from a Global Consciousness Project [5] REG located in Perth, Australia and from another in Manchester, U.K. as shown in Table 1 for fifteen days centered on each full moon for all days for which data was available, from 26 June 2012 to 30 June 2013. Of 195 potential days, complete data was available for 138…”
I emboldened the text