The Physics of the Aether — Research by Harold Aspden
Peer-reviewed papers and publications by Harold Aspden
Crab Nebula (M1), supernova remnant · ESA/Herschel/PACS; NASA, ESA & A. Loll/J. Hester (Arizona State Univ.) · NASA Image Library ↗
The following is a paper by H. Aspden published in American Journal of Physics, v. 53, p. 616 (1985).
Commentary: This was a Letter to the Editor, urging physicists to pay attention to the need to revive J. J. Thomson’s model of the electron, pointing to the author’s Physics Today
reference [1984f] and stressing that Dirac has recognized that there were contradictions of physical law in our theories of the electron.
The subject is a Letter to the Editor by H. Aspden in American Journal of Physics, v. 53, p. 938 (1985).
Commentary: This letter refers to the editorial entitled ‘Small things in physics can be big things’ [1]. It begins by commenting that “Surely, the proton is predictable,” and, after showing how minor discrepancies have led to major advances in theoretical physics, ends with the challenging reminder that, even after 50 years, there is still no resolution of what is a major discrepancy involving the proton magnetic moment. It is discrepant by a factor of almost 2.79285, with this its value measured in nuclear magnetons. Having recently [2] responded to Victor F. Weisskopf’s concern about the proton-electron mass ratio, by drawing attention to a 1975 theoretical derivation of this quantity, now valid at the one part in 10 million level of its precision measurement, I offer also a comment in response to the challenge of Ref. 1.
I believe that the proton magnetic moment and, indeed, the neutron magnetic moment are explicable fully by a theory involving a standing wave system cantered on the proton and its quantum electrodynamic interaction with virtual muons and electrons in the surrounding field. The method is too long to outline in this short letter, but it is hoped that my papers on the subject will be published in the scientific literature in the not-too-distant future. Meanwhile, readers can share my own fascination with a quite remarkable result, which, if fortuitous, would be a cruel act on the part of nature. The theory gives reason for believing, first, that the basic proton magnetic moment is governed normally by the usual g factor of 2, but that standing wave excitation increases this to its anomalous value of nearly 2.79285. Second, the neutron responds to a wave excitation between virtual muons and electrons in the magnetic field as if separated from a neutralizing charge to become a non-excited (g = 2) antiproton for 22/23 parts of any short period of time. The standing wave resonance indicates integer relationships; it is relevant that the nearest integer 207 to the muon-electron mass ratio includes, as its highest prime factor, the integer 23. The consequence is that the neutron magnetic moment should then be (2)(l-1/23) or 44/23 nuclear magnetons attributable to a negative charge. Evaluated, this gives a theoretical neutron magnetic moment of -1.913043478 nuclear magnetons, in excellent accord with the measured value of -1.91304308(54)(0.28 ppm) reported by Greene et al. [3]. If this standing wave explanation eventually finds acceptance, the theme of the editorial will still hold, because it was the explanation of a small discrepancy connected with the electron magnetic moment that suggested the standing wave approach to the proton and neutron.
References
[1] J. S. Rigden, Am. J. Phys., 53, 107 (1985).
[2] H. Aspden, Physics Today 37, 15 (1984).
[3] G. L Greene, N. F. Ramsey, W. Mampe, J. M. Pendlebury, K. Smith, W. B. Dress, P. D. Miller, and P. Perrin, Precision Measurement and Fundamental Constants, edited by B. N. Taylor and W. D. Phillips (Natl. Bur. Stand., Spec. Publ. 617, 1984).
The following is a Letter to the Editor by H. Aspden published in Physics Today, p. 15 (November 1984).
Commentary: Victor F. Weisskopf, in an article in Physics Today (November, 1981, p. 69), had declared that in spite of the triumph of Dirac’s quantum electrodynamics “we have no explanation for the mass of the electron, that is, the smallness of the ratio 1/1836 between the electron mass and the proton mass.” This author saw this as an unreasonable statement having regard to his efforts to draw attention to the fact that since 1975 there had been a clear record of such an explanation provided by this author’s theory in a leading scientific periodical [1975a].
This Physics Today article gave the simple muon correlation which the author’s theory had provided and noted that the theoretical value of 1836.1523 compared quite well with the Van Dyck, Moore and Schwinberg measurement of 1836.152470(80). It was, therefore, gratifying to see that these author’s saw fit to mention this when their full report on that measurement was later published in 1985. It may be noted that here we have very clear evidence of the attitudes of establishment science. Because they have been unable to extend to other fields the theoretical techniques on which they have made progress in one field, they refuse to pay attention to a successful theory which applies to those other fields. In other words, rather than retreat and abandon what they have taken as a correct theory, they would rather pretend that there is no theory that can meet their requirements. In order to hold faith with a specialist QED concept, they have spurned the one unified theory that can explain gravitation, the fine structure constant, the proton-electron mass ratio, the properties and role of the muon, the properties of the pion etc.
The author feels that, having had his theory of the proton referenced in Physics Today, which is the premier magazine circulated to the physics community in U.S.A., there is really no excuse for that community ignoring the theory. This is why the author has abandoned effort to reason and educate by offering scientific journals papers for referee review and has turned attention to the regenerative energy technology field in an effort to make the necessary breakthrough. Physicists in academia will have to admit the aether exists once it delivers energy to illuminate their way through what they see as an impenetrable mathematical four-space jungle.
The following is a paper by H. Aspden published in Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 41, pp. 252-256 (1984).
Abstract: The author’s structured space model by which the fine structure constant and the proton/electron mass ratio have been determined is now shown to contain a very rarified disordered matter state, whose free-electron population of approximately 10-27 kg per cubic metre presents a scattering cross-section limiting the visible universe to the measured range of 1010 light years.
Commentary: This is a very important paper. The author, in advocating his aether theory, had been confronted with Einstein’s theory and the QED theory with the Dirac-spin interpretation of electron g-factor, but another general objection was the belief in the ‘Big Bang’ and the ‘expanding universe’. This paper now attacked the ‘Big Bang’ interpretation simply by showing how one can derive the Hubble constant from aether theory.
There is far more that is involved in this paper. It concerns the dispersionless properties of the aether and its dual displacement nature [see 1982a] and it introduces the theme that Nature is always trying to create protons, throughout the universe. It is the proton creation activity which accounts for the mass ‘noise’ we associate with ‘missing matter’.
Special Note: Shortly after the above paper was published it came to the author’s attention that there was need to correct an error in the paper. This affected the theoretical evaluation of the expression we associate with the Hubble constant and the following note was sent to recipients of further off-prints of the paper:-
The Thomson scattering cross-section of the electron has been incorrectly quoted in the analysis in the paper. The following itemized data show theoretical values for the Hubble constant H for effective fully-absorbing cross-sections in the ultra-rarified electron gas. Note that the Thomson scattering cross-section is 6 times the cross-sectional area of the charge having the Thomson electron radius. It is 2.667 times that of a charge having the classical electron radius. It is twice the cross-sectional area of the scattering radius derived from the author’s g-factor analysis in reference 1982b (referred to below as the Aspden electron). According to the electron’s effect, which depends upon the assumed form of the electron, one finds, therefore, that the following values for the Hubble time constant apply: (a) Thomson electron: 1/H is 21,600 million years, (b) classical electron: 1/H is 9,000 million years, (c) Aspden electron: 1/H is 7,200 million years and (d) Thomson scattering: 1/H is 3,600 million years.
The following is a paper by H. Aspden published in Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 40, pp. 53-57 (1984).
Abstract: Photon emission from a cubic lattice in the resonant cavity of an electron implies a specific symmetry in particle groupings involved in boson creation. On this theory the charge W boson at 82.0 Gev is the only proton-based resonance state between 40 Gev and 130 Gev, and the neutral Z boson found at 96 Gev implies the existence of the long-predicted 2.587 Gev primary constituent of the subquantum medium which mediates in gravitational interaction.
Commentary: This paper is important in that it provides a convenient reference to the author’s early derivation of the formula for G, the constant of gravitation, and the author’s derivation of the fine structure constant.
The theme of the paper links the graviton with the neutral Z boson, and this set the author on course for the later discovery that the neutral Z boson is connected with the ‘supergraviton’. The latter heavy virtual particle cluster form of the gravity mediator appears in matter of high atomic or molecular composition. It plays a role also in the phenomenon of ‘warm superconductivity’ [1989a] and it is here that we see another entry point to the regenerative energy technology theme which has now become the subject of the author’s attention.
The following is a paper by H. Aspden published in Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 39, pp. 271-275 (1984).
Abstract: It is shown that a cavity-resonance model by which the muon/electron mass ratio was recently determined as 206.7683078 yields also a muon g-factor of 2(1.001165918), both of these quantities being in accord with their measured values.
The following is a paper by H. Aspden published in Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 39, pp. 247-251 (1984).
Abstract: Alternative explanations for free-electron diamagnetism appear paradoxical and inconsistent with the reactive induction properties of magnetic materials. It is shown that the paradox can be eliminated by a generalized definition of the magnetic field with interesting spin-off consequences, including a justification for the anomalous doubling of the positron’s effective mass in a free-electron environment.
Commentary: Here, once again, the author drew attention to his theme on diamagnetic reaction as the clear evidence of the need for an aether capable of justifying the g-factor of 2. This time, however, the author pointed to its relevance to positron reaction properties. Whereas Dirac-type theory implies symmetry, the experiments reveal the asymmetry which this author’s theory implies.
The following is a paper by H. Aspden published in Speculations in Science and Technology, v. 7, pp. 3-6 (1984).
Abstract: It is shown that the corpuscular electron may have a finite lifetime of the order of 10-13 seconds, which defies detection owing to a statistical process by which the electron is immediately recreated. Anomalies in reported experiments are discussed as evidencing this decay process indirectly.
Commentary: The author is here beginning to develop the concept that stable matter, as we know it, which is nucleated from protons and electrons, is really the ultimate decay state which energy adopts in the material world. If energy is radiated into space it is eventually captured by the vacuum and becomes part of the ordered quantized motion of the ‘aether’ energy sea. The energy equilibrium criteria as between matter and that aether background will govern when energy is shed to create protons and electrons, but this occurs in a continuous background of proton and electron decay and recreation determined by their respective lifetimes, which defy direct measurement because recreation in the same form occurs in the immediate vicinity. In the case of the electron we see indirect evidence from the barrier penetration phenomenon. It can tunnel through potential barriers as if it has the lifetime calculated by the theory presented in the subject paper.
The following is a paper by H. Aspden published in Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 38, pp. 243-246 (1983).
Abstract: Having regard to the developing interest in a lattice-structured vacuum in intepreting the structure of particles, an aspect of the electrically structured lattice model of the vacuum is discussed in relation to electric field energy. It is shown that a necessary condition is that the lattice should have planar boundaries. This implies a domain structure somewhat analogous to that found in ferromagnetic materials.
The following is a paper by H. Aspden published in Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 38, pp. 568-572 (1983).
Abstract: New optical experiments aimed at testing light speed anisotropy to first-order in v/c are proposed on the basis of an intuitive enquiry into the physical processes by which the
vacuum exhibits zero dispersion when regulating the propagation of light waves. Such experiments can be justified because standing waves are present in experiments of the Michelson-Morley type and these may have a disturbing influence on light propagation speed
in the standing wave region. Though a null result from an initial experiment is reported, the outcome of a second experiment yet to be performed is needed to reach a conclusion from this investigation.
Commentary: The author had, at the time, been involved with correspondence with E.W. Silvertooth, who performed the first experiment mentioned and advised the null finding, but, as yet (1993), the second experiment has not been performed. Note that the
experiment, being of first-order in v/c, should allow the laboratory measurement of the Earth’s eastward speed. It was later that Silvertooth advised he had performed an experiment which sensed a motion at 378 km/s in the direction of constellation Leo.